I don’t really know how to respond to Jason Zengerle trotting out the hearty chestnut that proponents of withdrawal from Iraq such as myself are in danger of “underestimat[ing] the consequences of it.” I had a draft of a long post written. I decided to delete it. I don’t see a point in getting tied down in side issues about who is and isn’t being too cavalier about what. I’ll just say that my opposition to prolonging or escalating the American military deployment in Iraq has nothing to do with optimism about the consequences of withdrawal and everything do to with pessimism about the efficacy of either “surging” or staying the course.

If Zengerle — or Joe Klein or whomever — has an argument in favor of surging that he’d like to present, I’ll happily respond to it but it’s weird to just debate tone with people who are disinclined to reach a judgment on the substantive issue at hand.

When, as Brian Beutler points out, the junket is organized by a 501(c) 3 organization affiliated with a lobbying organization rather than by the lobbyists as such. As Beutler notes, the major beneficiaries of this loophole are the Aspen Institute, which I think legitimately isn’t a lobbying group, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee which, self-describing as “America’s pro-Israel Lobby,” clearly is a lobbying outfit.

My assumption, though, is that AIPAC won’t be alone among major lobbying groups for long, and that lots of trade associations are going to be developing a newfound interest in establishing not-for-profit “educational” institutions in the near future.

Michael Hirsch reports:

Most top U.S. military officials—even members of George W. Bush’s administration such as National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley—did not recommend a “surge” or escalation of U.S. troops into Iraq when they were interviewed by the Iraq Study Group last fall, says group member Leon Panetta, a former White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton. Instead of a surge—which the president plans to announce in a speech to the nation tomorrow—these officials recommended at the time that more U.S. advisers be embedded in Iraqi units, Panetta says. That later led the bipartisan commission co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton to come to the same conclusion, he says. Panetta also says that the officials interviewed knew that one of the Study Group’s central recommendations—that U.S. advisory teams in Iraq be quadrupled—was largely incompatible with a ramp-up of troops. The reason? In order to increase the number of U.S. advisory teams to that degree, American combat brigades must be withdrawn so the officers in those units can be turned into advisers. That is apparently not going to happen now, at least not quickly.

Notably, according to the interview even Lieutenant General David Petraeus wasn’t on board for a surge when the ISG spoke to him six months ago. All of which reminds me, in essence, that I should link to Michael Hirsch more often. What’s more, this Center for American Progress report on congressional options vis-a-vis military deployments is vital stuff that I’ll probably write more on tomorrow.

I worry about my friends sometimes. Why would Catherine want some lame bag for her birthday when Apple just announced the iPhone, a.k.a. the Coolest Thing Ever (sorry, Wii). Young Ezra Klein, meanwhile, is all sad that the iPhone will be exclusively available through Cingular‘s utterly whack network. But so what? As long as it can sometimes complete a call, I’ll be thrilled. I can’t sign up soon enough. Apparently, though, they’re not actually available until June.