Posted on 12/10/2006 2:22:58 AM PST by goldstategop
Well, the ISG -- the Illustrious Seniors' Group -- has released its 79-point plan. How unprecedented is it? Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah. But, alas, such flashes of originality are few and far between in what's otherwise a testament to conventional wisdom. How conventional is the ISG's conventional wisdom? Try page 49:
"RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria . . ."
Er, OK. I suppose that's what you famously hardheaded "realists" mean by realism. But wait, we're not done yet. For this "Support Group," we need the extra-large function room. Aside from Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, the ISG -- the Iraq Surrender Gran'pas -- want also to invite:
". . . the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States . . ."
Er, OK. So it's basically an Arab League meeting. Not a "Support Group" I'd want to look for support from, but each to his own. But wait, Secretary Baker's still warming up:
". . . the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council . . ."
That would be America, Britain, France, Russia, China. A diverse quintet, representing many distinctive approaches to international affairs from stylish hauteur to polonium-210. Anybody else?
". . . the European Union . . ."
Hey, why not? It's not really multilateral unless there's a Belgian on board, right? Oh, and let's not forget:
". . . the Support Group should call on the participation of the United Nations Secretary-General in its work. The United Nations Secretary-General should designate a Special Envoy as his representative . . ."
Indeed. But it needs to be someone with real clout, like Benon Sevan, the former head of the Oil for Food Program, who recently, ah, stepped down; or Maurice Strong, the Under-Secretary-General for U.N. Reform and godfather of Kyoto, who for one reason or another is presently on a, shall we say, leave of absence; or Alexander Yakovlev, the senior procurement officer for U.N. peacekeeping, who also finds himself under indictment -- er, I mean under-employed. There's no end of top-class talent at the U.N., now that John Bolton's been expelled from its precincts.
So there you have it: an Iraq "Support Group" that brings together the Arab League, the European Union, Iran, Russia, China and the U.N. And with support like that who needs lack of support? It worked in Darfur, where the international community reached unanimous agreement on the urgent need to rent a zeppelin to fly over the beleaguered region trailing a big banner emblazoned "YOU'RE SCREWED." For Dar4.1, they can just divert it to Baghdad.
Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker's "Support Group," relax, it's a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions -- return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it's in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That's what Hollywood would call "high concept."
Why would anyone -- even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the "Read my lips" pledge -- why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq's future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian "right of return"? And, incidentally, how did that phrase -- "the right of return" -- get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.
And that's before we get to Iran and Syria. So tough-minded and specific when it comes to the Israelis, Baker turns to mush when it comes to Assad assassinating his way through Lebanon's shrinking Christian community or Ahmadinejad and the mullahs painting the finish trim on the Iranian nukes. Syria, declare the Surrender Gran'pas, "should control its border with Iraq." Gee, who'dda thunk o' that other than these geniuses?
Actually, Syria doesn't need to "control its border with Iraq." Iraq needs to control its border with Syria. And, as long as the traffic's all one way (because Syria's been allowed to subvert Iraq with impunity for three years), that suits Assad just fine. The Surrender Gran'pas assert that Iran and Syria have "an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq." This, to put it mildly, is news to the Iranians and Syrians, who have concluded that what's in their interest is much more chaos in Iraq. For a start, the Americans get blamed for it, which reduces America's influence in the broader Middle East, not least among Iran and Syria's opposition movements. Furthermore, the fact that they're known to be fomenting the chaos gives the mullahs, Assad and their proxies tremendous credibility in the rest of the Muslim world. James Baker has achieved the perfect reductio ad absurdum of diplomatic self-adulation: he's less rational than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
If they're lucky, this document will be tossed in the trash and these men and women will be the laughingstocks of posterity. But, if it's not shredded and we embark down this path, then the Baker group will be emblematic of something far worse. The "Support Group" is a "peace conference," and Baker wants Washington to sue for terms. No wonder Syria is already demanding concessions from America. Which is the superpower and which is the third-rate basket-case state? From the Middle Eastern and European press coverage of the Baker group, it's kinda hard to tell.
At least this is a great compilation of how not to deal with the situation.
Steyn nails it again...
Bwahahahahahaha.
The tragic thing is this report gets credence in the media and the Congress (and the WH- the President was respectful to it, when we knew what was coming even before it was released). Great article. The tragedy is the US (State Dept blah blah blah) will strongly suggest Israel give up more peace. Bush is the best friend of Israel compared to other Presidents, but Condi says some disturbing things. I wish someone other than Olmert were in charge in Israel.
I'm confused! Are there 79 points to this report or is 79 the average age of the group that produced the report?
ISG = Inane Self-Gratification = Mental Masturbation
So there you have it: an Iraq "Support Group" that brings together the Arab League, the European Union, Iran, Russia, China and the U.N. And with support like that who needs lack of support?How can it possibly fail? The "Support Group" thus constituted would have two distinct classes of members: a) those with a history of committing mass murder and b) those with a history of enabling, apologizing for or turning a blind eye towards mass murder.
Who wouldn't want to be supported by a group like that?
I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.I assume it, and have for a long time. Baker is a bought-and-sold Saudi agent (though he's probably too brick-stupid to be able to face that fact to himself). I don't know what motivates the other senility-prone nitwits in the "group", other than plain garden-variety treason-for-the-sake-of-trendiness, but I have a very strong opinion that Bush I and his cadaver clique have long been motivated by their strong links to the House of Saud.
"Only in Washington would you still behave like its 1947 and make sure the "f*cking Jews" were kept out of the corridors of power."
and from the context of the study report... baker states ....the whole iraq problem is the fault of the "f*cking Jews"...if they give up the golan heights...everything will over there will be just peachy...
baker has become another antisemetic a-hole...the likes of which are exemplified by the worst president in US history...jimmah carter!!!!
If there's any justice in the universe at all, that somewhere is Hell.
Only in Washington DC would you form a Congressional Commission and include not a single retired military officerIt would be like forming a commission to study some big city high-crime problem and include only defense lawyers and paroled prisoners.
I wish someone other than Olmert were in charge in Israel.The Israeli's would be smart to read the handwriting-on-the-wall that the ISG represents and dump their own Mr. Appeaser and put a Leader back in charge.
Great Toon. But actually, Steyn said on the O'Reilly show that this report isn't exactly Cut And Run, it's more like Chat And Run.
I am.
but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.
Spot on. Baker is a coward, among other things.
The media really does not seem interested at all in asking if Mr. Baker might be biased or influenced. They haven't the slightest curiosity about Baker and his Saudi friends.
Just remember this. It's only politicians who have to report receiving money from foreign nationals. Members of the media and more importantly those who own those media outlets are under no such legal requirements.
Plus if the dunderheads 'working' in the Legacy Media made too much noise about the Saudi connection they'd lose their all important 'access'.
Think CNN and their absolutely criminal defense of Husseins regime in order to 'protect' their Baghdad Bureau.
L
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.