Prez Commission Headed By *James Baker* Advises Cutting Iraq in Three
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1715724/posts
His group has yet to reach a final conclusion, but there is a growing consensus that America can neither pour more soldiers into Iraq nor suffer mounting casualties without any sign of progress. It is thought to support embedding more high-quality American military advisers in the Iraqi security forces rather than maintaining high troop levels in the country indefinitely.
Frustrated by the failure of a recent so-called “battle of Baghdad” to stem violence in the capital, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, said last week that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, had only two months left to get a grip. Rumours abound that the much-admired ambassador could depart by Christmas.
Khalilzad’s warning was reinforced by John Warner, Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, on his return from a visit to Baghdad. “In two to three months’ time, if this thing hasn’t come to fruition and this government (is not) able to function, I think it’s a responsibility of our government internally to determine: is there a change of course we should take?” Warner said.
Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, have resisted the break-up of Iraq on the grounds that it could lead to more violence, but are thought to be reconsidering. “They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event,” said Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. “There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed,” Gelb said.
It seems that all of these people are reacting to the events on the ground in Iraq much the same way I have posted here. One can only discount so much as being the product of media bias and, evidently, the likes of the people quoted and summarized above, including George Bush himself, know that what we're doing is broke and needs fixin'.
To Southack: much of what you say is true but they are of no relevance whatsoever if 1) they do not make America safer (that means if a terrorist's ability to set off a weapon of mass destruction and an American city), or 2) if Iran gets the bomb. As to 1) the idea that we can attride enough terrorists so that the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world cannot find another 19 suicide murderers is preposterous. We are demonstrating to the world that we cannot inflict enough casualties in this kind of asymmetrical warfare that our domestic consensus will endure. The idea of killing terrorists in Iraq so that another 19 cannot attack America again, is the policy of shoveling flies. As to 2) if Iran gets the bomb everything we have gained and sacrificed for in Iraq and elsewhere will be marginalized into insignificance.
I think James Baker sees that too.
Rubbish.
Our radiation detectors are in place. You can't even drive a truck in from Mexico with Mexican potting soil (less radiation in that than in a common banana peel) without setting off our alarms and drawing in an immediate response.
The whole Free Republic phrase "stunned my beeber" comes from a Freeper going/coming to/from Canada after a cancer radiation treatment was surrounded by the good guys, and that was years ago.
The radiation detection system is in place on land, sea, and air. This is also how we caught Libya's 3 ships with centrifuges on board, as the near-spotless centrifuges had *traces* of radiation still on them, buried deep under shielding in the hold of each ship (some radiation can't be shielded, it turns out).
We're boarding ships at sea that set off these detectors...long before they reach a port.
So there isn't going to be a nuclear attack (OK, maybe a locally-produced dirty bomb or two that the news media will go nuts about) on the U.S.
Nor will we be hit by a rogue ICBM (e.g. from North Korea), as our missile defense system has the sea-born and land-based legs in place, with 9 successful interceptions in a row (last hit-to-kill miss was back in 2001).
And this isn't about killing 1.3 Muslims. It's a multi-pronged strategy of killing the most radical jihadists while winning over their moderates (e.g. getting them voting in their own elections rather than stabbing each other).
So there aren't going to be new 9/11 terror attacks here in the U.S., nor will there be WMD attacks against us here (save for the occasional worthless dirty bomb or some bug or comparitively weak chemical attack).
They'll blow up a few McDonald's with suiciders, of course, and snipe at a few cars, set a few forests on fire...but those aren't civilization-shattering types of attacks.
In the meantime, most of their efforts are concentrated in Iraq, far from our shores, even as our shores grow more protected and safer every day.
The Times of London. More liberal sources. Look, none of us need to look very hard for liberals smearing their leftis views all over everything. It's everywhere we look.
You forgot this part:
His group will not advise “partition”, but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue. (Hmmmm....sounds kind of like a republic to me.)
And let's bold some relevant bits here:
They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event,” (Oh, no hyperbole there! Not at all.) said Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq.
Speaks volumes.
Read that statement again.
Now read it again.
Now tell me what Baker's group has concluded? The correct answer is...nothing. Just more media BS from more anonymous sources.
You are a blow up doll for our MSM. Do you enjoy it?