Are "Realists" To Blame for Iraq

They just might, given the Iraqi Diem we so desperately need may well have perished thanks to Jim Baker and Colin Powell:

One of the last mass slaughters carried out by Saddam occurred just after the First Gulf War, as a direct result of George H.W. Bush’s encouraging the Shi’ite and Kurdish resistance to take down the regime. Saddam reacted with all the force he had at his command (considerable, even after the whipping he’d just taken), particularly air power in the form of helicopter gunships. Tens of thousands were added to his tally, while the U.S. stood by under the specious and transparent excuse that we’d “guaranteed” not to interfere with Saddam’s helicopters. Two months passed before the U.S. stepped in to set up the northern and southern no-fly zones, effectively curtailing the massacre.

How many of those who died in that paroxysm were the leaders we look for today but can’t find?

We need to keep in mind is that this episode was the contribution of the realist school, now being touted as the saviors of American Middle East policy. It was their advice and influence that held back the orders to knock down those gunships. Ever enthralled by the mirage of “stability”, the realists did their best to save Saddam Hussein, thus playing a large part in creating the situation we find ourselves in today.

Several of the principals behind the that policy, chief among them James Baker, are members of the Iraq Study Group, even now working up its final report on possible solutions for the Iraq “situation”. It would nice to think that the realists have learned from their errors. But the kind of leaks that have been appearing the past few weeks suggest that may be too much to hope for. In judging the findings of the Iraq Study Group, we should, among other criteria, consider whether it’s as bloodless, cruel, and futile as the advice they offered in 1991.