The Iraq Study Group Report
This panel is a disgrace. For a group that considers themselves to be "realists" this report has a very "unrealistic" view of our enemies. Castigate the conduct of the war anyway you like; this is definitely not how we should handle the current situation. Negotiate - with Iran and Syria? You must be joking; these people equate talking with weakness. Why aren't we actively undermining Iran and Syria? They are the major "bad actors" in the region, they continue to supply arms to the various factions in Iraq and their regime's are ripe for change. But no - let's talk with the mullahs. I suppose it's asking too much for anyone to remember Munich when we don't even remember 9/11. I will state this as plainly as I can:
Citizens of The United States;
the enemy is right in front of you
and they are building nuclear weapons.
Here is an article on the report by Andrew McCarthy for National Review that sums it up quite well:
"The ISG wants us to talk to the mullahs? How can we blame them? That’s exactly the course the administration has chosen for the life-and-death challenge of the jihadist nuke. To mollify “the international community,” for which no evil is beyond “dialogue,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for an end to the inconvenience of American moral clarity. We should abandon this notion that Iran is an implacable enemy, she insisted. We should join with our “partners.” Let’s reason with the mullahs. Ply them with breathtaking incentives: security assurances; economic aid; high-technology; aviation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture assistance.
"The Bush Doctrine? You’re with us or against us? Unrealistic. No need, after all, to sour the mood by demanding an end to Iran’s terror mongering. And sticks to go with these carrots? No, not to worry. The Iranians would surely be moved to comply, and, if they didn’t, why, surely the Russians and the Chinese would back some sticks … notwithstanding that Iran is into them like a shylock.
"You know, of course, the result. The Iranians laughed at us. So impressed were they by this nuanced display of soft power that … they sicced Hezbollah on Israel, armed up their Iraqi militias, and blithely went on building their nukes.
"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.
"Blue-ribbon panels can afford such juvenilia. They are, after all, unaccountable. What’s the administration’s excuse?
"What makes a superpower super is power. If we don’t use it, what’s left? Iran believes they will destroy us and acts on that conviction every day. We … seek negotiations.
"I’m not a hugger, but I hugged my four-year-old son as I wrote this. We abdicate now. We turn a blind eye as our implacable, insatiable enemies pick off our best and our bravest. We shrink from the duty a quarter century of mayhem imposes. We don’t have the will.
"It will be for my son, and yours, to face down this challenge. A challenge that endures because we offer to talk while they plot to kill."
4 comments:
Well, even the beloved President Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Iranians - even before he was President. Not to mention the shenanigans that occured after he took the oath of office.
But I digress. I certainly don't like the idea of playing nice with the Iranians or Syrians. They have little incentive (thusfar) to do what we ask of them, and are likely to be emboldened and empowered by the very act of the U.S. engaging them.
No, the solution to the debacle in Iraq is most certainly internal to Iraq. And it can only be solved two ways... By overwhelming force on the part of our military (not likely to happen in the current political climate), or overwhelming cooperation on the part of the Iraqi people (better chance of seeing God).
So we find ourselves in a completely untenable position of our own making, with no solution in sight, and likely two more years of "stay the course" or "finish the job" - I forget, which if the current acceptable phraseology? Nice.
Marlipern,
The solution is internal to Iraq? Then you believe the war has not become regional? We have Iran supplying arms and material to groups within Iraq so how can this be a solely "internal" Iraqi problem? And additional forces won't be brought to bear in the current political climate? You might want to wait a little longer on that prediction.
If a pollster called me and asked if I was happy with our progress in Iraq I would answer "no". But how would that end up being reported? I didn't say bring the troops home; I want to finish the job. And now that means taking on Iran and Syria too.
This is what I mean about not remembering Munich or 9/11. You say "So we find ourselves in a completely untenable position of our own making, with no solution in sight". The exit strategy is victory and if we can’t manage that then we don’t deserve the title of superpower. History is an unforgiving bitch and much of the time she says "Pay me now or pay me latter".
The solution is internal to Iraq because the Iraqi people have to embrace peace in their own country. Yes, Iran and Syria's involvement in the situation needs to be addressed, either militarily (unpopular) or diplomatically (unlikely). However, we can completely seal off the borders of Iraq, and we will still be dealing with an insurgency for years to come if the Iraqi people themselves do not choose peace.
Unless of course we want to pummel them into submission like the Germans and Japanese in WWII. My, then we'll really be popular in that region, not to mention the rest of the world.
I haven't forgotten Munich or 9/11 or Beirut or The Cole or our embassies in Africa or Pearl Harbor, for that matter. The lessons of the past are important to guide our actions in the present, and the future. But we must temper those actions with the knowledge of how it will affect our diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.
Yes, we're the remaining superpower. But that doesn't mean we won't be challenged by other major powers when we threaten their interests. And yes, I'm referring to China and Russia here. Whether we like it or not, we still have to coexist with them.
As I've said before, it's a complex situation, and our actions must be carefully considered for the good of our nation, as well as the rest of the world.
Marli,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to your comments.
“Unless of course we want to pummel them into submission like the Germans and Japanese in WWII.”
Now there’s a thought. Are we fighting a war and, if so, are we fighting it to win?
“My, then we'll really be popular in that region, not to mention the rest of the world.”
So what? Since when are we conducting a popularity contest? We need to use a great deal of force in dealing with the insurgency. Please note that I did not say use more forces, I said force. Instead of sending our troops into Fallujah a second time why didn’t we raze the city like we did to Dresden? This is part of the point I was making about our precision guided munitions; they don’t cause destruction on a scale that will cause our enemies to stop fighting. The psychological effect just isn’t as great.
“Yes, we're the remaining superpower. But that doesn't mean we won't be challenged by other major powers when we threaten their interests. And yes, I'm referring to China and Russia here. Whether we like it or not, we still have to coexist with them.”
Power, like Nature, abhors a vacuum. If we don’t utilize our power in a decisive way it will atrophy of its own accord. And spare me the China and Russia scenario; they are not waiting for us to do something in Iraq that threatens their interests – they’re already working against. Our very existence threatens their interests! And since we are the last remaining superpower, whether they like it or not, they have to coexist with us.
In your spare time you might want to construct a scenario for me about how you think either Russia or China would act if they were in our position. Please make sure you include how much attention they would give to the United Nations and world opinion.
Post a Comment