We knew what they were going to say before they said it, didn't we?
Ralph Peters takes it apart.
Excerpts:
"Former Secretary of State James Baker and his panelists are trying to shore up the failing regional system that their generation designed. Released yesterday, their report doesn't offer 'a new way forward.' Its recommendations echo past failures. And it shows no sense of how gravely the world has changed."
" Baker resembles Pontius Pilate in wanting those bedeviling local problems to go away and in imagining that, by caving in to unjust local powerbrokers, he can safeguard the empire's interests.
The difference is that Pilate just wanted to wash his hands of an annoyance, while Baker would wash his hands in the blood of our troops."
Baker and his fellow "Realists" screwed up royally in the first Iraq war, and bear a huge burden for the situation we find ourselves in currently.
Why would we even think about trusting their judgment now?
We've now seen the heigth of liberal stupidity and political shenanigans when a "study group" about fighting a war excludes any military leaders in it's makeup.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it occurs to some just how far on the fringe they are when James Baker is considered liberal.
ReplyDelete"I wonder if it occurs to some just how far on the fringe they are when James Baker is considered liberal."
ReplyDeleteOn this issue, Baker's "solution" is right out of the Democrat playbook.
And Roch, you don't have much ground to accuse someone else to be far out on the fringe on any issue.
ReplyDelete"On this issue, Baker's "solution" is right out of the Democrat playbook."
ReplyDeleteAgain, meaningless lables. Which Democrat's? Denise Kucinich's? Joe Lieberman's? Hillary Clinton's?
Again, meaningless generalities. Which solutions? I haven't read the report, but I understand there are something like seventy-nine recommendations. Do you find all of them to be from the same imagined "playbook?"
"Do you find all of them to be from the same imagined "playbook?"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't really matter which playbook you want to cite. It's four decades old foreign policy stuff which wasn't successful in the middle east when it was new.
It's certainly not going to be successful in the reality of the post Cold War post 9-11 21st century world affairs.
I say if you want to have any success in Iraq that you have take on Sadr and his rogue militia and eliminate them. He appears to have a large following and he influences the government on most matters.
ReplyDeletealso, you will never be able to get the situation under control with all the suicide bombers they have and IEDs. How can you defense that?
Its a freakin' mess, fo sure
Meanwhile, Dean Barnett tells you everything you really need to know about the ISG report.
ReplyDeleteExcerpts:
"These are estimable people who hungered for a re-entry into the political limelight. For chrissakes, they arranged a photo-shoot at Vanity Fair to coincide with the Report’s release. While they may not have received financial compensation for their efforts, they received for them what is an even higher form of payment – access back to the center stage of national events.
Besides, the report could have been so much more. It could have dealt with the serious menace of Radical Islam – it didn’t. It could have honestly appraised Iranian ambitions – it didn’t. It could have identified the U.N.’s fundamental uselessness – it didn’t."
"The Study Group thought their mandate was the same as the typical bi-partisan blue ribbon commission which is to “find” a pre-agreed upon consensus. Here, they felt the pre-agreed upon consensus was, regarding the war in Iraq: “Make it end!!!”
But problematically, the Iraq war could end tomorrow but our problems with the Islamists in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. would continue and worsen unless we forcefully addressed them. Given the prominence of the Study Group, it could have actually done a world of good and talked to people like Bernard Lewis and cautioned the country that regardless of what happens in Iraq – victory, defeat or stalemate – the struggle is just beginning."
Welcome Back to September 10.
ReplyDeleteMcCarthy doesn't pull any punches:
"ISG Chairman James Baker, a foolish man, looked Congress in the eye on Thursday and explained his master plan. Did it seem foolish to propose negotiations with Iran, our relentless enemy? Sure. But, the “realist” doyen puttered, if we invite them to negotiate about Iraq’s future, and they demur, why, we’ll expose their intransigence for all the world to see.
Right. They slaughter and abet the slaughter of our marines, our airmen, our sailors, William Buckley, Robert Stethem, William Higgins, and countless others. They tell us their defining goal is a world without America, a world in which our allies are wiped from the face of the earth. But, at long last, we’ll know who they really are … if they don’t show up for a meeting."
Paul at Powerline weighs in.
ReplyDeleteKey point:
"The two share a strong desire to stick it to Israel. I've always thought that Baker's is less pathological than Carter's, but after reading the ISG report (and Scott's post below), I'm no longer certain. Baker's position as head of the ISG has provided him with one last chance to exert pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions, and Baker has seized that opportunity with gusto.
Yet the Israeli-Palestinian question has nothing to do with our problems in Iraq, and the ISG report presents no evidence or argument to the contrary. The Sunni insurrection is unrelated to Israel -- it's an attempt by those who had power under Saddam to seize back that power, or as much of it as they can. Al Qaeda didn't join that insurrection because of Israel. It wants to kill Americans, deal the U.S. a defeat, and establish a new territorial base of operations. The Shiite militias aren't in business because of Israel. They're interested in obtaining power and dishing out revenge on the Sunnis. Iran isn't meddling because of Israel. It wants influence in Iraq or, short of that, to make sure its old adversary remains weak."