« Hezbollah Supporters Call for Death to America! | Main | Bill Clinton's Administration Bugged Princess Diana's Phone »

December 11, 2006


Quite a bit of rosy language, but like so many in the neoconservative camp, your analysis is faulty and you do not propose alternatives. "It's not over till it's over" (btw the original quote was 'it ain't over till it's over') is not a policy. While you spend your time talking about "human freedom" (btw what does that mean? i thought that this nation was goverened by laws which are checks on certain forms of 'human freedom'), the failed strategy that is in place is claiming additional innocent American lives. By all objective accounts, the United States is failing in Iraq. Why do you think the President is proposing a change in strategy? Because he was pressured by the media and the toothless left?

Why have the American people abandoned the Iraq policy in droves? Because they're too stupid to accurately assess the situation on the ground thanks to the left-wing media?

All of these theories, though convenient, are not supported by the facts. The President has decided to change course because the violence in Iraq continues to rise. A majority of the American public doesn't support this war, not because they don't see us building schools and handing out gum to children, but because Iraq does not resemble a stable, prosperous, democratic state that is an ally in the war on terror (per the President's changing threshold of success).

Moreover, you assume that we have an indefinite period of time to get Iraq right. If the elections last month are any indication, we have less than a year and a half to "resolve" this situation. Otherwise the democratic party will take back the White House and "solve" the situation for us all by precipitously pulling out American forces...Certainly not a good end.

Your claim that realists are the problem ignores all of the problems that the President and the neoconservatives have caused by executing this war in the fashion that they did. While some of the recommendations of the ISG are fanciful, there are others that will have to be done whether you like it or not. For example, you're opposed to speaking to Iran...Well what do you propose we do instead?

Ignore them?...Ok, they keep supplying the insurgency with weapons and Iraq continues to deteriorate. The American people elect someone to pull our troops out.

Attack them?...Ok, you destabilize the south of Iraq and you've made both Iraq and Iran (as well as Hezbollah) an active threat against you (Every analyst believes that we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with regard to Iran and Hezbollah).

At least by opening up a dialogue with them you maximize your chances to cut a deal over their activities in Iraq. And frankly it's in their interests to help you because Iran wants to see us leave Iraq sooner rather than later (which is going to happen by 2009 anyway), secondly they would like a Shiite dominated government (done), finally they don't want to see the country fall apart (refugees are bad for them considering that they can't create jobs on their own). Combined with our efforts in Saudia Arabia and Turkey and Jordan, I think we can manage Iran. As to their nuclear program...That's an entirely different issue which I invite you to ponder on my blog.

I don't think Baker is a fool, but I do believe he yearns to be back on the world stage. His ego, needing a quick fix, prevents him from seeing Iraq and neighboring Iran and Syria in proper context.

The ISG is a complete waste of paper. If I were an environmentalist, I'd be outraged.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.