The Iraq Study Group’s report has rapidly shot up to near the top of the “most controversial positions” list, on the Discourse DB analysis page (I have it set to refresh every day now). It’s also tied for third place among most-written-about positions. 7 authors are for its recommendations getting implemented, 14 are against and 12 are mixed on the subject (see the position itself here). The report supposedly has 79 recommendations, so it’s no surprise that there are so many in the “mixed” category. It’s why we made it policy when designing Discourse DB to break down topics by their most basic positions. Even the idea of negotiating with Iran and Syria over the war in Iraq, for instance, is really two positions, and some commentators have in fact felt more strongly about the idea of negotiating with one country than with the other. But we made a single position for the ISG report, since it was presented as a single document.
The single biggest point of contention appears to be the Israel issue: in brief, Baker, Hamilton et. al. feel that countries like, well, Iran and Syria are more likely to help turn Iraq into a stable country (and presumably stop funding insurgents there) if the U.S. is able to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. This seems to strike the right-wing side as outrageously treacherous, the left-wing side as sensibly holistic.