Whatever small chance the Iraqi people had that the United States wouldn’t abandon them to the tender mercies of al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs who are wandering the country drilling holes in their victim’s heads is disappearing as fast as you can say the word “bi-partisanship:”
The Bush administration and the new Democratic leadership in Congress are looking for the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to provide realistic recommendations and political protection against criticism if the U.S. military mission falls short of original expectations.The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
I wrote this all the way back in September about the Iraq Study Group:
In other words, no “cut and run†but rather the slow, inexorable drawdown of US forces whose exit will not so much reflect the ability of the Iraqi government to defend itself from internal enemies but rather how the pull out will be perceived by the rest of the world – including how it will play domestically.Cut and run – even if it’s done slowly – is still cut and run.
The immorality of this strategy is shocking in its implications. The foreign policy elites have apparently decided that the war is unwinnable but that it would harm American interests if we simply up and left. Therefore, they are going to ask young American men and women to risk their lives not for victory, but…for what? To save face? To keep politicians from looking bad? To fool the American people?
In fact, any exit from Iraq that doesn’t leave a stable government capable of maintaining a modicum of peace on the streets would be seen by the entire world as a crushing defeat for the United States. How we get there by “extricating†ourselves is a fairy tale I’m dying to hear.
Hinderaker at Powerline has it just about right:
Iraq “cannot be stabilized”? That strikes me as a ridiculous statement. One can legitimately ask whether Iraq can be stabilized at acceptable political, military or financial cost. But that would require some hard analysis of what the stakes are and what those costs may be. Notwithstanding the results of Tuesday’s election, I think the American people are adult enough for such a discussion.
The key to the “Baker Plan” will be to engage Iran and Syria and coax them into stopping their support for al-Qaeda and the insurgents. The mullahs are having a good laugh at that one. I’m sure they’ll be impressed by our entreaties to halt their nuclear program given our demonstrated resolve to keep our word to the Iraqi people. And Baby Assad is rubbing his hands together in anticipation at what goodies he can extract from the American dupes who show up on his doorstep, hat in hand, begging him to pull our chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq.
I have been in favor of engaging both Iran and Syria in diplomacy – but with Iraq as an ancillary issue. I would have thought that the fate of the Iraqi people and government was not a matter open to negotiation.
Welcome to the new world of “real” politik.
Negotiating with Syria especially opens up intriguing possibilities. Driving a wedge between Assad and the Iranians (if it were possible without sacrificing Israeli security) would isolate Iran and perhaps even improve the prospects for an Israeli-Syrian dialogue. Hinderaker correctly points out that pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights in some kind of scheme to entice Assad to halt his support for Iraqi insurgents would be stupid. But John fails to note that the Golan has lost some of its strategic value to Israel. Those rockets from Hezbollah flew over the Golan Heights during the war. Occupation of the Golan is no longer a guarantee against Israel being attacked from that quarter and if other security guarantees could be given to Israel regarding the Heights, it may be possible for the US to act as an honest broker in negotiations that would lead to their return to Syria.
In that context, both Syria and Israel would benefit and we would have Assad’s help in tamping down violence in Iraq. And there wouldn’t be a thing the mullahs in Iran could do about it.
As for Ahmadinejad and his nukes, direct negotiations are inevitable. Get used to the idea. The diplomatic dance – fruitless as it almost assuredly will be – is a rite of foreign policy elites the world over. The fact that nothing will be accomplished isn’t the point. It is the dance itself for its own sake that will engage the interest of the self deluded peacemakers who will talk and talk until there’s nothing left to talk about. And then we’ll find ourselves in exactly the same place we are today – will it be war with Iran or do we acquiesce and resign ourselves to them having nuclear weapons?
But to leave the nuclear issue to the side and beg the Iranians for help with Iraq will elicit a few giggles from the humorless fanatics in Tehran. They are bleeding their mortal enemy of blood and treasure. Why in God’s name should they stop? They have sworn to destroy us dozens of times since the revolution of 1979. Are we to suddenly believe that we can engage them in dialogue on Iraq toward the ends we desire when the whole ball of wax will probably fall into their lap anyway?
The Iranians don’t only want us defeated. They want the US humiliated. Any negotiations with the mullahs will be long, drawn out, and designed to show the world how powerless we are to affect events in the region. In the meantime, our soldiers will continue to die, the Iraqi government will continue to dither, and the body count of civilians will spiral upwards.
Phased withdrawal my ass. If we have decided to bug out, let’s leave as quickly as possible. If victory is not to be had at any price then it is immoral to keep our men and women in harms way simply to appease domestic sensibilities. Yes Iraq will devolve into madness and chaos. We can deal with that situation in the context of the War on Terror. Asking someone to put their life on the line for no reason save assuaging the consciences of politicians is stupid.
If we’re not going to stay until the situation is stabilized leave now. Leave as quickly as we went in. The Saudis, the Iranians and the Syrians all helped sow the wind. Now let them reap the whirlwind.
6:39 pm
The US might have negotiated with Syria or Iran from a position of strength, but I see no benefit from trying now with the increased violence in Bagdad. I hold out no hope for wisdom from the study group if the big suggestion is to talk to Iran and Syria and to pressure the Iraqi government. The US and the Iraqis have and are talking to the rest of the neighbors, and the Iraqis are talking with Iran although it is not reported to the degree that the violence is. I oppose a staged exit or a withdrawl to the fringe. Our troops will be in more danger by either act. It will be necessary to see what course the US chooses now that the State Department is in charge. It is unfortunate the other departments of the government have been so absent in Iraq, and so much responsibility has fallen to our troops.
8:15 pm
Democrats Plan Cut And Run For Iraq
cartoon by Cagle
It shouldn’t come as much surprise to anyone. The Democrats seem to think this is what the American people voted them in for. This is the cowardly new direction America is headed for. The New York Times is excited, and whi…
8:16 pm
[...] He also wants a regional conference involving Syria and, presumably, Iran. And you know what? He just might get one. Says Moran: The Iranians don’t only want us defeated. They want the US humiliated. Any negotiations with the mullahs will be long, drawn out, and designed to show the world how powerless we are to affect events in the region. In the meantime, our soldiers will continue to die, the Iraqi government will continue to dither, and the body count of civilians will spiral upwards. [...]
8:41 pm
Israel should not be pressured to sacrifice its security interests by the US or its allies because the US and its coalition allies made errors in their foreign policy. Israel had nothing to do with the Iraq war. It would be unethical to pressure them to give up the Golan Heights or anything else to save the interests of the US, Britian, or any other member of the coaliton who invaded Iraq.
9:45 pm
Negotiating directly with Iran is a marginal step up from doing nothing, only in a domestic and international PR sense. Simply, we’ll look better in the eyes of some f we talk (for support, cf: North Korea). Substantively, talking equals doing nothing, since we have few carrots or sticks with which to negotiate. On the stick side, we’re not going to use preemptive military or quasi action (embargo) against Iran. We already boycotted trade; Iran has sufficient trading partners in China, India and the EU. On the carrot side, we have little to offer.
As for Bush blame, our Iraq incursion had one significant consequence in this calculus- we removed Saddam, Iran’s foremost regional enemy. Because our occupation has been unsuccessful, Iran’s status has grown. But Bush didn’t fuel Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran would’ve pursued nukes regardless.
9:56 pm
As for bugging out of Iraq, Dave Schuler puts it very well:
“I think that the Republicans and most Americans would just like Iraq to go away…. Unfortunately, even if our forces currently in Iraq go away, our interests in the region won’t. That brings us full circle to our oil dependence on the region, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and our ally, Israel. Mr. Bush is irrelevant to much of this- our next president will face daunting problems.
2:01 am
Iraq is just such a mess right now. Im not sure whats the best answer and i dont think anyone including our Government knows what to do. Bush is taking the right approach by wanting to try other things. I think it all boils down to Almaliki. I think that Iran is pulling the puppet strings of those Shia militas and AlSadr wants to have a Hezbollah type thing in Iraq and hes got the prime minister scared because there is so much influence in the parliment from AlSadr. You cant make people fight for thier freedom. At some point you gotta tell them “Look if you want this you gotta fight but were not gonna spill our blood for you any longer”
9:41 am
Pelosi backs Murtha for House Majority Leader
Playing the absolute moral authority card. Via the WaPo:
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) yesterday as the next House majority leader, thereby stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha a…
9:58 am
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
12:33 pm
I’m pretty sure that the whole ‘head drilling’ thing is simply an ‘advanced interrogation technique’ used to extract vital information from suspected bad guys. Sounds like these guys are on board with the Military Commissions Act, and that should be good news for all of us. I really don’t see the problem here.
12:54 pm
Murtha has a distinguished record of advocating surrender. He made his first tentative moves as a leader in the Tactics of Defeat when (by his own admission) he recommended to President Ronald Reagan that he withdraw from Lebanon following the terrorist bombing of the Marine base on October 23, 1983. In spite of the fact that the mission in Lebanon was largely succeeding, pressure from Congress and “courageous†veterans like Jack Murtha, finally convinced President Reagan to “change course†by pulling the marines out of Lebanon.
Murtha solidified his credentials as the King of Surrender when (again by his own admission) he became instrumental in President Clinton’s decision to “change course†in Somalia. You remember Somalia, don’t you? Operation Restore Hope, initiated by President Bush (41), sent 25.000 troops to Somalia to help provide humanitarian relief to the people. The mission was largely successful and is credited with having saved the lives of half a million Somalis and reducing the ongoing civil war to a small series of skirmishes. Under President Clinton, with the advice of Defense Secretary Les Aspin and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, the largely U.S. mission in Somalia was turned over to the U.N. Thereafter, incompetence became the word of the day, eventually culminating in the “Black Hawk Down†incident in October of 1993. President Clinton, heeding the gravely mistaken advice of the Mighty Jack Murtha to, in the words of Monty Python, “Run away! Run away,†began to withdraw the troops from Somalia. His “uncanny comprehension†of military strategy led him to make this recommendation, thereby leaving the way clear for Al Qaeda to begin consolidation operations. Murtha’s recommendation could, therefore, be called one of the most critical factors in the 9/11 attacks. Thanks, Jack, you’re a real hero.
Is this really the guy you want telling us how to win the war in Iraq? Murtha has no plan. He has no idea how to conduct a war. He has nothing to offer but fear and failure – and that’s why Pelosi wants him as House Majority Leader.
Lebanon. Somalia. And now Iraq. Truly Murtha is the King of Surrender.
1:47 pm
Monday Lunch-time Stuff
Kaminer on the academic disease of intolerance and the new authoritarianism. One quote:Kaminer’s description of a free university, where challenging and even confrontational ideas are batted between and among teachers and students, sounds very appealing
2:07 pm
Pelosi Backs Murtha for Majority Leader
The future Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is endorsing The Saboteur John Murtha for House Majority Leader.
As a Republic (not a democracy) we have the privilege to vote for and elect our representative government. Unlike some previous electio…
3:23 pm
Look at a map. Hezbollah wasn’t firing over the Golan which is largely to the east of Lebanon. It was firing accross the border with no buffer.
3:31 pm
You are correct. I re-read the Haaretz editorial that stated this and what they were actually saying was that the longer range missiles of Hizbollah fired from the Bekka would fly over the Heights.
8:09 pm
Grand albergo sole in palermo.
Grande albergo sole palermo italy.