I already said pretty much all I have to say about the idiotic Baker-Hamilton commission before they even released their idiotic report…  and my opinion of their idiocy hasn’t really changed.  The only thing that has really changed is how…

You are quite right. The trends you mention are headed downward. If America is to have a constructive role in improving any of these things, we will need to be begin by establsihing a secure environment. This would have to begin with committing significantly more troops. We can do it, if we had the national will. The notion that we cannot do it is simply an excuese to not do something that is difficult. While our Iraq polices are a failure to date, this can be turned around. It will need the appropiate course corrections and the appropiate commitment on the part of the American government and the American people. Nations and people have faced tougher challenges in the past than America faces in Iraq and they managed to emerge victorious.

Rick

I think your notion that the ISG report sucks is spot on. Our terrorist enemies are extrenely pleased with this report. The Kurds are unhappy with this report. The Kurds are our second most important ally in the Middle East. The terrorist pose the greatest threat to the US in the Middle East. Great nations and great civilations do not remain great for very long by trying to appease their enemies while simultaneously squeezing their friends.

I think the most ridiculous suggestion of all is to have a regional conference and not even invite Israel, our most important ally. They seem to think that some how pressuring Israel to give up the Golan Heights will get Syria to help us. The bottom line is, to date, America has horribly botched its Iraq policy. Israel had no say in America’s decision to invade Iraq and Israel had no role in planning the invasion or its aftermath. It would be unethical to punish Israel for mistakes made by American leaders. To top this off, Syria is not even interested in helping us.

A better message to send to Iran and Syria would be if you do not stop aiding and abetting the Iraqi “insurgency” you will receive the same treatment from the American military that was delivered to Dresden, Germany during WWII.

* Is it easier for Iraqis to go and buy things in the stores than it was two years ago?

* Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was two years ago?

* Do you feel that Iraqi security is as safe as it was two years ago?

* Is America as respected in Iraq as it was two years ago?

With the possible exception of a marginally smaller unemployment rate (it’s tough to get much worse than the estimated 50% unemployment rate from 2004) every Reagan inspired benchmark trends downward. Bush’s plan is an utter and complete failure.

Okay, WTF?

Try putting those benchmarks back THREE years, then see what you’ve got.

A massive refugee crisis is of no concern to Iran or Syria. After an American withdrawl, they will deal ruthlessly and efficently with a “refugee” or anyone else who gives them any trouble. They will crush the problem with the use of massive and decisive military force. They will not worry about “collateral damage” the way Americans do. They will not do any soul searching over how many innocent bystanders they kill. They will act proactively to deal with any threat to their hegemony and it will be done with extreme force. In other words, they will do what the Americans should have done when they invaded Iraq. We should have commited overwhelming force and we should have used it decisively. We did not commit enough troops and the ones we commited have not been used decisively enough. The msm and their supporters assume the problem is we used to much force. They are incorrect. The problem is we did not use enough force.

The enemy we face today is far more dangerous than the ones we faced during WWII. We should treat it as such. Anyone who thinks Iran or Syria will assist us in stabilizing Iraq because they are worried about a refugee crisis is deluding themsleves.

The optimal solution to this threat to the survival of our civilization is to properly define the enemy. The enemy is not “terrorism” or “terror” as the President and others have defined it. Terrorism and terror are merely military methods and they are very effective ones. The actual enemy are those who operate in the name of Islam to try and conquer the world. Right now the primary countries are Iran and Syria. Also any country who aids and abets Iran and Syria will need to be considered an enemy. Instead of declaring war on “terrorism” war should be declared on Iran, Syria, any nation who conducts war against the US in the name of Islam, and any nation who assists those nations.

After we have identified the enemy, the country should be placed on a war footing. This means we will need a draft. The US and its Western allies will probably need to place about 40,000,000 people under arms in order to win the war. Also, equipment, transport, and all other logistics that go with this large force wil be needed. The size and capabilities of the Air Force and the Navy will need to be enhanced significantly. The nuclear arsenal will need to be upgraded. In addition to this, our human intellegence will need to be improved significantly.

Is this tough medicine? Absolutely!! Leaders should be frank enough to explain to the American people the nature and the magnitude of the threat. They should explain that, in the event of failure, the best that can result will be the US loses its place as one of the most influential countries on earth. Also, in the event of failure, the very survival of the US will be very precarious.

Unfortunately we cannot implement the optimal solution right now. Even if we could, I seriously doubt many people would trust either President Bush or British Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead this effort.

Since the politcal will to implement the optimal solution is non existant, policy makers must select poliies that have a chance to work. It seems to me that we should have no problem finding people within Iraq who are opposed to Iran and Al Qaeda. We should identify these groups and militias and work with them to contain and roll back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Part of the strategy used to win the Cold War was containment. Perhaps it can work here. In any event, Iran MUST be contained. America’s influence in the world and probably its very survival depends on containing Iran and its supporters. This policy is somehting we can probably do and if it is properly implemented it has a good chance to work.

To any one who thinks Iran or Syria are going to help us with Iraq because they are worried about a refugee crisis or a failed state on their border, I would very respectfully say, “try again please.”

If this post comes across as being a bit harsh or offensive, please accept my apologies. I simply could not think of another way to state the points. Hopefully with practice I can be more articulate.

And make no mistak the potential is there. The difference is that there are about 3 times more Iraqis than Somalians. With only 10% of Shias on the move that would mean about 1.5 million refugees pouring over their border.

Iran also fears an independent Kurdish state given their own problems with the Kurds on their side of the border.

And let’s differentiate here between talking to Syria and Iran in a regional context where other factors will be at play and bi-lateral talks which I oppose for the reasons that you cite.

In short, it is in the national interest of Syria and Iran to help tamp down the violence and prop up the Iraqi government if we make it clear that we’re leaving.

Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

In light of the evidence that the Iranians have done their damnedest to incite sectarian violence by arming militias and sending Hezbollah trainers and their own agents to Iraq, it’s more likley they’ll feed off the carcase of a dead nation rather than attempt to fill whatever vacuum appears if the US disengages.

I’m aware this comment could very well elicit an acerbic reply, but I really don’t understand where you’re getting this idea from. We know the Iranians have been engaging the United States, Israel and other Western nations by terrorist proxy since the revolution. Iraq as a failed state would give Iran the same thing Iraq as a stable democracy would give the United States: a base from which to operate. Arguably, they already have one in Lebanon, but that’s small potatoes compared to being able to siphon off Iraq’s oil wealth and use it to expand terrorist operations.

Again, Iraq as Afghanistan before 2001 provides Iran with the territory it needs to transform itself into the regional strongman. If one if it’s neighbors has a problem, all Iran will have to do is dispatch a bunch of terrorists to take care of it. Nothing like a few car bombs going off to advance your strategic interests.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention. In the News: (Registration may be required to read some stories)

Dec. 6: Tim Russert, NBC News Washington bureau chief and moderator of “Meet the Press,” talks with