Posted on 12/10/2006 2:22:58 AM PST by goldstategop
Well, the ISG -- the Illustrious Seniors' Group -- has released its 79-point plan. How unprecedented is it? Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah. But, alas, such flashes of originality are few and far between in what's otherwise a testament to conventional wisdom. How conventional is the ISG's conventional wisdom? Try page 49:
"RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria . . ."
Er, OK. I suppose that's what you famously hardheaded "realists" mean by realism. But wait, we're not done yet. For this "Support Group," we need the extra-large function room. Aside from Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, the ISG -- the Iraq Surrender Gran'pas -- want also to invite:
". . . the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States . . ."
Er, OK. So it's basically an Arab League meeting. Not a "Support Group" I'd want to look for support from, but each to his own. But wait, Secretary Baker's still warming up:
". . . the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council . . ."
That would be America, Britain, France, Russia, China. A diverse quintet, representing many distinctive approaches to international affairs from stylish hauteur to polonium-210. Anybody else?
". . . the European Union . . ."
Hey, why not? It's not really multilateral unless there's a Belgian on board, right? Oh, and let's not forget:
". . . the Support Group should call on the participation of the United Nations Secretary-General in its work. The United Nations Secretary-General should designate a Special Envoy as his representative . . ."
Indeed. But it needs to be someone with real clout, like Benon Sevan, the former head of the Oil for Food Program, who recently, ah, stepped down; or Maurice Strong, the Under-Secretary-General for U.N. Reform and godfather of Kyoto, who for one reason or another is presently on a, shall we say, leave of absence; or Alexander Yakovlev, the senior procurement officer for U.N. peacekeeping, who also finds himself under indictment -- er, I mean under-employed. There's no end of top-class talent at the U.N., now that John Bolton's been expelled from its precincts.
So there you have it: an Iraq "Support Group" that brings together the Arab League, the European Union, Iran, Russia, China and the U.N. And with support like that who needs lack of support? It worked in Darfur, where the international community reached unanimous agreement on the urgent need to rent a zeppelin to fly over the beleaguered region trailing a big banner emblazoned "YOU'RE SCREWED." For Dar4.1, they can just divert it to Baghdad.
Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker's "Support Group," relax, it's a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions -- return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it's in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That's what Hollywood would call "high concept."
Why would anyone -- even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the "Read my lips" pledge -- why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq's future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian "right of return"? And, incidentally, how did that phrase -- "the right of return" -- get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.
And that's before we get to Iran and Syria. So tough-minded and specific when it comes to the Israelis, Baker turns to mush when it comes to Assad assassinating his way through Lebanon's shrinking Christian community or Ahmadinejad and the mullahs painting the finish trim on the Iranian nukes. Syria, declare the Surrender Gran'pas, "should control its border with Iraq." Gee, who'dda thunk o' that other than these geniuses?
Actually, Syria doesn't need to "control its border with Iraq." Iraq needs to control its border with Syria. And, as long as the traffic's all one way (because Syria's been allowed to subvert Iraq with impunity for three years), that suits Assad just fine. The Surrender Gran'pas assert that Iran and Syria have "an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." This, to put it mildly, is news to the Iranians and Syrians, who have concluded that what's in their interest is much more chaos in Iraq. For a start, the Americans get blamed for it, which reduces America's influence in the broader Middle East, not least among Iran and Syria's opposition movements. Furthermore, the fact that they're known to be fomenting the chaos gives the mullahs, Assad and their proxies tremendous credibility in the rest of the Muslim world. James Baker has achieved the perfect reductio ad absurdum of diplomatic self-adulation: he's less rational than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If they're lucky, this document will be tossed in the trash and these men and women will be the laughingstocks of posterity. But, if it's not shredded and we embark down this path, then the Baker group will be emblematic of something far worse. The "Support Group" is a "peace conference," and Baker wants Washington to sue for terms. No wonder Syria is already demanding concessions from America. Which is the superpower and which is the third-rate basket-case state? From the Middle Eastern and European press coverage of the Baker group, it's kinda hard to tell.
Mark Steyn is simply a genius!
ISG = Israel Sellout Group
ISG = Insane Senile Geezers
No military representation, either active duty or retired, no Middle East experts or Arabists such as Bernard Lewis, no local Iraqi representation, no, just a bunch of career Washington insiders and politicians. Sandra Day O'Connor? I'm not even sure of her legal expertise much less any concerning conduct of a fight against an insurgency. Vernon Jordan? A Washington power broker? And Lee Hamilton? This man has done more damage with his 9/11 Commission work and now this ridiculous piece of garbage.
Our Arabists and Progressives are urging a "Final Recommendation for the Zionist Question" -- it does sound vaguely familiar....
LOL, you wish.
Wish what? That President Bush is going to ball the report up, toss it in the trash, increase the size of the military by 300k troops, and tell Iran, North Korea and Syria where to stuff it? Sure. I wish Santa would bring me a winning lottery ticket, a jetpack, and a harem of supermodels.
Wishes are fun. But we're not here to wish, are we? We're here to figure out what's coming next. And 'bipartisan sellout' is the program now, not 'smackdown theater'. He's either going to make drastic changes in Iraq that we won't like, or his replacement will in 2009. Odds are, he's going to eat as much of the report as he can, and turn it into policy. If not, the opposition will use it to harpoon us with in the next elections.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
I Know a Marine, and He Knows the Stakes
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 12:09 PM
http://www.townhall.com/blog#ce3935c5-4267-4c3a-b862-3d3b606e0e20
This is my take on the ISG report. I got ticked this week when a bunch of preening politicians and pundits tried to project honor and bravery on the plan for losing-- losing slowly, "responsibly," diplomatically, but losing-- in Iraq.
There's nothing to smile about. There's nothing "passionate" and "bold" about running away from a job before it is finished, and in doing so leading the men and women of the armed services, who did not volunteer to lose, into failure. If you're gonna back that plan, fine, but don't pretend it's tough and brave. Doing so does a disservice to those who have actually been tough and brave in fighting the enemy without backing down.
My column this week is a nod to a couple of my friends who also happen to be those tough, brave men, and Tim Russert's got nothing on them.
Only in a Washington TV studio, perfumed with hairspray and haughtiness, could running away before the job is done be considered tough and resolved.
I know a Marine. He is packing his stuff this week. On Saturday, he will bend down, kiss his wife good-bye, and deploy again for Iraq. He will not leave with a mind to allowing the collapse of Iraqs government, a humanitarian catastrophe, a propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the diminishing of Americas global standing, or negotiations with the enemy, just because it means we can get out of Iraq quickly.
Hell go with a mind to win, and he will not find boldness, passion, toughness, glee, or honor in anything less. That is a practice for Washingtonians, not Marines.
Update: I also know a soldier, now. Got this today from a soldier serving his second voluntary tour in Iraq:
For the public, the consequences of cut-and-running are more disastrous than a weakened foreign image or a generation of disgruntled veterans. Because the Iraqi Army and Police are not yet ready to stand up, we cannot step down. Although many feel that host-nation forces would be obliged to take the place of American troops upon our mass exodus, their assumption is merely that and their vision is more optimistic than even the most war-supporting neo-con. We have seen the Iraqis fail to secure their towns in Baghdad, ar Ramadi, al Fallujah, and sections of the al Anbar Province following the Coalition Forces mobilization to other hostile areas of Iraq. The sober realization that the Iraqis will not fight for their nation on a hasty timeline is not a reason to give up on them. Withdrawing combat troops from Iraq would send the already chaotic country into a vicious downward spiral.
The American people are just tired of hearing about this war. We all know liberals forgot about the danger of terrorism a month after 9/11. Now conservatives are starting to feel the same way.
So if we don't implement everything in this stupid plan and there remains conflict in the region, it's all OUR FAULT.
Okay. I'll concede that you're not idly wishing for Santa to bring us victory for Christmas, if you'll grant that people can politely and rationally disagree with President Bush and his policies without being 'filled with vile Bush hatred', BDS or any other slur.
Sound fair?
I'd have to throw in the notion that the international community, especially the UN, has once again been proposed as the savior of the situation despite a track record of screwing up every pie it's ever stuck its grubby fingers into. In the context of Hollywood that'd have to be Dumb and Dumber XVI - everyone with a mental age of over 12 knows it's stupid but they keep cranking it out anyway.
I would argue it is an insult to granpa's. Great granpa's would have been more correct and appropriate.
The whole crew is desperate to return to the 4th quarter of the last game they played.
LOL. Perfect!
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
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.