Posted on 12/07/2006 7:24:19 AM PST by Tirian
I guess I missed the whole point of the Baker Commission. My bad. As Tony Snow summarized the Group’s mission, “The one thing that they thought was absolutely important (was) to rebuild a sense of national unity. And that (was) their overriding objective.” Assuming the Report accomplished this critical goal, I guess we can all feel better about ourselves – as we march, united, into catastrophe.
Yesterday, the self-esteem movement reached its zenith. A nation and a government, eager to feel better about themselves, rounded up a passel of political has-beens to offer policy prescriptions that we could all support. And, other than the brain-dead nature of its policy prescriptions, what’s there not to love about the Iraq Study Group’s report? It’s the foreign policy equivalent of “a chicken in every pot.”
Once the Commission’s 79 recommendations are implemented, Iraq will have a stable, popular and peaceful government. Iran and Syria will have become partners for peace having learned that they are vital stakeholders in the Iraq venture and that we recognize their importance. America’s boys will train their Iraqi successors and then come home. As if this weren’t enough, with the spare time on its hands the Baker Commission swerved outside its lane but only to also solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. All in all, not bad for 110 sparsely–worded double-spaced pages.
SOME PEOPLE REALLY DO THINK THAT ACHIEVING a domestic consensus is the most important thing going forward. It truly is dismaying that such obtuseness has gained traction. The following is important, so I’m going to type it slowly and in virtual crayon for the confused people who might have stumbled over here: The proper order of things is to determine good policy and then build a consensus around it, not to choose a popular policy regardless of its efficacy.
The problem is, people selling the proper policies like Rick Santorum are at a disadvantage. The Baker Commission is selling good times, the people telling the truth are selling bad times. The purveyors of good times will always have more buyers.
But just because the Commission will be popular (as exhibited by this glowing New York Times editorial) doesn’t mean it’s right or good or wise. In the 1930’s, England based its foreign and domestic policies on the premise that Adolf Hitler could be a partner in peace. Even as the decade dragged on and Hitler’s savagery became ever more manifest, the Western European powers denied the obvious.
And their governments were popular for doing so. When Neville Chamberlain returned from the Munich Conference having thrown Czechoslovakia under the Nazi bus to maintain peace, he received a hero’s welcome. So convinced was England of Hitler’s benign nature, the country didn’t even use the year’s breathing space between Munich and the cataclysm of 1939 to rearm. To do so would have given the lie to a decade’s worth of immoral and gutless policy making.
This isn’t 1938 though - The Baker Commission is uniquely a creature of our times. What other era could produce an endeavor whose sole purpose is to develop policy not with regard to how effective it will be but with the goal of uniting us behind it, be it wrong or right? What other era could be so capable of such an over-arching, supreme and self-destructive narcissism?
Now our nation must turn its lonely eyes to President Bush. He can embrace the Report and win plaudits from the New York Times editorial board. Who knows? Maybe his approval ratings can once again approach 50%. He can unite us. Of course, he’ll unite us behind a series of policy prescriptions that will lead to disaster, but that worked for Clinton. Sort of.
Or the President can at last engage in a long overdue moment of honesty with his countrymen and then follow his rhetoric with appropriate action. He can say that Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, even though we’ve yet to deign to fight back. He can say that Iran’s proxies and clients like Hezbollah and Syria have no interest in peaceful co-existence with us or any other Western-style powers. He can cay that the only way through this is to defeat the enemy, not delude ourselves with a false sense of security while we celebrate fraudulent diplomatic triumphs.
He can tell us that there are hard days ahead, but not for any of the reasons that noted consensus-builder Lee Hamilton acknowledges. And he can use the last two years of his time in office getting the military and the country ready for the challenges that can’t be avoided.
Or he can sign on to the feel-good consensus that the Iraq Study Group prescribes. And we can join hands at last, wingnut and moonbat alike, as we stroll happily off into the sunset. And the abyss.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
Now our nation must turn its lonely eyes to President Bush. He can embrace the Report and win plaudits from the New York Times editorial board. Who knows? Maybe his approval ratings can once again approach 50%. He can unite us. Of course, he’ll unite us behind a series of policy prescriptions that will lead to disaster, but that worked for Clinton. Sort of.
Or the President can at last engage in a long overdue moment of honesty with his countrymen and then follow his rhetoric with appropriate action. He can say that Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, even though we’ve yet to deign to fight back. He can say that Iran’s proxies and clients like Hezbollah and Syria have no interest in peaceful co-existence with us or any other Western-style powers. He can cay that the only way through this is to defeat the enemy, not delude ourselves with a false sense of security while we celebrate fraudulent diplomatic triumphs.
He can tell us that there are hard days ahead, but not for any of the reasons that noted consensus-builder Lee Hamilton acknowledges. And he can use the last two years of his time in office getting the military and the country ready for the challenges that can’t be avoided.
Or he can sign on to the feel-good consensus that the Iraq Study Group prescribes. And we can join hands at last, wingnut and moonbat alike, as we stroll happily off into the sunset. And the abyss.
"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
I think you have the wrong link for this piece.
Try this one....
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/680567ea-d0fb-4bef-8b00-7aee98e1a116
I don't believe the ISG has snything to do with the war on terror.
It is meant to appease the screaming rats who will do anything to bash Bush and regain power.
If it is so important to "bring the troops home" then why are they not screaming about the troops still in Bosnia, Germany, South Korea, or any other place where troops are protecting our freedom?
Clinton PROMISED to have the troops home by Christmas of 1996.
The rats have said nothing about that and Bosnia poses no threat to our security.
For us to have the all important "unity" then we must wage war against the rats here who have obstructed every attempt to fight the war on terror which is a very serious threat.
The rats are the enemy to be pacified so we can get on with the important work of securing our freedom against the islamic war machine.
Imagine where we would be today if the rats acted maturely and supported the war on terror with it's current battle front in Iraq from the beginning and put aside partisan politics.
We would probably have seen far greater success in Iraq and other aspects of the war.
The terrorists know that if they just keep killing people it will further divide us and give them the upper hand.
The rats are promoting killing innocent people so they can say what a failure Bush is.
Future historians will, I hope, read this period in our history accurately and put the blame for prolonging the WOT on the rats in the same way the Viet Nam war had such a disastrous bloody "conclusion".
If we lose this war because of the rats things will get exponentially worse for a long time to come.
But the rats don't care about that they only want to get back in power whether or not it is on the coattails of death and destruction.
Because our troops in Iraq are dying every day.
As the man says in Princess Bride, "We are men of action. Lies do not become us." We should not delude ourselves about what will happen, but continue shouting to the rooftops about the threat we face, and wait for Churchill, and his moment, to arrive. Sadly, it won't arrive until the enemy has announced its intentions through death and destruction, and is much stronger.
The war would have been over in 2004 or 2005 had the rats been with us, united for victory. Their wailing gave our enemy a strategy for success (kill Americans when you can, and if you can't get at them, kill civilians and cause a lot of smoke)and the hope of eventual victory to get them through the dark days of defeat on the battlefield and in the hearts of ordinary Iraqis.
Had the Republicans made that the criteria for our involvement in Bosnia the same would have happened. The enemy would have targeted our troops.
That's my point. The terrorists know they can divide us by killing troops not for any battlefield gain but for political gain here.
Probably the only way that divide will ever be bridged will be when a major American city disappears into a radioactive mushroom cloud. And even then, there will be leftist hand-wringers counseling "restraint" in planning the response to such an event.
I'm very afraid that America as it is currently constituted will cease to exist before the middle of this century. If patriots can't muster the will the defeat the leftist enemy within as well as the Islamist/Socialist/Communist/Fascist enemy without, then we're doomed.
This reminds me of what my former boss, the Democratic mayor of a city in southern Ohio and a true idiot, said to me back in 1991 when Clinton got elected: "Rick, isn't it wonderful? It seems like America is in love with itself again!"
Its like being in the Twilight Zone...
Nobody talks about the solution to the Iraq problem...
IRAN AND SYRIA FIGHTING A PROXY WAR IN IRAQ!
Bush will not do anything about it!
This is the type of policy you get when you live in a self-centered dumbed down culture. "Good feelings" never saved a life, only honest assessment and action.
Minor niggle - this part isn't entirely true. One of Chamberlain's stated aims (privately) in shafting Czechoslovakia was to give time for British rearmament to complete in the event of general war. Cynical and craven, but true. In 1937-1939 Britain had massive military spend compared to earlier years.
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.