The ISG Report: Preliminary Thoughts
The ISG has released it's report, and it seems, at first glance, that the leaks were true. In fact, the following paragraph comes straight from the Executive Summary within the report. (Not to readers, the above link takes you to Truth Laid Bare, where you can read a hypertext version of it without having to download from the Institute of Peace's site. Thank Allah for that link.)
The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
So, to these doddering old farts that don't seem to understand our enemy at all, this all stems from the Israeli's ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. And we need to speak to Syria, and Lebanon; the former trying to topple the latter. This is the only way we'll achieve any sort of "peace" over there. And how can I say these people don't understand the gravity of this war, or our enemy? Take a look at the list of people they did and didn't speak with:
Of the 43 "former officials and experts" consulted --including Mark Danner of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Friedman, Leslie Gelb, Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, Ken Pollack, Thomas Ricks, and George Will-- the ISG did not find it necessary to talk with, say, Victor Davis Hanson, Lawrence Wright, Robert Kaplan, Mark Steyn, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, or Christopher Hitchens. The ISG did talk with Bill Kristol. I wonder how long that sit down lasted.
Hugh's question is with a great deal of merit, and solid, sound logic. They'll sit down with the guy who swiped classified documents from the National Archives, a book reviewer, and a conservative completely against the invasion of Iraq.
But they won't talk to two of the leading experts on the Middle East, as Ledeen and Hanson are. They won't speak with Mark Steyn, who has written exclusively about what is happening in Europe under the sandals of our enemies. They opted out of speaking with Robert Kaplan, who's brilliantly-written expose, Imperial Grunts, traces the US military today. And I guess Larry Wright just didn't interest them much, despite the fact that the man wrote the most comprehensive history of modern Islamofascism, and the birth of al-Qaeda.
And I made this point when I called into Hugh's show this afternoon. Why in God's name would they talk to a convicted felon, in Sandy Berger; a man who was found guilty of stealing classified, national security papers from the National Archives, but refuse to speak with Lawrence Wright. Lawrence Wright literally wrote the book about our enemy, their mindset, and how they were created. He should have been one of the most important people they did speak with. The same goes for Mark Steyn, which the caller preceding me brought up. Mark Steyn's view of our enemy is cold and hard, backed up by enough statistical facts, and more than accurate. Appeasement is what's klilling Europe, and appeasement is exactly what these people are advocating.
So I have a question, right at this moment: As it seems these guys were already predisposed on their findings, why wastet the time and money for all of this? The report itself states they want a withdrawal of troops within the next sixteen months. Sixteen months! They don't get it. A withdrawal isn't the answer, and in recent months both Marcie and I have stated that an increase in troops could very well be the solution, provided the handcuffs off the military, and they're told to achieve victory. That means finishing the training of the Iraqi troops, wiping out al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and killing Moqtada al-Sadr. We have to eliminate the enmy before peace can really be given a chance there, and as long as we continue to fight what seems to be a holding action, ultimate victory--for a new, democratic Iraq, and America's security--won't occur.
Their ideas regarding who we have to talk to in the region is beyond comprehension. I addressed Syria above, and I'll expand on that a bit here. For anyone who's been reading our site over the last couple of weeks, we've been addressing the antics with Iran and Syria. Iran was recently outed as supplying more than just IEDs to the terrorists in Iraq, and there are confirmed reports that Iranian Hezbollah fighters have been training al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Syria, for it's part in this little war, has been doing it's damndest to topple Lebanon. Neither nation gives a rip about what happens in Iraq because they're busy continuing the instability in the region.
If Lebanon falls, Syria will move right back in, and it will be the 1980's all over again in Lebanon. It will become a haven for terrorists, and the populace will literally be live-in hostages. Only this time it's going to be worse. The Cedar Revolution furthered the UN resolution demanding a complete withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Bashir Assad isn't a forgiving man, and the population of Lebanon is going to suffer even more at his hands. After all, Hezbollah would welcome the opportunity for reengaging Israel again, and this time they'll have the back-up of Syria and Iran, and this time it won;'t be on the hush-hush. It will be open and blatant, and neither Iran or Syria care. Know why?
Because the doddering old coots working with James Baker have decided that diplomacy, negotiation, and appeasement will work to stave off any further violence from the nations that can't stand the fact that Iraq was liberated, and is moving towards complete, autonomous sovereignty. Remember the demonstrations after Saddam was caught in Tehran? The millions of students chanting they wanted freedom like the Iraqis had? The people of Beirut did the same thing. Does this not send a message to Baker and his group. Evidently what is in the real world is like a sick knock-knock joke to them. Knock-knock. Who's there? Reality. Um, sorry, Jimmy's not home right now.
The tone of the report reflects more of the media's picture of what's going on in Iraq. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but the sheer idea that we have lost this war is preposterous. If we lose it's not because the military isn't doing their job. They are doing their job. But this constantr barrage of criticism, forcing the president to reconsider his strategy, isn't helping matters. Yes, there is going to be animosity from the people towards each other; it's inevitable. But the Iraqi military should be doing the job of quelling that violence, and stay on task; the securing of the nation, and it's protected independence comes first. Put the petty squabbles away for now. Lord knows from our own history that squabbling was commonplace in our early years, but we won our war of independence before we started playing the political back-biting game.
These people believe that this war is lost. At least the theater of Iraq is. They believe it to be an unmitigated defeat for the United States, and it was a mistake going into the nation at all. This raises an eyebrow for me, especially given that President Bush used much of the same intelligence Bill Clinton did in 1998 to warrant dropping cruise missiles on Iran, and pushing through Congress a bill calling for regime change in Iraq. These people were eerily silent then, but as with all the other critics of this phase of the war, they were piping up when the idea first hit the table in 2002. And as I said, when you read the report you get the sense that these people already had their minds made up.
They could have talk to Mark Steyn, and he wouldn't change their minds. The same goes for Lawrence Wright, Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Ledeen. None of these men could have made them think about whether they were right or not. The idea that this panel could have come to any conclusion except withdrawal and appeasement is laughable, at best; at worst, we should be weeping as to how idiotic these men are.
Look, our enemy wants us dead. The reasons behind it don't matter. We don't need to know their gripes. All we need to know is what has been repeated by these people for the past thirty-plus years: They want us dead. But this commission has decided that if we back away slowly, the animals won't attack us. Uh-uh. Doesn't work that way, guys. This goes to hating us more than hating us for being in the region. They dislike us because we have freedom and tolerance for religions beyond their own. We are the infidel, and for that, they believe we deserve to have our heads lopped off. Frankly, I'm offended by that assertion.
This commission shouldn't have been called the "Iraqi Survey Group." They should have been called the "Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission" because that's exactly what they're suggesting. Withdraw from Iraq, and talk with two of the world's biggest sponsors of terror to achieve peace. I'm surprised we didn't see James Baker waving a white piece of paper declaring we have "peace in our time" at the presser after the report was released. That's what they decided was the right way to go. And if we choose this path, we will see history repeat itself with blinding speed and clarity in a matter of months. Iran will, through Syria, control Lebanon. They will get nukes, and our problems in the region will explode hundred-fold.
But these guys still think that we should simply accept our defeat, and talk with those who want us destroyed. Brilliant strategy, guys. I didn't know they were commissioned to come up with the fastest way for this nation to commit suicide.
Publius II
Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers!
The ISG has released it's report, and it seems, at first glance, that the leaks were true. In fact, the following paragraph comes straight from the Executive Summary within the report. (Not to readers, the above link takes you to Truth Laid Bare, where you can read a hypertext version of it without having to download from the Institute of Peace's site. Thank Allah for that link.)
The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
So, to these doddering old farts that don't seem to understand our enemy at all, this all stems from the Israeli's ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. And we need to speak to Syria, and Lebanon; the former trying to topple the latter. This is the only way we'll achieve any sort of "peace" over there. And how can I say these people don't understand the gravity of this war, or our enemy? Take a look at the list of people they did and didn't speak with:
Of the 43 "former officials and experts" consulted --including Mark Danner of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Friedman, Leslie Gelb, Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, Ken Pollack, Thomas Ricks, and George Will-- the ISG did not find it necessary to talk with, say, Victor Davis Hanson, Lawrence Wright, Robert Kaplan, Mark Steyn, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, or Christopher Hitchens. The ISG did talk with Bill Kristol. I wonder how long that sit down lasted.
Hugh's question is with a great deal of merit, and solid, sound logic. They'll sit down with the guy who swiped classified documents from the National Archives, a book reviewer, and a conservative completely against the invasion of Iraq.
But they won't talk to two of the leading experts on the Middle East, as Ledeen and Hanson are. They won't speak with Mark Steyn, who has written exclusively about what is happening in Europe under the sandals of our enemies. They opted out of speaking with Robert Kaplan, who's brilliantly-written expose, Imperial Grunts, traces the US military today. And I guess Larry Wright just didn't interest them much, despite the fact that the man wrote the most comprehensive history of modern Islamofascism, and the birth of al-Qaeda.
And I made this point when I called into Hugh's show this afternoon. Why in God's name would they talk to a convicted felon, in Sandy Berger; a man who was found guilty of stealing classified, national security papers from the National Archives, but refuse to speak with Lawrence Wright. Lawrence Wright literally wrote the book about our enemy, their mindset, and how they were created. He should have been one of the most important people they did speak with. The same goes for Mark Steyn, which the caller preceding me brought up. Mark Steyn's view of our enemy is cold and hard, backed up by enough statistical facts, and more than accurate. Appeasement is what's klilling Europe, and appeasement is exactly what these people are advocating.
So I have a question, right at this moment: As it seems these guys were already predisposed on their findings, why wastet the time and money for all of this? The report itself states they want a withdrawal of troops within the next sixteen months. Sixteen months! They don't get it. A withdrawal isn't the answer, and in recent months both Marcie and I have stated that an increase in troops could very well be the solution, provided the handcuffs off the military, and they're told to achieve victory. That means finishing the training of the Iraqi troops, wiping out al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and killing Moqtada al-Sadr. We have to eliminate the enmy before peace can really be given a chance there, and as long as we continue to fight what seems to be a holding action, ultimate victory--for a new, democratic Iraq, and America's security--won't occur.
Their ideas regarding who we have to talk to in the region is beyond comprehension. I addressed Syria above, and I'll expand on that a bit here. For anyone who's been reading our site over the last couple of weeks, we've been addressing the antics with Iran and Syria. Iran was recently outed as supplying more than just IEDs to the terrorists in Iraq, and there are confirmed reports that Iranian Hezbollah fighters have been training al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Syria, for it's part in this little war, has been doing it's damndest to topple Lebanon. Neither nation gives a rip about what happens in Iraq because they're busy continuing the instability in the region.
If Lebanon falls, Syria will move right back in, and it will be the 1980's all over again in Lebanon. It will become a haven for terrorists, and the populace will literally be live-in hostages. Only this time it's going to be worse. The Cedar Revolution furthered the UN resolution demanding a complete withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon. Bashir Assad isn't a forgiving man, and the population of Lebanon is going to suffer even more at his hands. After all, Hezbollah would welcome the opportunity for reengaging Israel again, and this time they'll have the back-up of Syria and Iran, and this time it won;'t be on the hush-hush. It will be open and blatant, and neither Iran or Syria care. Know why?
Because the doddering old coots working with James Baker have decided that diplomacy, negotiation, and appeasement will work to stave off any further violence from the nations that can't stand the fact that Iraq was liberated, and is moving towards complete, autonomous sovereignty. Remember the demonstrations after Saddam was caught in Tehran? The millions of students chanting they wanted freedom like the Iraqis had? The people of Beirut did the same thing. Does this not send a message to Baker and his group. Evidently what is in the real world is like a sick knock-knock joke to them. Knock-knock. Who's there? Reality. Um, sorry, Jimmy's not home right now.
The tone of the report reflects more of the media's picture of what's going on in Iraq. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but the sheer idea that we have lost this war is preposterous. If we lose it's not because the military isn't doing their job. They are doing their job. But this constantr barrage of criticism, forcing the president to reconsider his strategy, isn't helping matters. Yes, there is going to be animosity from the people towards each other; it's inevitable. But the Iraqi military should be doing the job of quelling that violence, and stay on task; the securing of the nation, and it's protected independence comes first. Put the petty squabbles away for now. Lord knows from our own history that squabbling was commonplace in our early years, but we won our war of independence before we started playing the political back-biting game.
These people believe that this war is lost. At least the theater of Iraq is. They believe it to be an unmitigated defeat for the United States, and it was a mistake going into the nation at all. This raises an eyebrow for me, especially given that President Bush used much of the same intelligence Bill Clinton did in 1998 to warrant dropping cruise missiles on Iran, and pushing through Congress a bill calling for regime change in Iraq. These people were eerily silent then, but as with all the other critics of this phase of the war, they were piping up when the idea first hit the table in 2002. And as I said, when you read the report you get the sense that these people already had their minds made up.
They could have talk to Mark Steyn, and he wouldn't change their minds. The same goes for Lawrence Wright, Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Ledeen. None of these men could have made them think about whether they were right or not. The idea that this panel could have come to any conclusion except withdrawal and appeasement is laughable, at best; at worst, we should be weeping as to how idiotic these men are.
Look, our enemy wants us dead. The reasons behind it don't matter. We don't need to know their gripes. All we need to know is what has been repeated by these people for the past thirty-plus years: They want us dead. But this commission has decided that if we back away slowly, the animals won't attack us. Uh-uh. Doesn't work that way, guys. This goes to hating us more than hating us for being in the region. They dislike us because we have freedom and tolerance for religions beyond their own. We are the infidel, and for that, they believe we deserve to have our heads lopped off. Frankly, I'm offended by that assertion.
This commission shouldn't have been called the "Iraqi Survey Group." They should have been called the "Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission" because that's exactly what they're suggesting. Withdraw from Iraq, and talk with two of the world's biggest sponsors of terror to achieve peace. I'm surprised we didn't see James Baker waving a white piece of paper declaring we have "peace in our time" at the presser after the report was released. That's what they decided was the right way to go. And if we choose this path, we will see history repeat itself with blinding speed and clarity in a matter of months. Iran will, through Syria, control Lebanon. They will get nukes, and our problems in the region will explode hundred-fold.
But these guys still think that we should simply accept our defeat, and talk with those who want us destroyed. Brilliant strategy, guys. I didn't know they were commissioned to come up with the fastest way for this nation to commit suicide.
Publius II
Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers!
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home