Posted on 11/12/2006 1:43:59 PM PST by Tirian
Tomorrow President Bush will meet with Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to discuss the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The group's report will be issued next month, but presumably its conclusions have more or less taken shape. Based on the leaking that is currently going on, the news could hardly be worse:
A top U.S. intelligence official has been meeting with Middle East counterparts to discuss proposals expected from the Baker commission on Iraq, Middle East sources have told Newsday.
How's that for multilateralism? The report's conclusions apparently are being cleared in advance by Middle Eastern intelligence officials.
The proposals reportedly include an approach to Iran and Syria — a policy that Robert Gates, a member of the commission, has argued for.***
Rarely has a government report been more eagerly awaited than the one being prepared by former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, about how the U.S. can leave Iraq.
I would have said the question is how the U.S. can win in Iraq.
The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Iraq "cannot be stabilized"? That strikes me as a ridiculous statement. One can legitimately ask whether Iraq can be stabilized at acceptable political, military or financial cost. But that would require some hard analysis of what the stakes are and what those costs may be. Notwithstanding the results of Tuesday's election, I think the American people are adult enough for such a discussion.
[Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte reportedly has come to agree with what is expected to be the most controversial of recommendations from the Baker group: that the United States approach Iran, and, in tandem with Israel, approach Syria, for help with Iraq, according to a source familiar with Negroponte’s thinking.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but this sounds like the kind of harebrained scheme that only a team of foreign policy "realists" could come up with. Why on God's green earth would Iran and Syria, individually or in tandem, help us to pacify Iraq? Both have been doing everything in their power to create disorder in Iraq for the last three years, presumably because they think it is in their interest to do so. How, exactly, do the "realists" expect to change those countries' assessments of their interests?
While the Bush administration is not expected to drop its opposition to a nuclear Iran or even the threat of military action to prevent it, it could offer limited security guarantees that it would not attack Iran from Iraq and will prevent an armed anti-Iranian militia in Iraq from causing trouble.
Huh? The whole premise of this deal is that we are leaving Iraq. So what is the value in promising not to attack Iran from Iraq, and what guarantees can we give regarding "anti-Iranian militias" once we're gone?
Whether that would be enough to persuade Iran to be more helpful [!] in Iraq is not clear, analysts say. Iranian intelligence officials are said to be extremely worried about a precipitous U.S. pullout from Iraq, and resulting chaos, in the wake of Tuesday’s elections.
But wait! Didn't Iranian officials just say that the Democrats' success on Tuesday was a great victory for Iran? And why, exactly, would the Iranians be "extremely worried" that the U.S. might pull out? Isn't that exactly what the Iranian-backed Shia militias have been trying to bring about since 2004? I would guess that Iran's attitude toward our prospective withdrawal is summed up by the refrain we used to use in the schoolyard: Is that a threat, or a promise?
An approach to Syria, the Bush administration’s other main headache in the Middle East, might include the carrot of Israel reopening negotiations over the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, or some other concession from Israel.
Ah, yes: the "realist" approach to Middle Eastern policy always comes down to selling Israel down the river. But the stakes are so high in Iraq that the idea that "reopening negotiations" over the Golan Heights, or some other unidentified "concession," would be much of a "carrot" strikes me as delusional.
Gates has sharply criticized the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war and has made clear that he would seek advice from moderate Republicans who have been largely frozen out of the White House, according to administration officials and Gates’ close associates.
The administration officials said that Bush was aware of Gates’ critique of current policy and understood that Gates planned to clear the “E Ring” of the Pentagon, where many of Rumsfeld’s senior political appointees have plotted Iraq strategy.
*** Gates will be drawing on his experience and contacts from Bush’s father’s administration, including Baker and former security adviser Brent Scowcroft.
“Gates’ world is Brent Scowcroft and Baker and a whole bunch of people who felt the door had been slammed in their face,” one former official who has discussed Iraq at length with Gates said Thursday. “The door is about to reopen.”
Bad to worse. The problem with the "realists"--Baker, Scowcroft, Gates--is that their grip on reality seems to be tenuous. If Iraq really is a disaster, as they seem to think, why on earth would Iran and Syria help us out of it? Why would they change their policy of seeking to foment violence there? This report amplifies the "realists'" thinking somewhat:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who plans to speak to the commission via video link on Tuesday, reportedly will urge the Bush administration to open talks with Syria and Iran and push for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a way of defusing Mideast tensions.
[Chief of Staff Josh] Bolten was asked whether the Bush administration was ready to make a new effort to get involved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. "We'll see. The timing has to be right and it has to be something that both the Israelis and the Palestinians want," he said.
As far as I can see, the "realists" haven't had a new idea in thirty years. What does Israel have to do with the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims want to tear each other to pieces? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I'll say it again: the idea that pressuring Israel to compromise its security will somehow, magically, solve the Iraqis' problems is delusional. Maybe Baker et al., know something I don't, but the idea that Iran and Syria will cooperate to bring peace to that region appears equally far-fetched.
So, under the Baker Commission's recommendations, what will become of the 12 million Iraqis who voted for freedom and for a normal life? President Bush has said more times than I can count, in speeches spanning the last four years, that all people want to be free, and that freedom is God's gift to all mankind. If he doesn't believe that, then what does he believe?
If the Iraqis are to be sold out, at least let them be sold out by the Democrats. No one expected anything better from them.
Another example of why Powerline is required reading....
ping
The goal of the terrorists is to use events to weaken and destroy the will of the United States to fight, partially by defanging its political leadership.
Until then, expect a drip feed of bad news from Iraq to flow with the assistance of the terrorists allies in the media. The idea is to create a failed state in Iraq, which will be an incubator for terrorist groups.
Regards, Ivan
I'm not so sure they will be able to contain themselves, what with all the blood in the water. While the strategy you outline is the one that would seem to give them the most advantageos effect, I expect that they will attack as soon as they have something in position, in a "use it or lose it" move.
Regards, Ivan
I favor partitioning Iraq.
What ever happens, let's just hope that Sodamn Insane gets executed so that he somehow does not return to power.
Regards, Ivan
Then you favor giving Iran southern Iraq and al-Qaeda western Iraq.
Partition is the main goal of Iran and al-Qaeda.
The Bush Administration is going to stomp on Israel in exchange for the Arabs and Iranians allowing the US to withdraw from Iraq in relative quiet.
The act of firing Rumsfeld was the equivalent of Al Quida's assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud prior to 9/11.
Both a signal of the start and getting rid of one who might be a hindrance to the plans.
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/11/todays-reading-assignment.html
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Going back to Bush 1 is retreat. His admin. urged the Kurds to revolt and then hung them out to dry. His admin refused to solve the MidEast problem. As for negotiating another land deal involving Israel, just forget that the Mideast agenda of Iran and Syria is the destructioin of Israel.
James Baker is an old line Republican not fit intellectually to hold Rummy's coat. If Gates is for all the things this article intimates he is for, his tenure is revisionism,retreat, and defeat.
The Iraquis that have been against Saddam's regime and helped us must not know where to turn right now. I'll bet they feel they are on the cusp of another letdown by the US.
Bargain with Iran and Syria-=-OMG how UNrealistic can they be?
vaudine
That explains our predicament very precisely, IMO. God help our soldiers and Iraq.
Carolyn
I feel that there will be a nuclear event within 5 years.
If we leave Iraq in disgrace, it will guarantee, Bush will easily go down as one of the worst President's in history. His legacy completely depends on him upon continuing to led the war in destroying Islamic facism. Withdrawing without finishing the job guarantees a prepetual terror threat and probably thousands more Americans dying on US soil. Bush ultimately will bear the responsibility for that as commander-in-chief.
I favor three safe, loosely automonous regions under a federal system. Something that separates those who hate each other and leaves the Kurds alone. But also something that is fair in that everyone shares in the oil money.
Is Bush trying to be a Republican Jimmy Carter?
I think you nailed it 100%.
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.