Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Lunatics Run Loose from the Asylum

The policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) reads like the scribble on a sanitarium wall.

“Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.”

Today Iran hosted a conference entitled, “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision”. Holocaust deniers from around the world were invited - including former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke. It was Tehran’s way of spitting in the face of James Baker and the ISG.

In order to show his position of strength, Iranian President Ahmadinejad reiterated his previous call to wipe out Israel. He clearly feels that he can take the goodwill of deluded Westerners for granted. This leaves him free to pursue his political offensive against his declared enemies without having to cater to those who advocate appeasement towards his hard-line theocracy.

Ahmadinejad knows that their condemnations of this conference will be forgotten the next time a Shiite militia dumps the bodies of a dozen Sunni civilians on an Iraqi street corner. The US will be blamed and the appeasers will be right back in his pocket.

Iran does have some influence on events in Iraq. They arm, train and fund Shiite militias which have contributed to the sectarian violence in Baghdad and to a lesser degree have engaged in sporadic attacks against British forces in the relatively peaceful south.

Another good example of Iranian and Syrian influence in unstable countries can be seen in Lebanon. Six pro-Hezbollah ministers resigned from the Lebanese Cabinet and the group has begun large-scale street protests. Hezbollah is seeking to protect pro-Syrian terrorists from the justice of an international tribune that would try suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The protests have the ultimate goal of winning the power of a veto for pro-Syrian parties so that they can stop the tribunal. They want to help Hariri’s murderers run free and commit more attacks against unarmed anti-Syrian activists. This is their vision of democracy.

So the circle is complete, Iran and Syria can now be engaged in constructive dialog as they simultaneously campaign to destabilize their neighbors thru their proxies. I’m sure they are excited to negotiate now that Baker and his fellow outpatients have handed them such a political victory.

In plain language the ISG report recommends abandoning the Iraqi people to sectarian violence, giving Iran nuclear weapons, turning over Lebanon to Hezbollah and wiping out Israel… No, that’s not their intention – it would be the result.

...Does the German Neo-Nazi Party, NPD, still want the Sudetenland? Baker and the Czechoslovakian Study Group will meet to discuss this issue in 2008 after the US completes its Over-the-Horizon withdrawal to Okinawa. This event will be followed up with a timely conference in Iran, “Review of World War II: How the Jews Instigated the Conflict”.


Freedomnow said...

I had to post this one at both blogs, Freedom Now and Curtains.

I couldnt help it...

nanc said...

sometimes i cannot help myself...oh, it's true!

American Crusader said...

As hard as it is to believe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be winning this war of statesmanship.
They are holding a conference mocking the Holocaust and continue to threaten Israel's existence.
And James Baker recommends we engage Iran and Syria?
These two countries have more to gain by continued sectarian violence and instability in Iraq. The MSM and the Pelosi Democrats are playing into his hands and have pretty much handcuffed President Bush. Europe is waffling between appeasement or sanctions with appeasement leading the way.
They don't want to upset Islamic sensibilities..especially with so many living in their countries.
The Iraq Study Group can be summed up in one word...
I see total failure in implementing democracy in Iraq. The war is already lost. The administration is looking for any face saving exit and the sooner the better.
How many American lives lost and families broken for what I think will be for nothing?
Mission accomplished?

Freedomnow said...

This is a game of appearances that the Left excels at, but Bush is a crafty mofo.

He is playing politics and he is doing it well. You will notice that he is successfully deflecting criticism by "listening" to all of the advice that is being offered on Iraq.

Bush has said over and over that he is committed to staying the course. There is no reason to believe otherwise, since it would destroy everything that he has worked for.

Our enemies understand this. That is why they say that the ISG report is just a show. They know that Bush cant afford to retreat, it will be a disaster. And they know that the US military is too strong to be defeated. They are frustrated by this fact, but they are also encouraged by the Western Leftists that support their cause.

When Nixon retreated from Vietnam he secured the peace first. Therefore, South Vietnam didnt collapse. The Iraqi insurgents have no leadership. They are made up of many different unaffiliated cells; Baathists, Al Qaeda and criminal gangs. We have no one to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal with and Bush cant withdraw if he wanted to. The day he withdraws will be the day he has to resign. The violence would spiral into a full-scale war and the bloodshed would dwarf anything imaginable.

Kofi Annan was correct that we are stuck in Iraq. However, that is an advantage that will force us to stay the course. Over the years we will be able to train and implement enough Iraqi troops to replace our men in the field. We will be able to continue air support and training from secure bases that the insurgents will not be able to touch.

As long as we continue this strategy the insurgents will not be able to win, but we will still have the possibility of victory. If we don’t win, a stalemate will ferment that with time will give us the ability to withdraw and leave a sizable Iraqi military in place to continue the fight.

Bush will continue to stand fast in Iraq as long as he is president. I am more worried about the next president...

Anonymous said...


Many of us have lost our can do attitude and that is what makes us Americans. Bush is a lame duck and this even happened to Reagan.

Freedomnow said...

Thats tough luck on us if we give up the will to fight.

In that case, we would get what we deserve.

Farmer John said...

...it's hard to maintain the fight once you've lost the will to win...

So you start phoning it in.

Yes, dear!...

Yes, dear!...

Yes, dear!...

There's no heart in it.

Farmer John said...

If you're going to fight, you've got to fight to win. If you no longer have the will to win... you've already lost.

Who still has the will to win? Most people today are clinging to the will to not lose. That'll keep you in the fight, but it'll never win it.

And every week the press drives the win bar lower. Win to draw to peace w/honor- to peace- to peace at any price to unconditional surrender.

Freedomnow said...

These cynics are so selfish. Who cares about winning?

Its about the Iraqi people and what the insurgents are doing to them.

Doesnt anyone want to help them?

Heartless bastards!!!!!!!!!!

Farmer John said...

...the press keeps asking for new definitions of victory. Perhaps it's more tactical, not strategic. Perhaps "victory" means simply staying... not for today, or a week, or a year. But staying to help...forever/ indefinitely. It means occupying the battlespace and the peacespace, and making the "other" guy leave them. And if he doesn't, it means killing him. It means moving there, living there, inter-marrying there. It means... commitment. The kind you get from blood and family. Not the kind of commitment you get from a political promise.

Farmer John said...

...or perhaps it means "letting" the blood that has to be spilled, get spilled. Allowing the world to stand on its' own two feet. To make its' own mistakes, and pay the consequences. At some point, the kiddies grow up.

You can't have it both ways.

Farmer John said...

...and our current policy keeps dancing between the two. That allows the worst of both worlds to co-exist.

Farmer John said...

If we were going to leave, the time to leave was long ago. I think we're committed to staying. And if we are, we need to put the structures in place to support that decision. We need reasons for the American people to "invest" in Iraq. Economic, military, and social.

And talking about pulling out is preventing any of those structures from being put in place.

Farmer John said...

To integrate Iraq into the world economy and bind it there. To defend her from those who would tear her away and transform the country into a 3rd world agrarian pastoral society.

The imams are dreaming if they think they'll ever establish a 2nd world zone of their own like Chavez is trying to do and integrate w/that. That'll fall apart five minutes after every last piece of infrastructure crumbles into the dust. Rand's Atlas Shrugged is appropos in describing the likely result of popular socialism.

Farmer John said...

Chavez's saving grace is oil, they believe there's is the same. But once the oil is gone... and if the 1st world is damaged in that process and can't make it over the hump... their m2nd world dreams collapse right into the dust, from which the 1st world built them

Farmer John said...

Oil is only valuable to those who can use it. It's just black goo to camel herders.

Farmer John said...

It's like wool on a sheep.

Farmer John said...

Star Wars, "Revenge of the Sith"...

Yoda: Careful you must be when sensing the future Anakin. The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.

Anakin Skywalker: I won't let these visions come true, Master Yoda.

Yoda: Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is.

Anakin Skywalker: What must I do, Master Yoda?

Yoda: Train yourself to let go... of everything you fear to lose.

Russet Shadows said...

As far as victory goes, the ISG has been lampooned everywhere. No-one takes it seriously. I am also surprised that anyone posting here gives a single belch about what the media or any other nonserious armchair general thinks. Please, guys.

We're handing over things bit by bit. For instance, 11 out of 15 provinces in Iraq are stable. It's only the remaining 4 that get all the attention -- largely in the Sunni triangle. The Kurdish north is safer than Philly. The swampland has been restored. Power is more available now than before Saddam. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The points are: 1) We achieved the mission of defeating Saddam and crushing his power. 2) The media isn't reporting successes, only failures -- and many of those failures are mythical (cf. the Iraqi policeman). 3) The situation is largely under control.

Could the Iraqis take control of more things? Yes. Are they under pressure to? Yes.

Did you know that Kosovo, that tiny sliver of land in the Balkans, STILL doesn't work after 10 years of UN governance? And even under a more hardcore US, Germany took 8 years. You have to expect that things in Iraq will take at least that long. I don't know why everyone has forgotten that!

nanc said...

because we live in an instant gratification society, russet - the unsatisfied want it NOW! but, they don't have a clue as to what that means.

Farmer John said...

I wonder how long it will take before we have UN peacekeepers in every country of the world...

The conflicts it supposedly resolves are never resolved. Indeterminate deployments are the likely result... Korea, Sudan, Israel...

Freedomnow said...

Dang!!!!!!! I wish I thought of that comment.

Good one...

American Crusader said...

fn..I respect your opinions. Well thought out and backed by facts and reason, but I disagree with your comment that the US military cannot be beaten.
In Vietnam, we might not have lost a single major battle but our military was in the end beaten. Our own politicians drove a stake through the military's heart.
I know you stated that Nixon left South Vietnam he had secured the peace.
I cannot agree with that.
When we left, everyone knew it was just a matter of time.
And it was much faster than most thought possible.
Nixon wasn't even President. Ford came into office to do one thing..get our troops out a Vietnam.
Well he did.
North Vietnamese troops surrounded Saigon as United States conducted the largest ever helicopter evacuation.
There was never a secured peace.
I see many parallels in Iraq. Our military might not lose a single engagement, but with the media's help, it looks like the politicians are already sharpening the stake.
Bush may be a smart politician but with only 36% of the country supporting him, there might not be much he can do.

Freedomnow said...

We kind of agree. The US military cant be beaten, but the will of our civilian population can be.

Our military has no control over civilian affairs unless our government gives them the power. That is something that no one has even contemplated.

The fact is that the insurgents in Iraq have failed to effectively demoralize our troops and as a result their performance is top notch. In Vietnam our troops had serious morale issues, but not in Iraq (Yet they still performed well in Nam. However there is no way that they would have had the re-enlistment rates that we have today). Anyways the insurgents can’t hold onto any territory in Iraq and they will continue to suffer enormous defeats as long as US troops are there.

A US withdrawal from Iraq would be much different than the Vietnam withdrawal. In Southeast Asia we were able to secure a peace treaty and our troops left the country in a state of calm (yes, the NVA broke the treaty several times culminating in a full scale invasion two years later).

In Iraq we dont have anyone to negotiate with so there will be no ceasefire and a withdrawal would be the bloodiest in modern history. It will be a fighting withdrawal and an embarrassing retreat. (Kind of like Mogadishu on steroids.) In contrast to Vietnam, we wont have to wait two years for Iraq to fall.

Only Kurdistan will profit, but they will eventually go to war with Turkey. The Sunni and Shiite provinces would be wrecked by internal violence and then Iran and Saudi Arabia will escalate the fighting. Even a pacifist could see that…

Any politician that wants to be responsible for that will have to kiss his or her career goodbye. I don’t think even a President Hillary Clinton would try it.

(Actually Nixon was the President when the last US combat troops left Vietnam, Ford was the Prez when Saigon fell two years later).