Iraqi Surrender Group
The Iraqi Study Group (ISG) came out with its recommendations this week. The results were as predictable as they are worthless. Any time a bi-partisan committee agrees on a concept, one can be certain that the result will be a watered-down series of compromises that lack originality and effectiveness.
Without plowing through all of the 70 plus recommendations, the general theme of the ISG is to do more of the same for a while, shuffle the deployment of troops to different assignments, pull out by an arbitrary date and sell Israel down the river. Oh yeah, also negotiate with our enemies. That is the key to success, according to the ISG. Get Syria and Iran to cooperate. Exactly how this is accomplished is not explained in the report.
The Cold Warriors who comprised the ISG were not the right people for the job. The war against Islamic Fascism is not the same as the Cold War. The enemy has the same goal as the Soviets, world domination, but a completely different set of motivations, tactics and abilities. The Soviets played by the same rules as the United States during the Cold War: Topple instable governments that are sympathetic to the enemy, fight local wars through proxy armies and avoid direct military confrontation with the actual enemy by using diplomacy. The Islamic Fascists have a different approach: Diplomacy is weakness. Use it to gain objectives. Confront the enemy directly, but through proxy armies (i.e. terrorist organizations) and infiltrate enemy territory by using their tolerance of different ideologies to their own disadvantage.
The enemy in the Islamic War has been far more successful than most people realize. While they still lack the ability to deliver a knock-out punch to the West, they are getting closer every day. The ISG report basically recommends giving the enemy more time, rather than defeating them now.
What Israel has to do with Iraq is beyond my level of understanding and the ISG does not connect the dots. However, the report is emphatic in its claim that Land for Peace is a crucial component of stabilizing the Middle East. I can only wonder at their true motives for including Israel in this equation. There is zero evidence that Israeli concessions will lead to peace. Rockets have fired into Israel daily since Gaza was given to Hamas. The goal of the Palestinians (i.e. 3rd generation welfare recipients from Egypt and Jordan) to push Jews into the sea, has remained unchanged. The pullback to the pre-1967 borders is unlikely to cause peace, since it was the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1967. I just don’t see how Israel can surrender enough to appease her enemies. The lengthy ISG report provides no details.
I found it interesting recently, watching a History Channel show on the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. While Ronald Reagan’s initial response to the attack was “Boys will be boys…” and Alexander Haig said that “some day all of us will be down on our knees thanking the Israelis for doing this”, every other member of Reagan’s cabinet, including George Bush Sr. (who recommended the ISG panel to Jr.) and James Baker (who headed the Iraqi Surrender Group), seethed venom at the Israelis for their actions. Thus, it was little surprise to me that the ISG recommended that Israel should unilaterally give up more land to help the situation in Iraq.
The ISG did not present Iraq in context within the global war against Islamic Fascism. If it did, it would have certainly pointed out that the leading state sponsor of terrorism, both before and after 9/11, is Iran. If we want to win in Iraq (which I doubt the ISG actually wants to do), then we must neutralize Iran. Negotiations may be a way to do this, but I seriously doubt it. Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and felt quite good about the process after the Munich Agreement, until Nazi tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia.
Iran is weaker today than Germany was in 1938. Should we wait until it is stronger?
Without plowing through all of the 70 plus recommendations, the general theme of the ISG is to do more of the same for a while, shuffle the deployment of troops to different assignments, pull out by an arbitrary date and sell Israel down the river. Oh yeah, also negotiate with our enemies. That is the key to success, according to the ISG. Get Syria and Iran to cooperate. Exactly how this is accomplished is not explained in the report.
The Cold Warriors who comprised the ISG were not the right people for the job. The war against Islamic Fascism is not the same as the Cold War. The enemy has the same goal as the Soviets, world domination, but a completely different set of motivations, tactics and abilities. The Soviets played by the same rules as the United States during the Cold War: Topple instable governments that are sympathetic to the enemy, fight local wars through proxy armies and avoid direct military confrontation with the actual enemy by using diplomacy. The Islamic Fascists have a different approach: Diplomacy is weakness. Use it to gain objectives. Confront the enemy directly, but through proxy armies (i.e. terrorist organizations) and infiltrate enemy territory by using their tolerance of different ideologies to their own disadvantage.
The enemy in the Islamic War has been far more successful than most people realize. While they still lack the ability to deliver a knock-out punch to the West, they are getting closer every day. The ISG report basically recommends giving the enemy more time, rather than defeating them now.
What Israel has to do with Iraq is beyond my level of understanding and the ISG does not connect the dots. However, the report is emphatic in its claim that Land for Peace is a crucial component of stabilizing the Middle East. I can only wonder at their true motives for including Israel in this equation. There is zero evidence that Israeli concessions will lead to peace. Rockets have fired into Israel daily since Gaza was given to Hamas. The goal of the Palestinians (i.e. 3rd generation welfare recipients from Egypt and Jordan) to push Jews into the sea, has remained unchanged. The pullback to the pre-1967 borders is unlikely to cause peace, since it was the Arabs who attacked Israel in 1967. I just don’t see how Israel can surrender enough to appease her enemies. The lengthy ISG report provides no details.
I found it interesting recently, watching a History Channel show on the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. While Ronald Reagan’s initial response to the attack was “Boys will be boys…” and Alexander Haig said that “some day all of us will be down on our knees thanking the Israelis for doing this”, every other member of Reagan’s cabinet, including George Bush Sr. (who recommended the ISG panel to Jr.) and James Baker (who headed the Iraqi Surrender Group), seethed venom at the Israelis for their actions. Thus, it was little surprise to me that the ISG recommended that Israel should unilaterally give up more land to help the situation in Iraq.
The ISG did not present Iraq in context within the global war against Islamic Fascism. If it did, it would have certainly pointed out that the leading state sponsor of terrorism, both before and after 9/11, is Iran. If we want to win in Iraq (which I doubt the ISG actually wants to do), then we must neutralize Iran. Negotiations may be a way to do this, but I seriously doubt it. Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and felt quite good about the process after the Munich Agreement, until Nazi tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia.
Iran is weaker today than Germany was in 1938. Should we wait until it is stronger?
posted by BoiseJag at 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home