Forget democracy and bring home troops, Bush will hear

UK Telegraph ^ | Nov. 12, 2006 | Philip Sherwell

[FairOpinion]

A commission of experts appointed by President George W Bush will advise him to abandon his dream of cementing a new democratic system in Iraq and instead tackle the security crisis so that the withdrawal of American troops can begin.

The advice from the Iraq Study Group, a high-level bipartisan panel headed by James Baker, the former Republican secretary of state, will sideline the so-called Bush doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Mr Bush will meet the panel tomorrow and Tony Blair is expected to offer his views via a video-conference call on Tuesday.

Mr Gates is a member of the Iraq Study Group and has been a strong critic of his predecessor's handling of policy in Iraq and the use of pre-war intelligence. He will provide the White House with the political cover for changes that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.

The Baker panel, which has been charged with looking at all options for Iraq, is expected to recommend a phased US troop withdrawal, timed to accord with deadlines for Iraqi forces' taking responsibility for specific security zones.

[KevinDavis]

Sorry the function of our military is to kill people, not be border guards...

[Txsleuth]

I saw an article a little while ago that said that while this Iraq Study Group will be meeting with President Bush...

The military, under Peter Pace, will be having a meeting with all of the miltary hot shots involved...to figure out THEIR way to proceed.

I believe President Bush will give as much, if not MORE weight to what Pace and his group come up with.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Dem commission members:

Lee Hamilton
Vernon Jordan
William Perry
Chuck Robb
Leon Panetta

GOP commission members:

James Baker
Lawrence S. Eagleburger
Edwin Meese
Alan Simpson
Sandra Day O'Connor

All the dems had to do was roll one of the GOP members, which they have already done repeatedly with O'Connor on the court. Simpson is suspect, too.

Ultimately this comes down to President Bush, this isn't the first time he has allowed some suspect names onto panels only to then get burned.

[MNJohnnie]

Too bad for them Bush will tell them to go pound sand and simply let his plan work as it is unfolding. He simply needs enough time for it to work.

All the Junk Media with their "Secret" sources about the "Baker plan" are doing is following the Democrat Machines orders to create the proper PR illusion the Dems need to claim credit. It a weird mix. The Appeasement Now Dems and the "Realists" at Saudi Inc have had a perfect convergence of goals. So despite the fact that the Baker plan is DOA, they will now claim credit for "fixing Iraq." They know they can rely on their Junk Media machine to hid the truth from the American people.

There was NEVER any chance that Iraq would be partitioned as the Dincons kept screaming. However the Plan does serve as marvelous PR opportunity for the Democrats. The Democrats will simply scream these lies in this story over and over and over. Then when the troops start come home in 2007-2008 they will be every where claiming credit in 2008 that THEY forced Bush to "fix Iraq".

The only joker in the deck is can the Democrat control their wack jobs that long? Probably.


1st off Democrats do not have our hyper 100ers pathetic desperate need to continually stick knives in the back of their own. Democrats use to have that problem but being in the wilderness creates amazing powers of party discipline over the survivors. After being out of power 12 years they are hungry for anything they can get and less likely to demand only 100% of only what they want. Plus they know they mostly got back in on the back of a bunch liars who ran down home as Reagan clones. Pretty tough to run as Reagan down home and turn into Ted Kennedy in DC.

So yeah they probably can control their Moonbats. Dems will probably simply not do anything on Iraq. They will make some PR face saving time wasting gestures. Such as their calls for "An International Conference on Iraq" or their having Chucky Schumer all over screaming how "Iraq is still all Bush's problem. All the Dems have to do is deflect the media with some Bush appointee show trials in "Congressional hearings" plus some big nasty political fights over feel good do nothing social spending items like Education, Embryonic Stem Cells or "Global Warming" and run out the clock. The plan is a the lingks below. This is still the plan.

All the Baker Plan does is give the Dinocons and the Know Nothing and the Appeasement Now crowd the illusion that "Iraq has been fixed." A "Fact" the Junk Media will suddenly discover sometime around the start of 2008.

Iraq policy was never broke. Like most other things. The Democrats, via their Junk Media mouthpieces, lied, mislead, ignored and demagogue the issue to best advantage. Too bad no one on the Conservative side bother to do anything but mindlessly parrot the same Democrat inspired "Conventional Wisdom".

Now the Conservatives get the worst of both worlds. They get tagged with the blame for going to Iraq but will get NONE of the credit for winning it. Go ahead read the data at the links. What have you got to lose?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces

It really is quite interesting. Iraq is probably the most successful Counter Insurgency battle in history. No one else has ever managed to contain and break an Insurgency and get the country up and running so fast.

It took ALL of the Allies 5 year to get Germany and Japan to where Iraq was after 18 months. And neither Germany nor Japan had any insurgency nearly as well equipped, organized and trained as the terrorist are.

Pretty amazing results considering Hitler only had 12 years to muck up German and Saddam managed to screw around for 35 years in Iraq. Iraq was won. It was simply a case of time and mopping up. However since that fact did not fit the agenda of the Do Nothing Neo Isolationists on the Right nor the Appeasement Now Surrender Monkeys on the Left those facts were pretty throughly stifled. Really sickening when one Freeper, Sandrat, post more useful information every day here on Free Republic then is continued in ALL our "News Media" staffed by supposedly Professional "Journalists".

Now given the way the Democrat's weakness emboldens the Terrorists. It is a whole new ball game in Iraq. If I were the Iraqis or the Israelis, I would be looking hard for some new allies. Maybe the Chinese or the Russians. They need access to the oil. Because if Bush's backbone fails, the US is going to Cut and Run on yet another ME ally. And Israel, you will be next.

[JRandomFreeper]

I despise what you advocate.

/johnny

[muawiyah]

Yup, did that several times. The alternative is that we arrive late ~ e.g. late 1941 instead of 1939, or we end up on the wrong side, e.g. in WWI ~

[right way right]

I appreciate what you said.
but, I mean that we should do what it takes to win first.
If this means more air strikes, changes in the rules of engagement flattening mosques nukes, etc.
All the nations of the Middle east should fear us and not see us as "a paper tiger".

Your post does hit me square in the heart since I do have a 11 year old boy and a 5 year old girl.

This surrender talk sickens me.
And it IS surrender talk!

[Doe Eyes]

Let the Dems be the sellouts, as they were with Vietnam...

I'm confused, aren't these people Republicans?

[Chena]

Did you forget why our troops went to Iraq in the first place? We didn't go there because of a civil war. But surely you know that. We must finish what we began. To pull out now would be akin to spitting on the graves of every one of our military men and women who have died in Iraq, and those who are serving there now! It would embolden the terrorists who have merged in Iraq as their battleground against the West, democracy in the Middle East, and their global Jihad.

I know far too many soldiers who would be furious at what you are suggesting. Folks like you may not have the backbone to win, but our troops do.

[Kozak]

We should have declared this war over as soon as we defeated Saddam and his army.

What you said.

Brilliant. And then what? Instant terrorist state ala the Taliban or Iran West. If thats the extent of the strategic thought the best action was nothing.

[Zack Nguyen]

From the article:

On the diplomatic front, the panel is thought to support direct talks on Iraq with Syria and Iran – an approach that the White House previously flatly rejected...

This is pointless, unless Iran has somehow hinted to us that there is something they value more than nuclear weapons and sending troops to Iraq. As far as I can tell there isn't anything we can trade with, hence no room for diplomacy. Iran will toy with us, develop their weapons anyway, and cut us loose. If we're lucky we'll manage to avoid having another Secretary of State toasting another tyrant.

[Txsleuth]

I know you wouldn't, leadpenny...I just wanted you to know that there are others on this thread that won't either.

[right way right]

I hope your right about Bush listening to General Pace.

[Chena]

We are in Iraq not just to defend the Iraqis, but to defend OUR OWN SECURITY. If we withdraw too early, the terrorists will take over Iraq and will institute a Taliban or Iran like terrorist state, from which to influence the Middle East and perpetrate terror attacks against us. THEN we will see not 3000 casualties in Iraq, but 300,000 civilian casualties in the US, or more, when the terrorists will attack us with WMD.

BRAVO!!!!! Will we ever succeed in knocking some sense into some "head in the sand" folks? IYIYIYI!

[Kozak]

I spent 8 years on active duty. Several in the back seat of an F4. My ass was on the line, and I was ready to deploy if given the command. That said do you therefore think that those who haven't can't have a valid opinion? Thats the horsehit argument liberals love to toss around.

[StormEye]

"Sorry the function of our military is to kill people, not be border guards"

I disagree. The function of our military is to defend America and its people. If patrolling the border for awhile is necessary, then some troops are going to patrol the border. It is a legitimate funtion of the military. Especially if the civilian authorities can't handle it.

[The Bronze Titan]

Pelayo,

You have nailed it! I fully agree with your assesment of our predicament.

-"Any democracy that isn't totalitarian and militaristic will be weak in the face of the strong triumphalism of Islam and its more extreme militant fundamentalism."

There are many of us on the right that have fallen into some 'ideolgical' trap of kneejerking ourselves into the opposite extreme of the Left's carping, just to stay opposite of them.

However, we need to take a sober assessment of what has transpired in Iraq, where we are, and where we are headed. Bush had a noble, albeit naive goal, but it's not working, and more importantly, he's mistakenly (and dangerously) tied this effort/"victory" to the "war on terror".

I completely disagree with this notion. In fact, by taking on this strategy, we have dangerously 'elevated' the importance of "victory" in Iraq (whatever that is) which has caused us to become stakholders in this campaign directly.

I would say that we have the SAUDIS and IRANIANS (not the Syrians) become the STAKEHOLDERS in the Iraqi equation. The Saudis can become the counterbalance with the Sunnis vs. Shiites versus the Iranians. For God's sakes, you have to leave the Syrians OUT!

[AmeriBrit]

You'd better keep that tail tucked tightly between your legs as your running away or it might get caught in something,

We entered into this war after 9/11 with a depleted military because of CLINTON. We had no choice but to make do with what was available. BTW: Do you remember 9/11? September 11th 2001, the day the terrorists attacked us after declaring war on the U.S.?

The war in the ME was never just about killing or capturing Saddam Hussein, he was just a part of the reason. The main object was and is still riding the civilized world of the evil terrorists who want to kill us all who refuse to bow down to their religious belief's.

Your statement "We Already Won The War" is ridiculous and so wrong. Only a small portion is in the win column but we add to the win column everyday we stay the course.

You've been listening and believing too much of the spineless RATS propaganda and I'll tell you right now.....they don't have a clue.

As President Bush has said and repeated I don't know how many times "This will be a long war and the Iraqi's will take over when and as they're ready".

To just pack up and pull out now would be admitting a cowards defeat and only give the terrorists the impression they are the stronger and can attack and defeat the U.S. whenever they get the urge. They need to be given the correct message after the election. America has NOT spoken with the results last Tuesday. Only spineless mentally unbalanced anti-American RATS have spoken.

[Pelayo]

Sorry, but this is not "positive". it's commendable that our troops are engaging in this type of activity, but this is not Paris, Bastogne, nor Berlin after WWII.

Or for that matter Charleston or Birmingham after the civil war. Federal troops couldn't even keep the peace in the South after the war. The American people cut and ran there too after a few years. How is our volunteer army supposed to, or be expected to, do this in as violent a setting as the Sunni triangle? The American people have never been known to tolerate the casualties this kind of activity entails usually. The major casualties of battle yes... but not peace keeping.

[brydic1]

Probably the most important function of a military is to repel invasions. It that can't be done, there is no further need of a military.