Baker Commission Report Is Only A Prescription For Total Failure In Iraq
I will say right off the bat something few may agree with: The Baker Commission report is utterly worthless. It does not provide any rational way out of the Iraq imbroglio, and it can only compound American problems in the Middle East.
As I understand it from the presentations this morning, there are four main parts of this ungainly report of a bipartisan committee:
1--Reduce American combat troops in Iraq by early in 2008.
2--Train the Iraqi government and its military and police to take over.
3--Enter into talks with such enemies as Syria and Iran, both Fascist governments, to reach a Middle East settlement.
4--Exclude Israel from talks on its own future, while consulting the enemies of Israel.
This is basically what Lord Halifax told Winston Churchill in 1940 when he proposed entering into talks with Hitler. It would mean defeat in war just as surely now, as it did then. Churchill said no, then, and packed Halifax off to Washington as British ambassador.
To answer, the four major recommendations point by point.
First, U.S. combat forces are the only thing keeping any handle on a bad situation. To the extent they are removed, it will only grow more untenable.
Second, the Iraqi "government," troops and police are completely incapable of righting the situation. More training will not change that. They are simply not to be relied upon, if we are to prevent Iraq from falling into terrorist, or Iranian, hands.
Third, there is no point in talking with Iran or Syria when they are determined to oust the U.S. from the region, take over Lebanon and destroy Israel. Talking with them will only facilitate them in the realization of these goals. Further, it will sell out such U.S. allies as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, which are, in fact, protectorates of the U.S. It would jeopardize vital oil supplies from the Persian Gulf.
Fourth, it is utterly unfair to Israel and fully proves the old suspicion that Baker is an anti-Semite, determined to destroy the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
In asking that we enter into talks with Iran without putting their plans to develop nuclear weapons even on the table, James Baker has shown himself to be a craven appeasement advocate. He should never be permitted to work for the U.S. government again.
It is very unpopular to recognize we are in a war, and that it is one it is vital to win. But we have to do that.
No question, President Bush is under pressure, and he will be pushed now by some Democrats and Republicans in Congress to embark down the path that the Baker Commission has advocated. If he does, he will surely destroy any reputation he has left and accept a devastating defeat for the United States of America. He will perhaps fatally compromise the security of the American people. This report is a blueprint for weakness. It should be tossed into the trash can.
What can we do? I have a lot more confidence in the U.S. military and the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to make adjustments and pursue the war.
Meanwhile, events in the next few months will relegate this hapless commission into the dustbin of history.
As I understand it from the presentations this morning, there are four main parts of this ungainly report of a bipartisan committee:
1--Reduce American combat troops in Iraq by early in 2008.
2--Train the Iraqi government and its military and police to take over.
3--Enter into talks with such enemies as Syria and Iran, both Fascist governments, to reach a Middle East settlement.
4--Exclude Israel from talks on its own future, while consulting the enemies of Israel.
This is basically what Lord Halifax told Winston Churchill in 1940 when he proposed entering into talks with Hitler. It would mean defeat in war just as surely now, as it did then. Churchill said no, then, and packed Halifax off to Washington as British ambassador.
To answer, the four major recommendations point by point.
First, U.S. combat forces are the only thing keeping any handle on a bad situation. To the extent they are removed, it will only grow more untenable.
Second, the Iraqi "government," troops and police are completely incapable of righting the situation. More training will not change that. They are simply not to be relied upon, if we are to prevent Iraq from falling into terrorist, or Iranian, hands.
Third, there is no point in talking with Iran or Syria when they are determined to oust the U.S. from the region, take over Lebanon and destroy Israel. Talking with them will only facilitate them in the realization of these goals. Further, it will sell out such U.S. allies as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, which are, in fact, protectorates of the U.S. It would jeopardize vital oil supplies from the Persian Gulf.
Fourth, it is utterly unfair to Israel and fully proves the old suspicion that Baker is an anti-Semite, determined to destroy the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
In asking that we enter into talks with Iran without putting their plans to develop nuclear weapons even on the table, James Baker has shown himself to be a craven appeasement advocate. He should never be permitted to work for the U.S. government again.
It is very unpopular to recognize we are in a war, and that it is one it is vital to win. But we have to do that.
No question, President Bush is under pressure, and he will be pushed now by some Democrats and Republicans in Congress to embark down the path that the Baker Commission has advocated. If he does, he will surely destroy any reputation he has left and accept a devastating defeat for the United States of America. He will perhaps fatally compromise the security of the American people. This report is a blueprint for weakness. It should be tossed into the trash can.
What can we do? I have a lot more confidence in the U.S. military and the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to make adjustments and pursue the war.
Meanwhile, events in the next few months will relegate this hapless commission into the dustbin of history.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Ken Reich at 9:03 AM
1 Comments:
This summary is the most pithy and precise one I have seen. An additional point to be mentioned: What on earth did the ISG have in mind in specifying how Israel should give up the Golan, with international troops to be then stationed there? This is their idea of resolving the Iraq situation? How many taxpayer's dollars were wasted on this study?
Post a Comment
<< Home