The Baker Commission

Ok! I'm only going to say this once, so listen. The whole point of the Baker Commission is not to provide cover for a withdrawal, or any other such thing. Rather it is a sincere attempt to discover a mode of conducting the Iraq operations that will be politically acceptable to a majority of members of Congress.

It is a recognition that in the post-Vietnam political climate it is impossible for any administration of either party to mount a prolonged military campaign without cooperation across the party spectrum, yet in today's increasingly dangerous international situation, American military impotence would be disastrous, for the nation and for the world. By establishing a bi-partisan commission, including prominent critics of his administration's performance so far, Bush has sought to elevate national security concerns out of the realm of political combat, to include significant input from the opposition party, and to establish conditions that will allow a moderate bi-partisan Congressional majority to sustain support for the effort as long as possible.

Bush is a long range thinker who seeks to create conditions in the present that will bring about desired effects in the future. He know that future presidents will face international and domestic problems not unlike those that plague his administration. It is hoped that the Baker commission will provide a model for resolving the partisan antagonism that has to date characterized modern military efforts.

UPDATE:

Austin Bay has a similar take:

Enter the James Baker and Lee Hamilton-led Iraq Study Group (ISG). It's my bet that it will produce nothing original in terms of strategic and operational thinking. It may well produce a set of policy recommendations palatable to Democrats and Republicans -- in other words, consensus political cover that allows the sober and wise to continue to support Iraq's war for freedom and modernity.

Read it here.