Opinions differ widely on this week’s report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Democratic Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton.

It’s likely these opinions vary based on whether a person agreed with the Bush strategy in Iraq and the war on terrorism or has been an out-and-out, longtime Bush critic who believes the president misled the public and wants U.S. troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.

Some knowledgeable observers think the report is good and includes many positive suggestions while others are disappointed there are not more specifics about what panel members believe should be done. Too many generalities, they say.

The 10-member study group was created by Congress nine months ago, and Baker and Hamilton apparently did an excellent job in maintaining the bipartisan environment among the prestigious body.

The Iraq war has dominated the American political scene and clearly played the major role in the outcome of the just-completed 2006 elections in which Democrats scored big wins in congressional and gubernatorial contests. It is reported the findings of the Iraq Study Group were held back by design so they would not be released and become an issue during the months leading up to the election.

The report had suggestions, some of which will please certain segments of the country while disappointing others. They are: a 2008 date for a staged withdrawal of U.S. troops; more effort to talk with Iraq and Syrian leaders; better training by U.S. forces of the Iraq military and police forces; a greater U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict; and letting Iraqi leaders know they are expected to do a better job in national consolidation or expect a cutback in U.S. support.

In addition to Baker and Hamilton, other members of the group, five Republicans and five Democrats, are Robert Gates, Vernon Jordan Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon Panetta, William Perry, Charles Robb and Alan Simpson. All are highly successful individuals although some critics have called attention to the fact the average age of the members is 75 and they think there should have been some considerably younger members.

The good thing about the panel is that its members really didn’t face any upcoming elections, votes or popularity contests to try to influence through their performance or votes on the Iraq study. This made it far easier to maintain the true bipartisan approach. No one set out to try to make President Bush look good or bad or to have the report look as if it were crafted to show support for Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who has been elected to the powerful role of speaker of the House. She can’t find anything good to say about the president.

Regardless of the strong political reactions to the study, it is hoped there is one major “good” coming out of the effort.

Right now, and the moment may not last long, but right now, just after the release of the Iraq study and while the public has reason to respect and appreciate the individuals serving on the study group, it has been demonstrated there can be serious attention and intent given by the public, as well as members of Congress, to approach this huge and complicated Iraq matter in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical manner.

Maybe it is too much to hope for, but wouldn’t it be great if this same approach could be taken on the Iraq question?

The war on terrorism is critical. The country already has paid a huge price in this war, both here at home and abroad, in lost lives.

The vast majority of Americans want Uncle Sam to win this war (whatever “winning” may mean). They acknowledge, to varying degrees, that if the United States “loses” the battle in Iraq, it will send a signal throughout the world that the United States is not as strong as it once was, that its word cannot be trusted and that, in the future, American forces are not likely to be used as much in civil rights and freedom battles in other countries.

It would be such a meaningful step forward if the Iraq Study Group exercise could have the effect of getting the public to cool the rhetoric, try to work together to leave Iraq in a winning mode and not have such bitterness in Washington and elsewhere. Too many people are too stubborn to work together to put aside political differences. Some Republicans and some Democrats do not want to “give in” or do anything that might make the other side look better.

We’ve got to win the Iraq war and, in so doing, win the war on terrorism. There is no easy answer and no one has all the right answers. President Bush must be open to suggestions and be flexible. He doesn’t have to compromise, in any way, his deep belief in the importance of fighting terrorism and protecting this country as well as possible from further deadly attacks.

But to be successful, he needs the help of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats. A war on terrorism and a war to protect this country is not a partisan issue.

Hopefully, the mood and approach of those who served on the Iraq Study Group could be infused in the general American public.