The New York Times does something stunning: it invites nine foreign-policy figures to reflect on the fifth anniversary of the war. None of them opposed vocally the war. None of them call for withdrawal. And none of them speak the unimpeachable truth that the failure in Iraq was a failure of strategy.

Instead, Richard Perle says that we should have just put Chalabi on the throne (he naturally doesn't have the balls to explicitly say what he believes, so he employs euphemism); L. Paul Bremer blames bad prewar planing; Danielle Pletka blames the Wogs for not being as pure as her splendid little war; and Fred Kagan assures us it's all better now.

Speaking for the left, General Paul Eaton points the finger at Congress; Ken Pollack incompetence-dodges and then says withdrawal might be worse; Anne-Marie Slaughter incompetence-dodges but doesn't. It falls to Tony Cordesman, who identifies as a Republican, to make the most strident critique of the Bush administration presented. (Nate Fick has an eloquent Marine's-eye perspective.)

Not part of the package are the people who got the war right and/or who have identified its basic flaws. No Carl Levin, no John Judis, no Matthew Yglesias, no Nir Rosen, no Pat Lang, no John Ikenberry, no Samantha Power, no Chris Hedges, no Juan Cole, no Peter Bergen, no Richard Clarke, no Rand Beers, no Michael Scheuer, no one affiliated with Iraq Veterans Against The War, not a single Iraqi. Matt and Ilan Goldenberg make similar points.