I ran across this editorial in the WaPo this evening. It makes some sense to me, and when I checked the comments, I found readers from the left to be in high dudgeon. That pretty much affirms, then, that there is some merit to what was written.
Here's the first 'graf: "THE IRAQ Study Group's recommendations for shifting U.S. military tactics in the war are specific, focused and aimed at incremental improvement over the next few months; they are also close to what the Pentagon and Iraqi government already were hoping to achieve. By contrast, the group's diplomatic strategy is sweeping -- and untethered to reality. The Bush administration could and should adopt some version of the military plan, though it would be right to ignore the unrealistic timetable attached to it. But to embrace the group's proposed 'New Diplomatic Offensive' would be to suppose a Middle East very different from what's on the ground."
When the WaPo publishes an editorial that seems to endorse military policies that have been developing within the Administration and further points out the unreality of this week's "realists" in regard to Middle East diplomacy, you have to wonder - what's next? The NYT recommending that Donald Rumsfeld be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Probably not.