The Guardian's Jonathan Steele is so unimpressed by the Iraq Study Group report that it seems he managed to read it (no doubt with the help of several leaks) and write a 1,100 word reaction piece within 11 minutes of its publication at 4pm UK time. He writes:
"James Baker is a lawyer, a fixer, a Republican, a friend of the Bush family, and a deeply political animal. He is not an independent radical or a man known for original thinking. So the question in the wake of his Iraq Study Group's predictably uncontroversial report is: why was it ever set up?"
The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, is a bit slower off the mark, saying the British government needed time to "read and digest" the formal recommendations. (And also work out whether any of the recommendations Tony Blair made to the panel made the final cut, she didn't add.)
Page 32 of the report praises the Britain's "extraordinary amount of resources" dedicated to Iraq and that UK officials "told us they remained committed to work for stability in Iraq". The Baker group has taken to heart Mr Blair's view of the importance of sorting out the Israeli-Arab mess, with recommendations urging that Hamas acknowledges Israel's right to exist and that the Israelis return the Golan Heights.
Among the other political reaction, Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic leader in the US House of Representatives , said her party was willing to work with George Bush to end the Iraq war ASAP.
Mr Bush, meanwhile, has pledged to "take every proposal seriously".
W David Stephenson says the clock has started ticking "for the public in terms of how to hold them accountable if they don't act". Foreign Policy's blog, meanwhile, has a list of what the Baker report didn't recommend. Madrid 11 complains that the report fails to suggest alternative means for tackling the insurgency. (Though to be fair to Baker et al, Recommendation 35 does advocate talks with militia leaders and insurgents, excepting al-Qaida).
