The release of the Iraq Study Group Report has generated a lot of comment, much of it critical.

The report is "pie in the sky" and its recommendations will not work.

The recommendations leave Ralph Peters incensed.

In the New York Times, Michael Gordon actually talks to military men, including those on the Iraq Study Group's military advisory panel, and they think the recommendations do not fit the military reality on the ground.

George Will thinks the report has already been overtaken by reality.

Robert Kagan says the report misses the obvious...its the security situation, stupid.

All of these comments have one thing in common. The bi-partisan commission was made up of politicians. Only one member has a military background, Chuck Robb, and that was as a young Marine in Vietnam. The did exactly what one would expect of a group of 60+ Washington insiders...reach a middle-of-the-road consensus. That's great in the give and take of domestic politics, but it won't work when fighting a war. Wars are not won with consensus or middle-of-the-road solutions. Wars are won with boldness, aggression, savagery. So far, our enemies seem to have all of those attributes in spades, while our political leaders seem to be better described with words like timidity, passivity, and weakness.

If George W. Bush were to order an all-out attack by the U.S. military against the sectarian militias, starting with the Mahdi Army, using airpower, artillery and armor, the images would be horrific, the Washington insiders would howl, and his approval ratings would GO UP. Oh, and by the way, he would go a long way toward winning the war. But I won't hold my breath. I'm getting resigned to the fact that when I voted for George W. Bush, twice, I was helping to elect the most disastrous President since Lyndon Johnson. The irony is that, unlike Johnson, Bush had the right idea in Iraq, but not the competence or the will.