Continuing The Salvos Against The Baker Commission

This past Tuesday, the Baker Commission released its not-so-anticipated Iraq report. And the laughter still has not died down. The only people congratulating the Baker Commssion, and praising their efforts, is the media. That should come as no surprise to anyone. Even nations in Europe and the Middle East are criticizing the Baker Commission for its recommendations. It's clear to me that the commission knew nothing about the war, our enemy, or the situation in Iraq. The beatings are far from over, as Hugh Hewitt points out today:

Dear Mr. President:

You have just received the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) with its 79 recommendations for policy changes, force redeployments and other course corrections with respect to the conflict in Iraq. We believe you have responded properly in welcoming this product -- but reserving judgment as to whether you will accept its suggestions.

This is especially important because of the argument being made in some quarters that, in light of the unanimity exhibited by the distinguished Republican and Democratic members of this commission, the advice offered must be accepted in toto. As leaders of the bipartisan National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy, we would respectfully suggest that people of good will and expertise from both parties can – and in many cases do – come to very different conclusions than those offered by the ISG.

In particular, members of our Council on both sides of the aisle strongly disagree with what is, arguably, the Baker-Hamilton commission’s most strategically portentous recommendation:

The United States should immediately launch a New Diplomatic Offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region….Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own. 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.

As the ISG’s own report documents, far from being proponents of stability, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its de facto colony, Syria, have gone to great lengths to destabilize the Middle East and, in particular, to prevent Iraq from becoming a free, democratic and peaceful nation.

Americans have been murdered for nearly three decades by Iranian operatives and Tehran’s proxies. U.S. and coalition personnel and civilians in Iraq are being slaughtered today by deadly Iranian I.E.D.s (Improvised Explosive Devices) and other weapons provided to like-minded Islamofascist groups.

At the same time, the Iranian regime is working to acquire nuclear arms and long-range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them. When combined with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated threats to “wipe Israel off the map” and bring about “a world without America,” we face the prospect that, in due course, the mullahs running Iran will have the means to carry out their apocalyptic intentions.

In our view, opening negotiations with Iran (and Syria) as suggested by the ISG will have several undesirable effects.

• First, such negotiations will legitimate that increasingly dangerous regime and reward its violent and hostile actions against us and our allies. We should rather endeavor to discredit and undermine this regime.

• Second, such a course will embolden our enemies who already believe they are sapping our will to resist them.

• Third, such an initiative would buy further time for the Iranian mullahs to obtain and prepare to wield weapons of mass destruction.

• Fourth, entering into negotiations with Tehran’s theocrats will create the illusion that we are taking useful steps to contend with the threat from Iran – when, in fact, we would not be.

As a result, other, more effective actions – specifically, steps aimed at encouraging regime change in Iran – will not be pursued.

Finally, we trust that you will recognize the necessity of including Israel in any regional conference in which its security and other equities might be a subject of negotiations and that, in such settings and elsewhere, you will continue to adhere to the principle that America supports fellow democracies and eschews appeasement of terrorists and aggressors.
In short, Mr. President, we encourage you to follow your better instincts. By all means, review, assess and, as appropriate, adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and those of the executive branch agencies you have commissioned. We urge you, however, to continue to reject any course of action that would signal that America has become a country that, to quote thescholar Bernard Lewis, is “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”

Sincerely,

Senator Jon Kyl R. James Woolsey

There is more legitimacy in those two men, in this letter from the Center for Security Policy, than in every person the Baker Commission spoke with. The kids have hammered this point home clearly that the commission decided against talking with the top experts on the Middle East,a nd those people who have been watching, researching, and writing about our enemy and their tactics. I recall a statement made by Hugh this past week that this was James Baker's group, and he wanted this sort of an outcome. Indeed, that may be true, but in looking at what he and his team came up, it's clear that they did not do the job they set out to do.

This report has three solid points that they made clear. The first is that we're not winning over there, and we need to leave. The second is that despite what critics may say, we need to open a dialogue with Syria and Iran. And third, and this one comes as no surprise given the past statements Baker's made regarding Israel, the violence in the region is all the fault of the Jews. These are the most incompetant, idiotic, and inept ideas I've ever heard of, or read. It's disgustingly partisan; not along "Democrat" or "Republican" lines, but rather the globalist lines. Those would be the lines that the UN abides by. The mindset is to legitimize our enemy by making the world believe that the jihadis have a serious, relevant gripe.

Their greivance goes back 1400 years, and has little to do with their situation right now. It has more to do with the teachings that modernity, secularism, tolerance, and freedom are evil, and those practicing such beliefs is an infidel. To them, anyone who is not a practicing, believing Muslim is an infidel, and they need to either convert now, or face the sword later. And this is the key aspect of our enemy's ideology the Baker Commission clearly missed.

I share the beliefs of Mr. Kyl and Mr. Wollsey. The president needs to file this report in the appropriate trash can, and fight back against the supporters of this report. The president needs to call James Baker into the Oval Office, and tell him "thank you for your work, but I think I'll listen to the real experts on this." Hand him hat, and make sure the door doesn't hit him in @$$ on the way out. Despite what the media may say about the president's choices, he's not constrained by this report. He doesn't have to abide by it. These are, after all, merely suggestions. This isn't a Congressional Committee where legislation is to follow, or a "blue-ribbon panel" like the 9/11 Commission where Congress began work on their recommendations after it was complete.

This committee was comprised of a bunch of people who are still stuck in Washington, DC, and can't seem to let go of it's allure and it's limelight. This commission was not only a disappointment, it was a bust; a waste of time and money. (Someone had to pick up the tab for this, and I'm guessing that the taxpayers were the ones who had to foot the bill.) James Baker and his group need to go back home, and keep their noses out of issues that don't concern them. And it's clear to all of us here that these people had no clue, didn't want to catch a clue bus, and could care less what really happens to this nation in this war.

Sabrina McKinney