Iraq Surrender Group issues its holy writ
The Iraq Study Group, hereafter referred to as the “Iraq Surrender Group,” released its report yesterday. It comes as no surprise that the “bipartisan” panel describes Iraq as more or less a failure and that we must turn to diplomacy in order to save face. According to Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Anne Gearan (What the heck is a “diplomatic writer?”):
Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great, the panel of five Republicans and five Democrats said in a bleak accounting of U.S. and Iraqi shortcomings. The implications, they warned, are dire for terrorism, war in the Middle East and higher oil prices around the world.
It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. also should begin a “diplomatic offensive” by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said.
Indeed, it appears the ISG considered just about every option except winning the peace. If you want to doom our efforts in Iraq, then, yes, let’s turn to Iran and Syria – two nations who would love to see us fail – in an attempt to win the peace over there.
One of the figures who would be central in said diplomatic efforts would be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or “vanish from the face of the earth.” Seems like a really reasonable guy to bargain with.
A few additional points:
1. The panel of “experts” consists of James A. Baker, III, Lee H. Hamilton, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O’Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson. Who the heck are they? What makes them more credible experts on the situation in Iraq than the military commanders and soldiers who are there now? And why should we trust diplomacy as a viable solution when diplomacy has never won lasting peace? The “experts” on the Iraq Surrender Group are accountable to the people in no way. I put much greater trust in the Commander-in-Chief, because, as an elected representative of the people, he is accountable to the voters who put him there. Heck, I trust the Democrat-led Congress more than I trust the ISG for the very same reason.
2. To further illustrate the lack of credibility of the Iraq Surrender Group, it has suggested that Palestinians have a right-of-return to the Jewish state of Israel, which has Israel concerned. James Baker, who co-chaired the ISG, even goes so far as to recommend a Middle East peace conference without Israel as a participant. You don’t need me to tell you that if such a conference ever came to pass, Israel would get screwed every way possible.
3. Iraqi politicians are also sour on the recommendations issued by the Iraq Surrender Group. “The US calls itself an occupying force in Iraq and, according to the Geneva Conventions, if you are an occupier then you are responsible for the country,” said parliamentarian Mahmud Othman, a Kurd. “They have no right to to do this. This is unfair.”
4. The Right Minded solution is simply to reassert the Bush Doctrine, that the United States will “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
5. An early indication suggests that the Bush administration, despite a claim by the President to take the report seriously, may be taking the Iraq Surrender Group’s recommendations with a grain of salt, having ruled out one-on-one talks with the terrorist nation of Iran unless it suspends its nuclear weapons program.
Predictions:
1. We will not pull out of Iraq until peace has been secured.
2. Congress will not cut funding for the war.
3. We will not abandon Israel.
I’ll close with a timeless quote by Winston Churchill to Parliament in 1940: “You had the chance to vote for appeasement or to vote for war. You have voted for appeasement, and you shall get war.” [Source]
