"Ah'm a loozah, baby - Yeah!"
Posted on 12/14/2006 1:06:34 AM PST by goldstategop
For the past week, former US Secretary Of State James Baker has defended his Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the US negotiate with Iran and Syria from myriad criticisms. While acknowledging that Iran and Syria may not respond positively to US attempts to appease them, Baker said that even rejection will be helpful. If they refuse an American hand extended in partnership then they will stand exposed as enemies, he promises grandly. But exposed to whom? Who is supposed to care if Iran and Syria are unmasked? They already are unmasked.
Everyone knows that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that Iran and Syria are the primary engines of the insurgency in Iraq. Everyone knows that they instigated and commanded Hizbullah's war against Israel this summer and continue to arm Hizbullah and prepare for the next round of fighting. Everyone knows that like Hizbullah, the Palestinians today act as Iranian proxies.
Everyone knows that Syria engineered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 and the murder of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel last month. And everyone knows that Iran and Syria are currently working to overthrow the pro-Western, democratic government of Lebanon.
And everybody knows that everybody knows. The problem isn't whether people know. The problem is that the Europeans, the UN, the Russians, Chinese and the Arabs either do not care or wish them well in their endeavors.
The so-called international community knows that appeasement will not work with Iran and Syria. And it also knows that since it doesn't wish to take action against either Iran or Syria, its members will oppose the US and Israel in their attempts to combat them while pretending that they don't know that Iran and Syria are aggressors and threats to international security.
Unfortunately, Baker is not the only one who supports embracing delusion over reality in as a foundation for policymaking. The Bush administration also supports making believe that the world is not as it is. For the past three years, the Bush administration has abdicated responsibility for contending with Iran's nuclear program to the UN and its subordinate bodies. Administration officials have justified the move by saying that if the UN refuses to take action, it will prove itself irrelevant and so pave the way for the US to strike out on its own and contend with Iran's nuclear program.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same experiment and expecting to receive different results. In the months before the US-led Coalition deposed to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in 2003, the US tried this exercise with the UN and it failed - twice. Not only did the UN refuse to act, for the past three years the UN has done everything in its power to undermine US efforts to bring democracy and security to Iraq. Far from becoming irrelevant, the UN has made itself relevant as a major adversary of the US in Iraq.
There are two possible explanations for policymakers preferring to base their policies on delusion and wishful thinking rather than reality. The first is cynicism. By maintaining that the failure of a misguided policy will be blamed on the other side, Baker and the Bush administration seek to block debate on the wisdom of the actual policy by making the wisdom seem unimportant.
The second explanation is naivete bordering on stupidity. Although it is difficult to imagine that Baker is acting from innocence, it may explain the Bush administration's decision to empower the UN to hold America's policy on Iran captive to the vagaries of the Security Council.
Unfortunately, the embrace of fantasy is not a neurosis unique to American policymakers. Ahead of his visit to Rome this week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed willingness to consider agreeing to Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi's offer to deploy European troops to Gaza. As Olmert put it in an interview with Italian television, "If Italy is willing to allow its army to fight on a daily basis against terrorist activities by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups that operate in the Strip that could be interesting news. I would be willing to contemplate that." Olmert's willingness to contemplate the deployment of European forces in Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria is as bizarre as the Baker team's recommendation that the US negotiate with Syria and Iran. Unless Olmert has been asleep for the past 12 years, he knows the Italians and their European colleagues will never fight Israel's enemies.
Since 1994, Europeans have been deployed in Hebron in the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. Throughout that period, the TIPH has either done nothing or worked to delegitimize and undermine Israel's right and ability to defend itself.
In Gaza, European forces have been deployed at the international terminal at Rafah joining Egypt with Gaza since November 2005. Those forces have refused to lift a finger to prevent or even to protest the massive, illicit inundation of Gaza with Iranian weaponry transiting through Egypt. In turning a blind eye to the weapons smuggling, the Europeans have facilitated Gaza's transformation into one of the most active bases for global jihad in the world.
Then of course there are the European forces deployed in UNIFIL in Lebanon. While the French have distinguished themselves by daily threatening to shoot down IAF jets, UNIFIL has generally done everything in its power to defend Hizbullah and undermine Israel's national security.
Shortly after the cease-fire came into effect, UNIFIL forced Israel to end its naval blockade of the Lebanese coast and to open Lebanese airspace. This paved the way for Hizbullah's rearmament.
Last month UNIFIL was a key force in coercing the Olmert government to agree to remove IDF forces from the northern half of the village of Ghajar. Ghajar, with its unfortunate demarcation as half in Israel and half in Lebanon served as Hizbullah's main intelligence base and the epicenter of its drug smuggling operations into Israel until this summer the IDF took over control of the entire town. By making IDF forces leave the northern side of the town, UNIFIL has facilitated Ghajar's reversion to its previous status. Finally, UNIFIL has turned a blind eye to Hizbullah's reassertion of control over the border towns in southern Lebanon.
And now Olmert is ready to discuss allowing European forces to deploy in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
In light of Europe's ferocious hostility towards Israel that has become full blown since the outbreak of the Palestinian jihad in 2000, it is all but impossible for an Israeli leader to be naive about Europe's position. Indeed, at this juncture, naivete becomes a mere synonym for stupidity.
So is Olmert cynical or stupid? Olmert's address to high school students last week in Nahariya where he justified his decision to accept a cease-fire in Lebanon without first securing the release of IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser from Hizbullah captivity was a sign that he may be stupid. Olmert told the students that he accepted a cease-fire because he didn't want other soldiers to die just to get them home a little faster. They can wait a little longer, he said.
As the reservist brigade and battalion commanders noted in their reaction to his speech, Olmert displayed a shocking lack of moral fiber and honor in that statement. Indeed it was so detached from even the lowest standards for leadership that it bordered on idiocy.
But then, there is something deeply cynical in his insistence on publicly portraying UNIFIL as a positive force in the region and in acting as though Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and his European colleagues are friends of Israel. By so doing, Olmert, echoing Baker, seeks to deflect criticism and stifle debate about his failure to defend Israel either militarily or diplomatically from the tightening circle of hostility bearing down on it.
The basic fact that is missed by Baker, the Bush administration, and Olmert in their repeated attempts to make leopards change their spots is that no one ever built support for his own agenda by advocating the agenda of his adversaries. If the Americans aren't willing to make the case for defeating Iran and Syria, no one will make it for them regardless of how self-evident that case is. So too, if Olmert wants the Europeans to face up to the fact of Palestinian aggression, barbarism and corruption, he won't be able to do so by rewarding their refusal to acknowledge it.
The world we inhabit becomes more dangerous by the day. The time has long passed when we could afford to embrace wishful thinking as a substitute for reality-based policies.
"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
"Ah'm a loozah, baby - Yeah!"
Baker should get together with Carter. Their roadshow could be called: Cadavers United Against Jews.
what a good one ..... "Cadavers United Against Jews."
ever notice that these so-called statesmen when push comes to shove and they cannot come up with anything of relevance...always then parrots the rantings of symphia mckinney's daddy.....its the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS fault!!!!
Too much of the left, and lately too many people in general, believe that all problems can be solved by talk, that violence is never an option, that "diplomacy" can solve everything, that when talks fail, the solution is a new framework for more talks. Such thinking will get us killed and the terrorists will mock our remains by dancing on our graves, if they even bother to bury us.
Who is everyone? Doesn't everyone know that Saudi Arabia has significant influence over Hamas? Does everyone know that most Palestinians are Sunni muslims, so they probably are not acting as proxies for Iran. This author cannot even get the basic facts right and it makes inaccurate claims with an arrogant, know-it-all, attitude.
The moment we move against Iran the cells in this country will be loosed upon us ,I believe the Bush Administration knows this as well as the disruption of oil supplies to the world and total war in the mideast.
I realize most people say so what ,at least let everyone know and then get it on because the confrontation is inevitable
The domestic political situation, already bad, will be incalculably worse in 2008.
I'm hoping against hope that the delay in Bush's speech is because he's getting ready to finish all the family business at once.
But I'm not optimistic.
Remember that with Nazi armies rolling into Belgium, and Rotterdam under air attack, the Conservative Party and the King still wanted Halifax.
Appeasement never dies - it has to be killed.
I think it is too soon to move against Iran. Their nuke program is not that far along, and a war would certainly disrupt the world economy. Iran's intel services and the terrorists they support are all over the world, including in America. We could obviously defeat Iran if we wanted to, but it is not worth it at this time. Iran is not like Al Qaeda because they still have the goals typical of a nation-state, while Al Qaeda has no interests other than terrorism.
A peaceful Superpower cannot go around premptively destroying countries and killing civilians...even civilians shown to be gathering around shouting "Death to America".
Now, with the real possibility of Hillary Clinton and friends running the show in 2008, the murder and mayhem conducted by the Islamics will be ratcheted up.
I fear for my country. Events have overtaken us...starting with a Lame Duck administration and a MSM that trumpets its 'failures'.
Caroline Glick ping! Ah, like a splash of freezing cold water when you are dozing off...
perhaps you should re-read what the author actually said in terms of hizbullah and lebanon... not saudi arabia and the palestinians...
she makes good sense... you... i am not too sure about.
teeman
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Ping!
Iran is reported to be hosting many personnel who are al Qaeda, including at least one of bin Laden's sons. Iran is a nation state that is a state sponsor of terror, and I'm sure we'd agree that from its takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, to its longstanding support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, who killed 200 plus US Marines, to its support for an attack on Jews in Argentina, to its support for terrorists who kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq it's been a terror state. So the difference between al Qaeda and Iran's mad mullah theocracy, it seems to me, is more academic than significant in any meaningful way.
She did some great reporting as an embedded reporter early in the Iraq war.
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.