So the Baker et. al. team are now leaking that they may want to 'make a deal' with Iran and Syria concerning Iraq. That may be what they recommend to Bush. So we are going to make a deal with potentially one of the 'students' responsible for the Iranian Hostage crisis ? The crisis that ended Jimmy Carters Presidency and began Iran's confrontation with the west. Hey Baker, why not make a deal with Saddam ? I am sure he can 'stabilize' Iraq for you.
For those of you who only get your news from the MSM. Here is how the original Baker/Powell Gulf War 1 actually ended. That war ended with the US asking the Kurds to revolt and overthrow Saddam all by themselves. We did not have the stomach to do it alone and we did not want to upset the Coalition or go beyond the UN mandate. What happened was a disaster. The Kurds rose up and Saddam swatted them down right under our noses. We did not even stop his helicopter based counterattacks. The Kurds were devastated and would not trust the US again for years. That left us with no-fly zones for 12 years where we had to try to prevent Saddam from attacking his people in the North and South. While Clinton was President Saddam counter attacked quite often. Clinton responded with pathetic cruise missile attacks. Then Saddam violated UN Sanctions and kicked the UN team out. He was becoming completely out of control again. That was what the original Baker/Powell plan ended up doing. If Bush follows their advice again, it will probably be another 12 year disaster.
"Hey Baker, why not make a deal with Saddam ?"
We had made deals with Saddam. At the time, we did so because it was practical, pragmatic and productive. But not perfect.
If we did so now with Iran, Syria--would be for similar reasons. It would be an alternative to trying to defeat, occupy another muslim hellhole, as opposed to letting the muslims manage their own hellholes.
Not perfect. But perhaps practical, pragmagmatic, productive.