Who is on the Iraq Study Group?

Have you wondered who are the members of the Iraq Study Group?  How will their recommendations be shaped by their partisan affiliations and previous government backgrounds?

Here's the membership of ISG, according to the sponsor of the group. "The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress."

"The Iraq Study Group is a bipartisan group of prominent Americans supported by four premier institutions. It is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, the nation's 61st Secretary of State and Honorary Chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars."

The other members of the study group include: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.

More on the membership division in extended body below.

Democratic Leaning:
- Lee Hamilton (Co Chair)
- Vernon Jordan, Jr.
- Leon Panetta
- William J. Perry
- Charles S. Robb

Republican Leaning:
- James A. Baker (Co Chair)
- Lawrence Eagleburger
- Edwin Meese
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Alan Simpson

Jim Baker is the dominant personality in this group - as well as a complete Bush family toady - and Lee Hamilton will not be much more than a moderating factor, if that. Baker is the guy Bush II called in to head up the theft of the 2000 election in Florida.  He is super smooth and super partisan.  

Larry Eagleburger, Ed Meese, and Alan Simpson are strong Republican voices.  Sandra Day O'Connor is an unknown, and will likely try to be a swing vote just as she was in the final years on SCOTUS.

All of the Dems are strong personalities, but much more likely to try to be non-partisan than the Repubs.  Vernon Jordon really has no military/national security/foreign affairs experience, and represents more of a corporate view than a Democratic view.

Since Baker has said publicly that the ISG is meeting with Bush II to find out what would be acceptable to Bush, we can't count on any strong recommendations for withdrawal to be forthcoming.  So Dems, hold your fire, but keep the verbal weapons handy, because we may need to fight to prevent the Congressional Dems all lineing up to endorse more of the stay-the-course (or increase troops) under some other label.  

This isn't going to be a group that recommends a firm timetable for withdrawal, and any short-term (<1 year) reduction of troops.

•  You get the feeling

  that Baker kept control over who got on the list and who didn't.  Despite all the crowing about how distinguished the list is, it's filled with establishment types who don't rock the boat.  There are plenty of wise-men Democrats who are far more independent -- Gary Hart comes to mind -- but somehow they didn;t end up on this commission.  And that's the way Baker wanted it, I imagine.

  by pontificator on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:18:57 PM PDT

  •  I read today in the NYT

    somewhere that the election emboldened the Dems and that while Baker could run the show in the past (See HAVA/voting irregularities) over Carter, he may not be able to bully them this time around.

    by hairspray on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:36:41 PM PDT

    •  I wish that were true

      however the baker report provides the dems political cover from having to adopt the war (and its conclusion) as their own. I think that the dems will allow the admin to go with the baker report so long as they keep the blame for the debacle

      by ex99125b on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:49:27 PM PDT

  •  Surprised, Pontificator?! n/t

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:49:54 PM PDT

•  i don't really know how you can

  say with such certainty what this group will or will not propose.

  the best thing about a group like this is it provides everyone with a face-saving device. Unless you actually have a plan to get bush locked up, you need to engineer a method where he can get up and support something and not look like a complete boob. ok, i know he'll manage it somehow anyway, but i'd say let's just wait for the report and try to make it work.

  The risk of shooting this down at the onset is that of dems controlling congress, not making any progress on iraq. that's not a good setup for '08.

  by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:21:40 PM PDT

  •  Wait a minute. You think ...

    ...we should wait for the report and "try to make it work"?

    I'm sorry, but I strongly oppose that approach. If the commission's ultimate proposal makes sense, then sure, try to make it work. But I will wager $25 to your favorite charity that the plan the commission comes up with will not be acceptable to progressives and will do more to "save face" for the Bush Regime than to actually suggest a policy that does the least amount of damage to Iraq and the Middle East in general.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:11:20 PM PDT

    •  yep, try to make it work

      that doesn't mean that the substance of the proposal is irrelevant, but it does mean that your attitude should be one of cooperative solution finding.

      For example, if it doesn't contain elements dems think are crucial to success, then you propose them, strongly, even play hardball, but still do it under the guise of the commission. If the attitude is, on the other hand, to shoot it down unless its perfect from the get-go, think about what your alternative would be.

      The deal is, being punitive without getting things done in Iraq is gonna be toxic for dems in '08.

      by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:25:09 PM PDT

    •  No, we cannot predict! However

      past actions are often quite predictive of present/future behavior!  So look at their track records, and affiliations, loyalties,etc., !!

      aloha. . .

      by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:52:11 PM PDT

      •  who cares about their track record!

        look at everything as an opportunity. How could dems use the ISG to further their policy agenda? Could the ISG be useful? To put it blunt, how could dems twist it around so that it works to our advantage? I think it's a potential goldmine and we're stupid to ignore it.

        by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:07:29 PM PDT

        •  Sean, who is Dems best "twister"?! n/t

          by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:17:25 PM PDT

          •  if ur saying we're incapable of this

            then i'd say we'll never win! ;) it's totally a fair point, but the real answer is i don't know. but that also means i don't know what abilities they do have when they're in a position of power.

            what do you think dems should do given all the realities?

            by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:25:25 PM PDT

            •  Sean: Dems should be . . .

              bold
              tough
              principled
              compassionate . . .
              All qualities we have in abundance!!

              Aloha. . .

              by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:50:08 PM PDT

              •  and smart!

                by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:58:33 PM PDT

                •  OMFG! Did I leave out SMART?! N/T

                  by dolphin777 on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:24:28 AM PDT

  •  Dens shouldn''t trade their conscience principles

    and principles for face-saving devices.

    I can follow you, but face-saving devices must have a very high price for the ones who want their faces saved.

    by mimi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:32:49 PM PDT

    •  arghh, erase this /nt

      by mimi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:34:02 PM PDT

  •  Rose colored glasses anyone?

    The fact that The ISG is meeting with shrub to make sure they don't upset the petulant bastard is reason enough to doubt that anything more than a big CYA for junior will come out of this.  Don't get me wrong - if Baker actually pulls something out of his ass other than a wetnap for dubbya to wipe the blood off his hands and has some real suggestions for progress beyond the latest version of "stay the course" or just a few more "Friedmans" and we'll get it right, I'm all for it, but I sure aint holding my breath.  

    by OCD on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:36:02 PM PDT

    •  that all makes sense

      i'm just saying that whatever solution ends up working will include a face saving device for bush. and as far as i know the ISG is so far the only game in town that could do that.

      by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:59:19 PM PDT

•  Lawrence Eagleburger is not that bad

  ONe of the Republican-leaning figures you mentioned in the committee is Lawrence Eagleburger.
  In August 2002, Eagleburger questioned the timing of possible military action in Iraq, saying, "I am not at all convinced now that this is something we have to do this very moment."

  http://edition.cnn.com/...

  by kingsbridge77 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:25:45 PM PDT

  •  Alan Simpson is also

    not an ideolgue.  He always seemed pretty sensible when I heard him on MacNeil/Lehrer or C-span.

    by hairspray on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:38:27 PM PDT

    •  I don't hear what you hear, do you hear what

      I hear?

      by mimi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:26:35 PM PDT

  •  Eagleburger April 03

    speaking about jr.

       "You saw the furore that went on before the President got sufficient support to do this," he said. "This is still a democracy and public opinion rules. If George Bush decided he was going to turn troops on Syria now and then Iran he'd be in office about 15 minutes.

       "If President Bush were to try it now, even I would feel he should be impeached. You can't get away with that sort off thing in a democracy."

    by OneCrankyDom on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:07:10 PM PDT

  •  that's good enough for you? /nt

    by mimi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:25:30 PM PDT

•  Gak. Edwin Meese?

  I wouldn't take Meese's advice on how to flush a commode, let alone end the occuation of Iraq.  

  In a more general vein: what the hell is an Iraq Study Group, anyway?  It's kind of pathetic that the voters rise up and send two new Democratic houses of Congress to Washington, and the world looks to...an unelected council of retreads for the Big Answer on Iraq.  During the lame duck session, no less.  

  We know damn well the WH will play this commission ("It's bipartisan!!!") against the new Congress, and use it to blunt calls for withdrawal and other Democratic ideas.  So why aren't more people pointing out the total lack of a mandate here?

  by turbonium on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:27:12 PM PDT

  •  Dubya's end run, perhaps?! n/t

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:55:19 PM PDT

  •  And no one on the ISG has any MidEast Expertise!

    As pointed out on Once Upon a Time. That's how we got into this cluster f*ck in the first place.

    by loloc on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:01:50 PM PDT

•  Thanks

  for the complete list.  All I'd seen so far in numerous stories was a few names and I kept forgetting to research them.  I was curious, though I never expected the group to be anything more than a partisan political expediency ploy.  Seeing the total membership reinforces my initial views, as have several articles recently hinting that the committee is considering several options but can't find any good solutions.  And of course they can't, because there aren't any, which has been apparent for at least two years now.

  by blueoasis on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:31:16 PM PDT

  •  Anything this FUBAR and worsening by the day -

    of course there's no solution! We're on the brink in Iraq of a total bloodbath, and mightily outnumbered there - while Afganistan smolders just a small step from total conflagration!!

    aloha. . .

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:00:27 PM PDT

•  I read (no time to find) that someone was on ...

  ... the panel, who withdrew because the study group wasn't doing enough study -- particularly, that it refused to go out into Iraq to gather information.

  Anyone catch this?

  by Yellow Canary on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:45:47 PM PDT

  •  I didn't hear that

    I did hear the group made numerous trips to Iraq, and other countrys in the region. It's been said they have spoken with highers ups in other countrys goverment while looking for ideas.

    by OneCrankyDom on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:10:18 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, I'd really like the ID of that one who

    withdrew! Prolly had a conscience, may'hve been a Dem?!

    aloha. . .

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:57:27 PM PDT

•  James A. Baker 3rd, that's all you need

  to know.

  A snake in the grass.

  $.42 cents of every dollar of national debt is a result of James A Baker 3rd.

  Read about the Carlyle Group.

  Read anything that NAOMI KLEIN of

  http://www.thenation.com/  has to say about Mr. Baker.

  Here's an article you all might enjoy, "The Baker Report, Leaked!"

  http://www.thenation.com/...

  by 0hio on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:56:29 PM PDT

•  Not a single one of those ...

  ...members can be considered a liberal on foreign policy. Panetta and Jordan, who come the closest, are smart guys, but foreign policy was not in their portfolios. Perry is a hawk. Robb is a hawk. Hamilton let Reagan and Bush I off the hook for Iran-contra.

  So, exactly what chance is there that the policy suggestions the Baker Commission makes will be anything  a progressive could find acceptable?

  by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:01:41 PM PDT

  •  why does it matter that the solution be

    something a progressive find acceptable? I understand the words and technically agree, but the attitude in those words is all wrong.

    It's about pragmatic solutions, not villifying people not on your team. Of course you realize how awful Iraq could become if we don't do things correctly. I'm convinced that a face-saving device is the ONLY way we're gonna get change. I am willing to offer face-saving if it saves lives and turns down the temperature. I'm not willing to sacrifice lives in order to get purity. And the deal is, unless you have a real plan to put bush behind bars, you gotta build in a way out for him in order to make real change. otherwise dems are gonna get their asses handed to 'em.

    by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:29:12 PM PDT

    •  Its a setup

      Just as Bush the Elder helped Reagan and his associates escape the consequences of Iran-Contra (impeachment, jail for others), the Iraq Study Group will help Bush the Lesser avoid responsibility for Iraq and the fleecing of the American taxpayer by Halliburton et. al.

      The Bush Family and their associates never do something for the nation, they do it for themselves.

      by Ed in Montana on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:41:41 PM PDT

      •  this

        The Bush Family and their associates never do something for the nation, they do it for themselves.

        is a ridiculous statement. But even so, why capitulate so easily? Why not turn the tables on 'em, "accept" the value of the Iraq Survey Group, but pound hard with your requirements. Make them negotiate with the dems!

        g-ddammit, play hard politics with 'em and make 'em do what you want. But make them wanna do it, cuz you've convinced them that this is the only way they get out alive. (politically)

        i dunno, that's just the way i think we should approach it. all the shrill "those men are eeeevil, don't get suckered!!" seems like the quickest way for dems to become irrelevant.

        by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:04:23 PM PDT

      •  Exactly right

        And how telling is it that a charter member of this group, Gates, is the choice to replace Rumsfeld?  Gates, of Iran-Contra fame.  

        by miriam on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:06:09 PM PDT

    •  NOBODY on the commission is ...

      ..."on my team." That's the problem. The commission is biased from the get-go. You're suggesting that the commission's final recommendations will be tweakable. Do you know how these things actually work? It'll be shelved, Bush will cherry-pick what he wants from it, or there'll be a minority report signed by two of the members with a half-dozen objections.

      Not good enough.

      And, you know, nothing personal, but I am sick of all this talk about how the Democrats will screw themselves for '08 if they don't wimp out now. Haven't we had enough of that kind of talk? Democrats won. Either they show some courage now or they will screw themselves for '08.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:11:22 PM PDT

      •  the fact that you characterize

        it as "wimping out now" means you have no idea what i'm saying. nothing personal!!

        how is shooting down the ISG, offering a more pure version of progressive policy, which promptly gets vetoed, then dems scurry about in afluster, iraq implodes, now "the dems lost iraq"...how is that showing courage?? cuz until you propose a different outcome, that's what i'm seeing is likely.

        Actually, I'd like to hear what you think dems SHOULD do visavis the ISG and policy proposals. Things that have to be addressed:

        -getting bush to go along
        -actually getting change implemented in iraq, not just talking about it

        what i'm sick of is seeing dead people all over my fucking tv screen, and feeling that i'm responsible for it, as a U.S. citizen.

        by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:21:21 PM PDT

      •  Mel Goodman on the ISG

        Today Ian Masters interviewed Mel Goodman today on Background Briefing.  Goodman's insights into the Iraq Study Group are valuable. I doubt that there will be a transcript available, but I did find a transcript of similar remarks from a discussion on Democracy Now!:

        Well, I think the Iraq Study Group is also a political stratagem on the part of the Bush administration to try to give some chance at damage limitation to this Iraq policy. Lee Hamilton wasn’t very impressive in his 9/11 work as a co-commissioner. I think the study of the intelligence community, and particularly the CIA, was really softened. I think Lee Hamilton had something to do with this. He brought in people like Douglas MacEachin of the CIA. He was also a close colleague of Bob Gates, and he testified in favor of Bob Gates in 1991. And the first personnel appointment that Bob Gates made when he took over the CIA in 1991 was to make Doug MacEachin his Deputy Director for Intelligence. So, I don’t think Lee Hamilton is the zealous investigator that he once was and the kind of junkyard dog that he once was when he was on the Hill in the Congress.

        So I think there is an attempt now to soften the debate on Iraq. Getting Rumsfeld out of the Pentagon helps in this direction. Bringing Gates in, and it’s sort of tabula rasa now at the Pentagon with regard to Iraq. And I think the Iraq Study Group -- and if you look at the Iraq Study Group -- five Democrats, five Republicans -- not a one has any experience whatsoever on the Middle East. There are no Arab experts, no Islamic experts on this group. And I think what Baker is trying to do is trying to limit the damage that Iraq has done to George Bush, the legacy of the Bush family, both Bush the elder and Bush the younger, and try to soften the debate in the American public and divert attention. And clearly, by removing Rumsfeld, Bush has already diverted a great deal of attention from the election loss and from this disaster that Iraq policy is.

        — Mel Goodman

        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:44:20 PM PDT

•  Months ago

  When this group was formed, I tried to bring it to our community's attention. For a while I tried to follow what they were doing, but the news about them was slim. Even then, there was a feeling among some of us, that they could some day be of great import.
  Looking at the names on the original list, it was fairly easy to see that Daddy Bush, and Bill Clinton had put some things into action behind the scenes.
  When I saw Sandra Day O'Connors name on the list, I had a feeling she was there to make cynics like me, at the least, pay attention.
  Most people here weren't interested about this group until a few months ago which is understandable. It has never looked like Bush would listen to his Daddy. It has finally gotten to the point that he really has run out of options.
  Because of the group, I fully expect Bush Jr. to resign in the next 6 months, as I said in a comment a day or 2 ago. He will do so "to avoid putting the country thru the stress and shame of another Impeachment". Of course it will really be to get Amnesty for his crimes. There is much more to this group than I believe people see, and it will become clearer in the next couple months. This is all strictly my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

  by OneCrankyDom on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:03:34 PM PDT

  •  And Dubya will, perhaps, develop some

    health condition previously unknown; or maybe want to "spend more time with" his family!  It's CYA time, folks!!

    To your credit, I remember your earlier efforts, Dom, to enlighten us!

    That Robert Gates was, up to days ago, a member of this group is all THIS cynic needs to know!

    Aloha. . .

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:10:11 PM PDT

  •  And leave Cheney? n/t

    by mattes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:32:48 PM PDT

•  "Iraq study group recommends Bush resign"

  A headline that would be well justified, and one I'd love to see.

  Too bad about Jimmy Baker...

  by ChuckInReno on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:06:57 PM PDT

  •  Ditto, Chuck, Ditto!! n/t

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:10:53 PM PDT

•  you provide an incomplete picture

  since the real work is done by working groups with expertise, for example

  Group Three: Political Development

     * Daniel Serwer, USIP Secretariat
       Vice President, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, United States Institute of Peace
     * Raymond H. Close
       Freelance Analyst and Commentator on Middle East Politics
     * Larry Diamond
       Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Co-Editor, Journal of Democracy
     * Andrew P.N. Erdmann
       Former Director for Iran, Iraq and Strategic Planning, National Security Council
     * Reuel Marc Gerecht
       Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
     * David L. Mack
       Vice President, The Middle East Institute
     * Phebe A. Marr
       Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace
     * Hassan Mneimneh
       Director, Documentation Program, The Iraq Memory Foundation
     * Augustus Richard Norton
       Professor of International Relations and Anthropology, Department of International Relations, Boston University
     * Marina S. Ottaway
       Senior Associate, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
     * Judy Van Rest
       Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute
     * Judith S. Yaphe
       Distinguished Research Fellow for the Middle East, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University

  DISCLOSURE - I am a college classmate of Dan Serwer - we were the two National Merit Scholars in the class of '67 at Haverford.

  For a complete list, go to This link at the US Institute of Peace

  by teacherken on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:16:36 PM PDT

  •  Ken, I'm scratching my head over:...

    "The Iraq Memory Foundation" I was NOT aware it had passed into memory already!

    Aloha. . .

    by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:14:08 PM PDT

•  Pelosi, Clinton and Poppy are behind this.

  Leon Panetta and Vernon Jordan are there for Bill Clinton.  O'Connor is there to make sure that respect for the Constitution and the rule of law are reestablished.

  The person who made this possible was Nancy Pelosi.  She said that she would impeach W's sorry ass if he didn't straighten up.  Poppy and Barbara want to salvage what they can of their son's reputation.  About all they can do is let him go down in history as a arrogant fool.  

  They planned to dump Rumsfeld to keep him from opposing the plan which the Study Group will propose.
  Pelosi said he had to go after the election or else.  W. probably did not even know.

  If W. does not behave himself then Pelosi's sets the dogs loose.  They already know which committees to use and which witnesses to call.

  By letting W, the snake boy, off the hook, Pelos is giving the USA the best chance to get out of Iraq asap and save some lives.

  by hestal on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:35:56 PM PDT

•  Damning sentence in penultimate graph:

  " ... acceptable to Bush, ..."

  What is required is what is acceptable to the American people!!

  Aloha. . .

  by dolphin777 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:49:21 PM PDT

  •  not really

    cuz he's the one who runs foreign policy. i wouldn't get to uptight about that line. I think they're gonna be talking out of both sides of their mouths for a while, trying to cajole the worst kind of political enemies into coming together.

    if all they offer is political comfort food for bush, and it becomes clear that's all they're about, i will submit to what you're saying. but i'm not sure that's gonna be the case...

    by SeanF on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:12:15 PM PDT