Posted on 12/08/2006 9:04:29 AM PST by Tirian
The members of the Iraq Study Group hope that their collaboration will, among things, help usher in a new spirit of bipartisanship. So as a Republican, I'll offer this bipartisan thought -- other than Jimmy Carter, I can't think of a major public figure I like less than James Baker.
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.
Finally, fighters aren't crossing the Syrian border into Iraq because of Israel. Syria has an interest in seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq because the U.S. wants regime change in Syria and has opposed Syrian interests in Lebanon. So it's not surprising that Syria is happy to see foreign fighters enter Iraq to kill Americans. But even if Syria were less antagonistic towards the U.S., it still could not be expected to devote its resources to patrolling a long porous border on our behalf -- the only way to provide that incentive would be to threaten Syria with harsh military consequences if it does not step up to the plate. But stopping foreign fighters from entering would not substantially improve the situation in Iraq because, as the ISG report states, the vast majority of the fighting is the work of Iraqis.
Accordingly, the ISG's recommendation that Israel return the commanding Golan Heights -- which tower over Israel and were used for years by the Syrians to rain rockets upon the Israelis -- to Syria should be viewed as the latest manifestation of Baker's grudge against Israel, and not a good faith attempt to provide helpful advice about the situation in Iraq.
What do you expect from Baker? His law firm of around 300 lawyers, represents Saudi Arabia and had a profti of around $350 million dollars last year.
It's mind boggling that this group tried to divert us from the WOT into a fantasy world where I guess even 9/11 resulted from the Israeli conflict. And they are so focused on how "dire" Iraq is and getting out of there asap, they lost sight of Iranian nukes, the rape of Lebanon, the WOT, the oil reserves, to name just a few.
Earth to Baker: gettting out of Iraq cannot be the centerpiece of American foreign policy.
Let me see if I get this straight.
Liberals hate Bush for being too close to the Saudis but love Baker for being close to the Saudis.
Exactly so! These empty-headed "wise men" have nothing constructive to bring to the table concerning Iraq, so they go after Israel, our best ally in the region. These old dupes and lackies of the left would be reduced to searching for their teeth if they didn't have their latent anti-Semitism to guide them.
The difference between James Baker and a street walker is about $350 an hour.
In reality, this article has it exactly right; Israel is not the cause of any of the problems in Iraq and should be kept out of the ISG proposals. Especially we should not be having chats with the regional depots, divvying up Israeli soil without even inviting them to the chats.
The Israel/Palestine problem needs to be resolved, we all know that. And nothing has changed since 100 years ago when it was described as a problem without a solution. We cannot allow ourselves to be duped into thinking that land concessions or permitting nuke development will appease the hungry beast that wants it all. We need to stand firm, say Israel is not on the table here, nukes are not on the table, get your foreign death squads out of Iraq or we're coming where you live. IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.