Posted on 12/07/2006 7:02:03 AM PST by meg88
So many careers and reputations have been ravaged by Iraq. Even James Baker, the canniest of operators, has now met his Waterloo.
The report of the Iraq Study Group—which Baker co-chaired with Lee Hamilton, that other Wise Man-wannabe—was doomed to fall short of expectations. But who knew it would amount to such an amorphous, equivocal grab bag.
Its outline of a new "diplomatic offensive" is so disjointed that even a willing president would be left puzzled by what precisely to do, and George W. Bush seems far from willing.
Its scheme for a new military strategy contains so many loopholes that a president could cite its language to justify doing anything (or nothing).
Contrary to the leaks of the last several days, the report does not call for a pullback of American forces in Iraq. One and a half sentences in the executive summary seem to do that: "By the first quarter of 2008 … all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces."
First, notice that the verb in those passages is "could," not "should." But read that half-sentence in full, and then read on:
At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue.
In other words, the commission does not say that U.S. combat forces should be deployed "only in units embedded with Iraqi forces." It says they should (or, rather, "could") be deployed "only" in Iraqi units and all those other kinds of units, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
They fell off the wise guy wagon when they entered into the analysis assuming a rational human being is sitting on the other side of the table. He's not.
What do you do with a mad dog? give it some food? a little water? No, shoot a mad dog. Baker and company think you can tame a mad dog with PC methods. What a joke.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Charlie Rangle should draft them to
serve in Iraq for 8 months,
and then come back with a report.
It's the only way we are going to get our money's worth out of them.
Their attempt at a "feel good" report failed. It just made everyone feel worse.
Committees, and in particular "bipartisan" committees are absolutely worthless. By the time a concensus is reached the recommendations are so watered down, toothless and impotent they become incoherent and completely unactionable.
Um, well, I did!
"So much for Plan B"
And is this really a surprise to anyone?
This is just another way of keeping the war going and allowing the profiteering off our soldiers to continue. They either want to do this or they just don't have a clue what it means to prosecute a war. Do we no longer have powerful Generals that are not afraid of winning and doing it fast with overwhelming numbers?
By meeting with Dems and putting together this "amorphous" document (with Dems involved the product will always be amorphous), he basically did not give the President any one strong direction, leaving the President to continue his own policy.
From Slate?
1. To function as a stage performance for the masses, to make people think they are getting something done when in fact they are doing nothing more than protecting their own @sses and hiding their own complicity in the issue at hand.
2. To lend legitimacy to a political process by recommending a course of action that everyone knows will eventually be undertaken but nobody in a position of real authority wants to publicly support themselves.
That stupid "9/11 Commission" was a perfect example of Case #1. You seem to think this Baker Commission is, too -- but I suspect it's actually much closer to #2. I predict that the Bush administration will implement just about everything this panel has recommended (for purely political reasons), and will fall back on the excuse that "the Baker Commission recommended it" to mute any opposition that arises.
All "progressive" candidates in '08 will be forced to join in the mantra "And will fully implement ALL of the recommendations of the ISG"...
and there will, of course, be a liberal-led road-show with Gorelick and BenVeniste wannabees and maybe even a Jersey Girls cheerleading pack (Single dem moms of casualties?) to explain why we need to kick out more republicans. It worked with the 9/11 comission to a degree.
It failed to elect J-F'ing K but it did move the 50-yard line on 9/11 to a BS location where we have forgotten the real problem when our armed forces HQ (pentagon), commercial HQ (WTC), and likely our seat of gobmint (WH or Capital hill target) were attacked by enemies expecting our imminent collapse. Expect CNN to be talking about this with HilloBama.
As Margaret Thatcher said, "Consensus is the absence of leadership".
Exactly..... She said it so much better than me.
They arent the only ones. Last night Charlie Gibson led the ABC World News with a gushing statement that the "Last, Best Hope for Iraq" was released. Sorta sounds like rather than reporting the facts, he's weighing in with an opinion there, isnt he? And if Bush doesnt follow orders, he personally killed our "last, best chance".
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.