Replies

"It appears there is a great divide in pocketbook land. Those that have a vision for the future vs the greedy old farts."

I do not think the cause is "greed", nor do I think the opposite view is entirely a "vision for the future". I think the so-called "realists", in American Middle East policy circles, are actually not realists at all. They do not really and have never really understood far, far too many things about the Middle East.

Their view of "history" and from it their "world view" of the Middle East does not come from living personal experience of a Middle East person. It (their view) has been constructed primarily through their official relationships, with a lot of help from their Middle East counterparts in the process; counterparts whose goals are entirely centered on their self-appointed leaders retaining power.

Mr. Baker exemplified this disconnect from reality and "realism" in the "Iraq Study Group" report, which he led in the preparation of, where he asserted that we needed a resolution of the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to help achieve peace in Iraq. The Iraqi people who voted for a government, the Iraqi citizens who have joined that government's security program - including those who died in its service, the Shia and Sunni tribal leaders who reject Mr. Baker's belief (it was one of the propaganda positions of Al Queda and the Sunni militias) know that Mr. baker does not know what he is talking about.

It would be easy, and not entirely wrong, to criticize Baker for presenting that view simply on the basis of his clear conflict of interest during the entire process of the Iraq study group, wherein he remained as a paid "consultant" to the Saudi government at the time. And to include that his greed in retaining that contract leads him to present a Saudi line on many Middle East issues.

My view of Baker is that one problem, that reflects the error in Baker's world view of the Middle East is manifest in that he did not see his situation (during the Iraq study group process) as a conflict of interest and the second one is not that he is doing the Saudis bidding but he simply, and with great error, agrees with them and often ignores or fails to believe that their self-interest dominates over mere presentation of an "informed" Middle East view.

A good example of the grave error in Baker's mis-education and erroneous view of the Middle East is presented by the deal he made with Syria in the run-up to the first Gulf War. He wants one to believe it was needed for the "coalition", as if without Syria publicly agreeing to NOT oppose kicking Saddam out of Kuwait (its sole contribution to the "coalition"), (1)there would not have been the "coalition", (2)the "coalition" would have been more dammed in the Arab and Muslim world than it was, during and more particularly after the Gulf War, even with the Saudis and others behind it, or (3)Syria was capable of impeding the essential mission of the "coalition" - none of which was true. Yet, the Syria dictator was rewarded with a U.S. policy position that was going to not oppose his moves into Lebanon - a move that the Middle East is still reeling from the ramifications of. Mr. Baker was not then nor is he now a "realist" when it comes to the Middle East. He could have and should have promised the dictator in Syria nothing in 1991 and accepted what diplomatic consequences, and problems it would have entailed then, and since. Those problems were minor compared to the results; which his uneducated "realism" has given us, with regard to Syria vis-a-vis Lebanon.