Profiles in Mediocrity
The Iraq Study Group Report, Part One
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
the unofficial avatar for the ISG
The ISG can be summed up in a word: sophomoric.
From its insipid introduction through its banal and hackneyed recommendations the Iraq Study Group report reminds one of nothing so much as a college group term paper composed by glib but disinterested students.
The danger in the report lies in the profile accorded it by the political establishment and relative influence within the two major political parties of the members of this group.
There are three major takeaways in the report. First, it is written as a direct slap at the foreign policy of the administration. Second, it represents, in the main, the world view of the Saudi government and by extension their acolytes who have dominated US Middle East policy for some 40 years. Third, despite its protestations to the contrary it proffers a menu of items which by accident or design will destroy US credibility and influence in the Middle East and beyond.
Read on.
That the administration has been at odds with the foreign policy community for six years is hardly a secret. My views on the subject are fairly well established. I believe that US foreign policy since the fall the Soviet Union has been close to an unmitigated disaster and that US Middle East policy has been a disaster since the last years of the Nixon Administration. In my view, the Bush Administration rightfully recognized the “root causes,” to coin a phrase, of the unending political turmoil percolating out of the Middle East as the never ending series of tinhorn dictators propped up by Western arms and economic aid who steadfastly refused to liberalize the economic or political regimes in their countries while blaming a Israel and a vast Zionist conspiracy for their difficulties.
The Administration also rightfully, in my view but a view not shared by all the editors at RedState, divined that the way forward out of this morass was to cut this Gordian Knot and set the conditions for economic and political reform in the region.
In regards to our overall standing in the Middle East the ISG represents a great leap backward to the late 1960s and early 1970s. It rewards our enemies by offering the two major sponsors of the chaos in Iraq arbiters of that nation’s future. It undermines our efforts at democratization by offering little in the way of succor to the significant number of Iraqis who are trying to create a nation. It serves notice on our already tentative allies in the region that we do not have the political will to prevail.
It would seem to the casual observer that folding a localized, and winnable, war into the intractable Arab-Israel conflict, a conflict that has been dragging on at a minimum since the Balfour Declaration, was a suboptimal solution. But the ISG manages to devote a significant amount of space in its “External Approach” to proposing yet another round of failed diplomacy as an integral part of their overall strategy.
Indeed, the External Approach recommendations are eerily similar to any number of Saudi proposals proffered over the years ostensibly to solve the Arab-Israel issue but in reality containing numerous poison pills that we were expected to force down Israel’s throat. Whether this was an effort by Baker to establish a legacy for himself or whether it was merely the price the Saudis demanded for their support is unknown. What is known is that the strategy the ISG recommends in this regard has failed on numerous occasions. While it is possible to see how a victorious US could push this agenda over the objections and machinations of a chastened Iran and terrified Syria it is impossible to see how this works when the US is reduced to begging state sponsors of terrorism for their assistance.
As the Washington Post notes today, the idea of the US winning was never seriously contemplated by the ISG:
By summer, the expert advisers had developed the first options paper centered on different goals. The experts originally explored four options: "Victory in Iraq," "Defeat Al Qaeda and Stabilize Baghdad," "Make Peace Work" and "Redeploy and Contain," as they were called in a July memo. The first and third were quickly discarded.
This alone tells you all you need to know. Abandoning at the outset the objective of imposing our will upon the situation, the ISG elected to extract a national humiliation from what in a worse case scenario would be a long term counterinsurgency increasingly carried out by Iraqi troops.
In one fell swoop they managed to humiliate the Administration, undercut the elected government of Iraq, hearten our enemies, and make our friends fearful. Among the menu of items is nothing which supports the stated US objective in Iraq and much which works against it. In particular, it is difficult to see how the ISG’s meddling in regards to internal Iraqi politics, for instance,
The Central Bank of Iraq will raise interest rates to 20 percent and appreciate the Iraqi dinar by 10 percent to combat accelerating inflation.
…
Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population.
…
A referendum on the future of Kirkuk (as required by the Iraqi Constitution before the end of 2007) would be explosive and should be delayed.
is appropriate or helpful. Doesn’t a nation’s economic policy rate more than a stray recommendation? The ISG tries to have it both ways here with Iraq having all the responsibilities of an independent state but still subject to the oversight of people who have no vested interest in its success (see the part about ruling out victory or making peace work as options).
The only good news to emerge from this report is that it is unworkable. Neither Syria nor Iran have any vested interest in our success in Iraq. Israel is not going to give up more to Hamas than they offered Arafat. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have no desire to assist the administration. By this time next month Jim Baker will be back on the Saudi payroll, Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton will be discussing their favorite subject on the golf course, Jack Murtha will be demanding we leave Iraq for Okinawa, and we will mostly have forgotten about this grotesquerie.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Sometimes a Picture... — Comments (10) »
Profiles in Mediocrity 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Where does our moral responsibility lie for the Iraqis who have risked and are risking all, for their struggling country? Is that not a higher calling than cut and run? Why wasn't this mentioned in the sophomoric report?
Love the avatar, perfect.
He takes his responsibility to history more seriously than he takes his approval ratings.
He knew what Jim Baker thought before he got into all of this. I suspect he'll stand by his guns. Just because the media has declared this the report of the century doesn't mean Bush will adopt it.
I will say this: With the Democrats in power in congress and the issuance of this report, the debate about Iraq, foriegn policy, and the Islamist threat has finally moved from a pure "let's bash Bush" exercise to a serious discussion. That can only be a good thing.
--
""What's interesting is they're beginning to understand that, with victory comes responsibility..." - Pres. GW Bush
as sure as this as you.
For a point of reference let's look back to the second Reagan Administration where the Soviet Union was attempting to splinter NATO by providing cheap natural gas to Western Europe via a trans-USSR pipeline while using their sock puppets, the Nuclear Freeze movement, to force withdrawal of US tacnukes from NATO.
Where did the Democrat controlled House and Senate stand on these issues?
How about the communist inspired insurgencies in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America? Where did the Dems stand on those issues?
I'd be delighted to imagine the Democrats were capable of acting responsibly but there has been little evidence of this since the Korean War.
1. If Bush is resolute, there's not much the Democrats can do. They have said already that they won't cut the purse strings.
2. I have yet to hear Bush say anything that indicates that he plans to buckle.
Bush's approval is at 40%. Truman's got as low as 22%. Bush became an historically important president the day he figured out that he will never be popular. There's no upside in him buckling, as it will be seen only as an affirmation by him of his own "failures".
Again, I could be wrong. But as yet I've seen no concilliation from the commander-in-chief, or from his SecDef in waiting, frankly.
--
""What's interesting is they're beginning to understand that, with victory comes responsibility..." - Pres. GW Bush
with both those items, my disagreement is with the idea that the Dems will suddenly give up their bacchanalia of BDS and become serious.
--
""What's interesting is they're beginning to understand that, with victory comes responsibility..." - Pres. GW Bush
streiff, I'd give the Dems through the Cuban missile crisis when JFK deftly used US nuclear supremacy to force a Soviet climbdown (contrary to the revisionist MAD accounts of the Kennedy court historians and political scientists).
The 2008 campaign and the debate about the war on terror are about to be fused. I think this probably means Bush is soon going to be joined by McCain and Giuliani (at least). They will have their distinctive points of emphasis, but it's going to be evident soon that Bush is not the only person ready to fight. And they will have their own plans for fighting and winning the war.
On the Democrat side, I'm not sure how this will play out. The Pelosi/Kos left does want to cut and run. But Democratic presidential candidates know that perceptions of fecklessness will not play well in November. Of course they also know that they must appeal to their radicalized base during the primaries.
At the very least, I think we are going to get a bigger and more dynamic debate.
that I'd agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a total US win or required the Democrat party to be serious. Clearly they were more serious about communism then than post 1968.
The only saving grace in this is, ironically, that the Dems control congress so they have to do something rather than gripe... in a perfect world they would, anyway.
that we gave up our missles in Turkey as quid pro quo to the Soviets pulling theirs out of Cuba (maybe). Doesn't sound like a clear cut victory to me.
In Vino Veritas
Through the remainder of this Presidency, the Dems are going to do nothing that would interfere with strict application of the Pottery Barn rule to Iraq. Bush owns it, and they are going to insist that he continue to own it (unless it suddenly becomes a popular war again, in which case they will do some pretty fancy tapdancing.) Look for them to call incessantly for Bush to offer a solution to a situation they paint in the direst terms, while offering no solutions of their own. To show that they are responsible, they will run countless "responsible" hearings.
From a purely political perspective they would have to be brain dead to accept active responsibility for the war at this point.
In the analysis of the ISG it is first stated that, it was a "direct slap in the face to the administration's foriegn policy." In the first place, what exactly did you expect a handshake an adda boy. I don't think so, a war that was sold to the american public as an easy kill; which has escallated into a conflict lasting longer than the american involvement in WWII.
"Acolytes" to the Saudis referring to James Baker, come on now attacking one of your own. Yes James Baker maybe an alcolyte to the Saudis, but he only could have gained that monaker through his old buddy G.H. Bush who is a known friend of the Saudi royal family.
Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton playing golf, let us not forget where our glorious commander was found for interview just two days after 911. One statement you made that wasn't an all out attack on democracy was that it probably be forgotten about in a week, for a few reasons: 1. the bush administration will probably ignore this report as blatantly as they did the 911 report. 2. The news cycle will shift, KFed will go to jail or Jacko will dangle a baby. 3. Pundits like you will never try to bridge the gap etween red and blue.
Until you and all the pundits out there(red or blue), and all of our leaders in washington become more interested in the success of the United States than filling their pocketbooks or keeping their jobs, nothing is going to get better.
war that was sold to the american public as an easy kill
And by the way, I just gave you permission to keep your job and fill your pocketbook. Now go out and earn it.
________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
This is the President's quote as the Joint Resolution on Iraq was signed;
Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come.
President Bush
Sure does not sound like an "easy kill" to me...
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
In the analysis of the ISG it is first stated that, it was a "direct slap in the face to the administration's foriegn policy." In the first place, what exactly did you expect a handshake an adda boy.
No, but one would have expected the thrust of the report to deal with Iraq. If you read the report, it really doesn't.
I don't think so, a war that was sold to the american public as an easy kill; which has escallated into a conflict lasting longer than the american involvement in WWII.
But not as long as the Indian wars, or the American Revolution, or the Philippine Insurrection. I guess there is a point to this but it escapes me.
"Acolytes" to the Saudis referring to James Baker, come on now attacking one of your own.
Not one of mine.
Yes James Baker maybe an alcolyte to the Saudis, but he only could have gained that monaker through his old buddy G.H. Bush who is a known friend of the Saudi royal family.
And?
Vernon Jordan and Bill Clinton playing golf, let us not forget where our glorious commander was found for interview just two days after 911.
I'm waiting....
One statement you made that wasn't an all out attack on democracy
I was unaware that an unelected and unaccountable commission constituted democracy. I must have slept through that lesson in junior high.
was that it probably be forgotten about in a week, for a few reasons: 1. the bush administration will probably ignore this report as blatantly as they did the 911 report.
Rightfully so. See comments about unelected and unaccountable commissions.
2. The news cycle will shift, KFed will go to jail or Jacko will dangle a baby.
Not to mention the emerging Nancy Pelosi sex scandal.
3. Pundits like you will never try to bridge the gap etween red and blue.
Nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
Until you and all the pundits out there(red or blue), and all of our leaders in washington become more interested in the success of the United States than filling their pocketbooks or keeping their jobs, nothing is going to get better.
A dazzling fact here. I'm not filling my pocketbook (if I even owned such an item), I get the same amount for writing that you get paid for reading though I'm able to do my bit without my lips moving.
You do win the Most Unintentionally Ironic Comment Award, however, for claiming I'm against democracy (whoa?) and not being interested in the "success of the United States" when all I do is critique a report that advoactes US defeat. Sheesh.
"Nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
...and the majority of American voters.
...to your premise. The 9/11 commission report wasn't ignored, so much as discounted, due to the lack of will from both parties to implement those recommendations that actually made sense. Also, as I understood it, the commission report was severely hyped, much as this one has been.
The only real implementation that makes any real sense, is for the President to handle this war; sadly, a circumstance that the MSM and 'cut-and-runners' won't allow.
were implemented.
As for the President handling the war, for good or bad, he will and the media and Congress will have little say.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"Third, despite its protestations to the contrary it proffers a menu of items which by accident or design will destroy US credibility and influence in the Middle East and beyond."
Too late.
I must be having a fit of masochism; Here it goes…
1- Cite all the solutions proposed by Democrat’s over the past few years (besides surrender and supporting our enemies)
2- Ignored the 9-11 report really? How about the administration had already been on the way to action such as creating DHS and there is not a plurality of support for remaining prattle.
3- I suppose the Democrat Party support for the U.S. success including leaking secret information, supporting the terrorists, and speaking in falsehoods about our President. Good plan!
4- Gee, I remember W at the WTC saying something about getting the terrorists right after 9-11; and he kept his word
I am through for now. Anyway, by the time this is written you will probably need to be back to the asylum.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Yes as a decorated former member of the United States Marine Corps the Iraq Conflist was definately sold as an easy kill. My point in writing any of those objections to the initial posting was to see what the response would be and was not suprised. Instead of an open dialog about what should be done all that can be brought up is the flaws in the thought process of the Democratic party. As a former Marine I am concerned that the majority of the whole have no idea of what the word DEMOCRACY actually means or stands for. The other thing if your going to throw out insults like "sophmoric" please don't aim them at me and know who and what your talking about. I belive as a veteran I have nore than earned my paycheck, thank you
aren't we?
Yes as a decorated former member of the United States Marine Corps the Iraq Conflist was definately sold as an easy kill.
My Gibberish Translator is broken. What does this mean? And how is it pertinent?
My point in writing any of those objections to the initial posting was to see what the response would be and was not suprised.
Then you wasted your time.
Instead of an open dialog about what should be done all that can be brought up is the flaws in the thought process of the Democratic party.
Read the introduction to the ISG report and get back to me. It will make the answer to your objection obvious.
As a former Marine I am concerned that the majority of the whole have no idea of what the word DEMOCRACY actually means or stands for.
I'm not sure how your experience as a Marine qualifies you to comment on democracy. I know my experience as an airborne infantryman didn't give me any insights into the concept.
The other thing if your going to throw out insults like "sophmoric" please don't aim them at me and know who and what your talking about.
Are you on the ISG? Who are you? Chuck Robb? If not then rest assured no one was aiming the description "sophomoric" at you. That implies at least a 10th grade education.
I belive as a veteran I have nore than earned my paycheck, thank you
A lot of us have earned that paycheck.
And for heaven's sake, man, learn how to spell.
Once again, when did President Bush tell you this was going to be an "easy kill"?
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
"Group"? Methinks, I am not one of Ariel Sharon's host of capitalistic errand boys! James Baker!? Bill Kristol? Obviously, I can't tell one right-wing, herbivore-polluting, jerk chambermaid for The American Spectator from the other! (Mark Steyn either, indeed!) Power to the Native Americans. Since 1977, 39,398 pristine nudists have been gnawed in Lebanon. What next!? Will the criminals come to demolish me for being a senior citizen? Will my unspoiled friends now be prayed for just because they're whales!? I believe it's open season on insurgents! Needless to say, when the creeps say "one nation under God," they really mean "murder"! When they say "war on terror," honestly it is just a code word for "war"? Character, indeed! As a herbivorous wetland, you see I am moribund. The NRA can shoot several trillion abused liberal vegetarians in Syria, all in the name of "middle class"? As any fool can plainly see, that makes it okay, then. (I imagine, I am being sarcastic. It is not okay, for that matter.)
More coherent than anything I've seen from you thus far.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
"It would seem to the casual observer that folding a localized, and winnable, war into the intractable Arab-Israel conflict, a conflict that has been dragging on at a minimum since the Balfour Declaration, was a suboptimal solution. But the ISG manages to devote a significant amount of space in its “External Approach” to proposing yet another round of failed diplomacy as an integral part of their overall strategy. "
And yet it is that conflict that throws more gasoline on the fires of anti-Americanism in the Islamic world than any other, likely even more than the Iraq war. It is not justified, it is not reasonable, it is not rational, it is not moral. Yet we have to deal with it. We must be fully cognizant of the fact that our nearly unequivocal support for Israel, including their security and settlement policies and signficant foreign aid, puts a big red bullseye on every man, woman, and child in America.
Bear in mind that this is a nation whose security interests are not wholly coincident with our own. They spy on us quite actively and engage in technology transfer with the Chinese. They are also a democracy and a people with whom I have a great deal of sympathy. Yet I am not willing to die for Israel, nor sacrifice my family.
If you feel the context of resolving the Iraq war is inappropriate for resolving this issue, then what context is, and how do you propose to address the issue? After all, so long as the perception festers, however ridiculous it is, that we are at war with Islam at the bidding of the Israelis, all our political efforts, all our propaganda, all our advocacy for democracy falls on deaf and hostile ears. Do we simply bring Israel into NATO and formalize an alliance, steeling ourselves to an endless spiral of warfare with Islamic populists, or is there another solution that addresses the hostility of nearly a billion people?
surely that will satisfy their "irrational" appetite.
Maybe they will only eat Europe if they hungry again, right?
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
We must be fully cognizant of the fact that our nearly unequivocal support for Israel, including their security and settlement policies and signficant foreign aid, puts a big red bullseye on every man, woman, and child in America.
When you are a superpower that comes with the territory.
Bear in mind that this is a nation whose security interests are not wholly coincident with our own.
Whoddathunkit.
Yet I am not willing to die for Israel, nor sacrifice my family.
Last I looked no one was being asked to do this. Seems to me the Israelis have been doing a creditable job of fighting and dying for themselves and their families for three generations and counting.
If you feel the context of resolving the Iraq war is inappropriate for resolving this issue, then what context is, and how do you propose to address the issue?
I don't and I don't see the need to. This may have escaped your grasp but four major wars and countless rounds of feckless diplomacy have been visited on that small scab on the world's butt to no avail. The fact is that none of the Arab parties has an interest in peace that acknowledges Israel's right to exist as a Western oriented and predominantly Jewish state. Unless and until that happens I don't see a reason to bust a lot of grapes over a 50 year old problem.
After all, so long as the perception festers, however ridiculous it is, that we are at war with Islam at the bidding of the Israelis, all our political efforts, all our propaganda, all our advocacy for democracy falls on deaf and hostile ears.
If it weren't Israel it would be something else. If nothing else our experience with bin Laden should have taught us that our enemies in the Arab world have an endless reservoir or grievances and each acquiescence merely raises the ante.
Do we simply bring Israel into NATO and formalize an alliance, steeling ourselves to an endless spiral of warfare with Islamic populists, or is there another solution that addresses the hostility of nearly a billion people?
Other than this being a pretty silly construct I'd say that they should be concerned about the enmity of 300 million of US.
"I don't and I don't see the need to. This may have escaped your grasp but four major wars and countless rounds of feckless diplomacy have been visited on that small scab on the world's butt to no avail. The fact is that none of the Arab parties has an interest in peace that acknowledges Israel's right to exist as a Western oriented and predominantly Jewish state. Unless and until that happens I don't see a reason to bust a lot of grapes over a 50 year old problem."
No avail? Perhaps the Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties have escaped your attention. That diplomatic efforts established a lasting peace between Israel and neighbors that fought to destroy it four times in twenty five years seems to me like a significant accomplishment in that direction. And if it takes another fifty years of diplomacy to settle the status of the occupied territories and the Palestinians, then so be it, it's well worth the time and effort, particularly given the stakes and the alternatives.
History, including modern history, gives plenty of examples of nations that were once mortal enemies and today live in peace in no small part through considerable diplomatic effort. The cost of diplomacy is slight compared to the cost of war.
"If it weren't Israel it would be something else. If nothing else our experience with bin Laden should have taught us that our enemies in the Arab world have an endless reservoir or grievances and each acquiescence merely raises the ante."
I disagree entirely with the notion that all their grievances are interchangeable and held with equal vehemence. And I find inexplicable the implication that we can treat Arab attitudes with casual disregard. If nothing else, our experience with bin Laden should teach us that life is far easier when one has more friends than enemies.
Winning over popular sentiment in these countries makes them less fertile recruiting grounds. Sure, there will always be malcontents eager to strike us, but when we have a reservoir of good will, we're far more likely to get human intelligence, tipoffs, betrayals, data, cooperation, and other factors that can turn deadly attacks that kill Americans into foiled plots.
And I've a proposal, one that I'm quite confident the readership will snidely dismiss as laughably ineffective and an utter waste, but which I'll tender nonetheless: let's play Santa Claus. So far as I can discern, the only events of the last five years that have made any positive impact on attitudes toward the US in the Islamic world are our relief efforts in Indonesia and Pakistan. So be it...let's expend as much effort waging peace as we do waging war.
Add muscle to this sort of work. Establish quick-reaction regional response teams with large caches of supplies available for disaster relief operations. Drill wells, build schools, fix roads, and stock hospitals in places where we're not under constant mortar fire and have more expectation of our handiwork surviving. Provide medical care, vaccines, free surgery, and doctor training. Essentially, make the effort we're making in Iraq, but on a much larger scale in countries with which we're not (yet) at war, a muscular Peace Corps++. And propagandize the tar out of it in every form of media the locals consume. Barring a credible peace settlement over the occupied territories, this is about the best we can do.
"Other than this being a pretty silly construct I'd say that they should be concerned about the enmity of 300 million of US."
Why is Israel in NATO silly? NATO is currently fighting its first war far beyond the North Atlantic, and at the recent summit in Riga there was a lot of talk about establishing some sort of formal partnership with countries like Japan and Australia that have closely congruent security interests. If we in practice are willing to defend or assist Israel in the event of a serious military attack, that sounds a lot like Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, excepting the geographic language.
Perhaps the Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties have escaped your attention. That diplomatic efforts established a lasting peace between Israel and neighbors that fought to destroy it four times in twenty five years seems to me like a significant accomplishment in that direction.
An interesting interpretation of events. One that ignores Jordan's desire to extricate itself from the Palestinian issue by ceding the West Bank to the PLO and Egypt's desire to regain the Sinai and to extricate itself from the Palestinian issue by ceding the Gaza Strip to the PLO.
If one ignores the series of wars and the enlightened self interest involved, yes it was a helluva triumph for diplomacy.
And if it takes another fifty years of diplomacy to settle the status of the occupied territories and the Palestinians, then so be it, it's well worth the time and effort, particularly given the stakes and the alternatives.
Agreed. I am willing to wait another century. What I am not willing to do is to establish linkage between two unrelated problems thereby ensuring two failures.
History, including modern history, gives plenty of examples of nations that were once mortal enemies and today live in peace in no small part through considerable diplomatic effort.
If one excludes regime change in on or the other of the parties I would say your list is mighty short. Want to give me some examples of diplomacy bringing "mortal enemies" together? I don't see it.
I disagree entirely with the notion that all their grievances are interchangeable and held with equal vehemence. And I find inexplicable the implication that we can treat Arab attitudes with casual disregard.
Really? I find it inexplicable that we consider their attitudes at all.
Sure, there will always be malcontents eager to strike us, but when we have a reservoir of good will, we're far more likely to get human intelligence, tipoffs, betrayals, data, cooperation, and other factors that can turn deadly attacks that kill Americans into foiled plots.
So you would contend that we get more cooperation if they like us rather than through the traditional means of exploiting divisions in their ranks, bribery, and fear? Interesting theory, but one that certainly can't be proven.
So far as I can discern, the only events of the last five years that have made any positive impact on attitudes toward the US in the Islamic world are our relief efforts in Indonesia and Pakistan. So be it...let's expend as much effort waging peace as we do waging war.
Unless we can cause a regular series of natural catastrophes to befall our enemies, and I'm not opposed to that if we have that technological capablity, it seems suboptimal to wait around for chances to rescue tsunami survivors while airplanes are being flown into buildings.
You may have missed this, but the relief effort was spearheaded by the same guys who wage war.
Why is Israel in NATO silly?
It is silly because most of Europe would not be willing to go to war because of an attack on Israel and Europe has to agree on NATO expansion.
You do realize that Australia and Japan aren't in NATO, don't you? Because throwing them into the equation doesn't make sense or bolster your case unless they are in NATO.
"If one ignores the series of wars and the enlightened self interest involved, yes it was a helluva triumph for diplomacy."
I'd certainly say so. And I've yet to find a country that doesn't act in its own interests or perceptions thereof, including in diplomacy.
"If one excludes regime change in on or the other of the parties I would say your list is mighty short. Want to give me some examples of diplomacy bringing "mortal enemies" together? I don't see it."
Well, if you no more than damn with faint praise the Camp David Accords, then SIR, THE PRIVATE BELIEVES THAT ANY ANSWER HE GIVES WILL BE WRONG, SIR, and I'll pass on tapping out pigeons for rhetorical skeet shooting.
"Really? I find it inexplicable that we consider their attitudes at all."
Wow...so you seriously think it's of no consequence to our national security how our country is regarded, or is this just an assertion of personal apathy? Does this apply to just the Arabs, or the other 95% of humanity in general, particularly that portion which buys our exports, hosts our troops, holds our currency, and services our debt?
"So you would contend that we get more cooperation if they like us rather than through the traditional means of exploiting divisions in their ranks, bribery, and fear? Interesting theory, but one that certainly can't be proven."
No, since I've no penchant for false dichotomy, but I do favor it in conjunction. I don't see why it'd be hard to prove...I'm sure some bright person could check the correlation in various countries between the esteem in which we're held and the frequency and value of cooperative human intelligence collections.
"You may have missed this, but the relief effort was spearheaded by the same guys who wage war."
Did I say otherwise? Actually, since our military's greatest and most appropriate skill is killing the enemy, yet most of our military engagement over the last 20 years has been in peacekeeping operations, I'd like to see the formal creation of a military branch specialized for such activity and humanitarian missions as warranted. A lightly armed, highly mobile force heavily vested in logistics and linguistics could be more effective in many situations than troops trained and geared for active combat.
"It is silly because most of Europe would not be willing to go to war because of an attack on Israel and Europe has to agree on NATO expansion."
I have my doubts whether they'd do so on behalf of Turkey, but here we are...
"You do realize that Australia and Japan aren't in NATO, don't you? Because throwing them into the equation doesn't make sense or bolster your case unless they are in NATO."
Really? Wow, thanks! I heard somewhere they're both islands, too! Okay, to be more precise...it supports the plausibility of having Israel in some association with NATO, but not necessarily membership. But just ten years ago having NATO fighting in Afghanistan might have seemed far-fetched. I think it inevitable that NATO will either expand beyond the NA in membership and operations or become irrelevant to world affairs, excepting the scenario of a dramatically more hostile Russia and/or CIS.
And if it takes another fifty years of diplomacy to settle the status of the occupied territories and the Palestinians, then so be it, it's well worth the time and effort, particularly given the stakes and the alternatives.
Sort of a pre hoc ergo propter hoc there. By analogy, "If it takes two weeks of burning incense and standing on one foot to get over this cold, it will be worth it."
While I agree that diplomacy is worthwhile and largely preferable to shedding blood, after 50 years the problem will either go away by itself or will have resulted in more shed blood than if direct action were taken at the start, or both.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
And:
I would die for Israel, and perhaps for Britain, and certainly for Australia and Iceland.
But then, I value the freedom of man more than the life of this one.
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Grab an Elal ticket, I think the IDF could use some help these days...as for me, I'll pass.
And as a practical consideration, how would you manage to die for Iceland? They've no military, no enemies, and our own forces rather abruptly vacated Patterson. They do have a coast guard ship, but last I saw it was just sitting in the harbor in Reykjavik a frisbee throw from the old whaling fleet. Maybe you could go onboard and get a badly infected cut chipping paint. And maybe enough miss us that you'd hear a við Þökkum honum samverun or two.
When have the Isrealis EVER initiated hostilities? Sems to me that they've been constantly under attack for the last 50+ years, but hold back because of their relationship with Washington. In return, they get statements from jackasses like Baker about "F**k the jews."
I'd much rather sacrifice my life in defense of Isreal, than in defense of, say, France.
Ever since Saddam's regime fell Iraq has been a nation building mission. We've worked our plan of holding elections and training Iraqi army and police and sadly it hasn't worked. It's a pity that the President has defined Iraq in terms of victory and defeat because it makes it harder to admit that nation building there hasn't worked any better that it did in Somalia or Haiti.
Every year that we have been in Iraq the violence has increased and that will continue wether or not we stay. All staying is likely to accomplish is to waste more men and resources on this sorry little country.
Blaming the ISG for the failure is silly. Our military must accept some blame for their failure to kill all the insurgents. Given that there has never been democracy in any Arab state, the President should have had a back-up plan in case democracy didn't work out.
I don't think that talking to Iran and Syria will get us anywhere. We should try it with the Syrians and see what they can do for us and what their price is. We must talk to Jordan, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkey and the Kurds, and offer to help them with any spill over from Iraq.
As for linking Iraq with the Israeli/Palestine situation, I think that is a really bad idea.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes