I wish they'd leave strategy and tactics to the generals and just butt out.
Moreover, Iran and Syria are the two major supporters of the insurrection. If the U.S. is going to redeploy troops, I can't think of two better places in which to put them and create a buffer zone.
Well, Baker was never a friend of Israel. Remember "The Jews don't vote for us anyway." ?
Though, the ISG ruled out a compromise in the nuclear dispute.
I still think, however, that the US will NOT stop Iran from getting nukes due to Iraq.
Got a question:
The ISG report recommends a support group for Iraq that should include the European Union and could even include anti-war Germany.
Do you expect European help in Iraq?
I am skeptical. Germany's Federal President, however, has called for helping the United States in Iraq.
I have blogged about the ISG recommendations involving the EU.
[External Link]
What do you think?
The CBC web posting about the Iraq Reporting Group quotes Henry Champ.
This is the second time in the last few days that a CBC story on the U.S./Iraq quotes its own reporter.
I thought good journalists stayed out of the story.
Enough said.
James Baker has always given me the willies; he makes Nixon look positively angelic.
Posted at 2006-12-06 13:03:15 [PermaLink]It's unfortunate how bad it is 'over there'. The sad reality is not enough blood spilled till people are sick and tired of the killing and despair before they do something about it and the healing process begins.
Posted at 2006-12-06 13:11:52 [PermaLink]According to this [External Link]article, the report even includes the dreaded "right of return."
I guess it's true what is said about James Baker.
Commissioning this panel was a huge blunder for Bush and his advisors. Given the old media's war against Bush for most of his presidency, surely Bush and Co. could have predicted how blatantly the ISG report would be propagandized. Further, the consensus is that there are no easy, magical solutions for Iraq (even Baker is on record saying the same thing), so exactly what benefit was Bush expecting to derive from the ISG politically, or on the ground in Iraq?
As Bruce has pointed out, the panel's call to engage Syria and Iran diplomatically over Iraq is a joke, and reveals just how out of touch and out of their depth are Baker and Hamilton.
By suggesting that Syria and Iran be appealed to for assistance, these two geriatric bumblefucks are acknowledging that Syria and Iran are deliberately fueling the carnage, while in the same breath tacitly conceding to Assad and the theocrats that they're succeeding, even won. Diplomatic fiascos of this magnitude are really difficult to accomplish, but Bush seems to have managed to find the two clowns who could pull it off.
The primary goal of Syria and Iran is to see the U.S. leave Iraq defeated and humiliated. It isn't to extort concessions over Iran's nuclear program or Syrian influence in Lebanon. Ol' Crazy Eyes and Assad believe they can attain these goals without helping the U.S. in Iraq. They want it all, and the ISG idiots have taken a huge step toward giving it to them, on a platter.
Bush has only one course of action as far as I'm concerned; politely but firmly, and very publicly, reject all of the report's most dangerous recommendations, beginning with reaching out to the dictators in Damascus and Tehran.