December 7, 2006Iraq "Surrender" Group Report" . . . more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better -- and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest. Never fear, son, this Ad-Hoc Congress will do nothing . . . or if they do pass something through sheer fatigue, it will be so loaded with contradictions that it will have to be thrown out." --Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, pg 162 [Robert A. Heinlein] I've been waiting all week for someone to blog the celebrated Iraq Study Group report, for I have a comment I'd like to make about it. Alas, nobody has obliged on these pages. But with each passing day I've come to realize that the real blogging is taking place on the front pages of the major dailies. They took the slap dash 97 page report as their kernel and proceeded to concoct every sort of meaning from it in their headlines. Every one, that is, except for making the world safe for liberty. Well, here goes. Let's start with part I, subpart D: Achieving Our Goals: We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people. It is critically important to understand that, with Saddam gone, Iraq matters little in the present war between civilization and archaic totalitarianism. Re-read the passage above and replace "Iraq" with "America." An America that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. [...] Given the current situation in America, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the American people." And where America represents civilization in this war, the seat of archaic totalitarianism today is... anyone? anyone? Bueller? That's right: Iran. Now re-read the passage above replacing "Iraq" with "Iran." In our view, this definition entails an Iran with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Now, what actions of the American people can do anything to help Iraq "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself?" Current Events Iran Iraq Islam War on Terror Posted by JohnGalt at December 7, 2006 3:10 PM |
Speaking for myself, I was so happy that the report wasn't worse. I think it significantly undercuts the cut and run crowd and can be used more to the President’s favor than his detractors.
The idea of using Iran and Syria seems tedious but there is an interesting context. I don't know if you saw Brit Hume's panel discussion on this (you get kicked out of the VRWC if you don't watch 4x a week) but Secretary Baker believes that Syria might be incentivized to help us and the Sunnis. "Flip Syria" he said to Brit as they were packing up their cameras.
It's a long shot and I hate to think of the price but it is not necessarily "nuts."
Posted by: jk at December 7, 2006 7:33 PMThey want peace in the middle east. That's a bold vision.
How much did we pay for this, again?
Posted by: AlexC at December 7, 2006 11:54 PMAnd now, my long awaited comment. With respect to diplomacy with Iran, or even Syria:
"Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?" -Robert A. Heinlein
I agree with John Murtha. It is time to redeploy coalition forces to "another region in the Middle East." TEHRAN
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 8:51 AMI also resent the implication that ThreeSources was behind in commenting on the ISF. We hit the idea of Syria help on November 21.
Posted by: jk at December 8, 2006 11:51 AMCredit duly noted. And that post also reminded us what we get whenever we employ "realpolitik" when killing people and breaking things is in order.
Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 3:09 PM | What do you think? [5]