Fred Kaplan details the conceptual morass of the Iraq Study Group. One point is this: “Will Bush drop his avowed desire for “regime change” in Tehran in exchange for Tehran’s help in stabilizing Iraq? That’s the big question. Every time it’s come up so far, Bush has firmly said no. Will he make a fundamental shift now? Doubtful. And what is Tehran’s view of a stable Iraq? Is it the same as Washington’s view? Again, doubtful—which is one reason Bush probably won’t make a shift.”

More to the point, though, the ISG is at war with itself over this. The headline call to withdraw all-or-most US combat brigades from Iraq by 2008 is actually pretty misleading. This is supposed to be combined with embedding something like 20,000 American soldiers directly inside the Iraqi Army. We’re also supposed to go forward with the plan to build this giant embassy with thousands of people working in it. They also want us to increase the quasi-civilian presence in Iraq by sending FBI, DOJ, and other people to build up Iraqi law enforcement capabilities. And to increase the level of intelligence assets in Iraq. What’s more, special operations forces, air power, etc. are all supposed to remain available, though perhaps based just over the border.

The upshot of this if you could really pull it off would be to create something akin to the British Indian Army, where the United States would have effective control over the institutions of the Iraqi state. America’s embedded officers — down to the company level — would be in de facto command of a large body of Iraqi cannon fodder, with US civilians similarly embedded throughout many of Iraq’s civilian agencies. Whatever you think of this idea (and I don’t think much of it) the government of Iran certainly isn’t going to think much of it. One could imagine them helping us do something in Iraq, but creating a stable, effective government controlled from Washington, DC isn’t on that list.

Duncan Black responds on the gas tax issue, saying the crucial thing to do is provide more viable alternatives to the car-intensive lifestyle, citing in particular land use policies. I agree that this is crucial. Unfortunately, as best I understand it this isn’t a subject federal-level policymakers have substantial control over. It would, however, be very nice to see local political leaders demonstrate some leadership on this subject which I don’t think the public understands very well and where I think a little education would go a long way. In some ways, though, I think a commission could be helpful here . . . zoning rules aren’t set at the federal level, but the nationwide pattern of land-use policy has national implications, which is something a commission could, at a minimum, point out and draw some attention to.

I think it’s clear that the Iraq Study Group has basically been a failure, and as a general matter I’m a skeptic about bipartisan commissions — it’s usually better to let the constitutional political process work. I can, however, think of at least one exception suitable to present conditions — a commission to examine gasoline taxes. My strong sense is that you could assemble a genuinely wide-ranging commission including far-right lunatics, lefty populist types, as well as economists of the center-right and center-left who could agree on something along the lines of an increase in the gas tax offset by a flat payroll tax rebate (or something — you’d genuinely need the commission to work out the details of an offset) in a way that would be revenue neutral and lack major distributive implications but also serve to encourage the broadest possible range of conservation methods. It would be an implicit subsidy to producers of alternative fuels, to producers and consumers of energy-efficient cars, and to those who find ways to simply drive less.

This is the kind of thing no politician with a functioning brain is going to want to touch, less because the ultimate outcome would be strikingly unpopular (after all, exactly half the population — those who consumer a less-than-average amount of gasoline — would benefit financially) than simply because the downside risk of exposing yourself to political attacks would be large and there’s no particular political upside. A commission could give politicians of both parties the cover to collectively hold hands, close their eyes, and take the plunge. That’s not the be-all and end-all of energy policy or of American politics, but I think it would be good policy and since whatever’s left of the permanent governing class in this country seems desperate for some consensus-oriented warm fuzzies they’d be better off looking in a policy area featuring genuine consensus.