Baker-Hamilton Condemned by the Usual Suspects... (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

Who couldn't see this coming??

The war party speaks out against Baker:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900443_pf.html

Here is a nice disingenuous bit in the article from Frank Gaffney, one of the neocon water carriers:

"What we really are saying, the road to peace in Iraq lies through Baghdad. The road to Arab-Israeli peace runs through Jerusalem," he said. "We are not linking the two, but we are proposing a comprehensive strategy to improve our prospects in Iraq and improve our prospects in the Middle East."

This is revisonsist history. I think these guys count on the fact that Americans can no longer remember history, not even very recent history. So, they just change hisotry at will when it suits them. Then they all back each other up in their editorial pages. Sort of a Stalinist approach.

The neocrazies are attacking Baker-Hamilton because the ISG is suggesting a comprehensive approach to the region, with equal focus on Israel and the Palestinians. A COMPREHENSIVE approach. No exemptions for the favored.

Terrorism in the region is rooted in the regional instability that comes from the festering Arab-Israeli conflict. Terrorism was introduced to the region via the Arab-Israeli conflict. The region will never be stabilized and we will not be fully secure until that issue is settled. So, it is in fact all linked.

The kicker is that the neocons in 2001 and 2002 told us that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad":

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/kuttner-r-09-11.html

The neocons also contended that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad." In other words, get rid of Saddam and the Mideast balance of power would shift; Israel's enemies would be softened up for a peace settlement on Israel's terms. But much of the violence between Israel and Palestine is home grown, and any durable settlement must also be home grown. The sacking of Iraq has only made both Israel's Ariel Sharon and the Palestinians more intransigent.

So, in fact, it was the necons who first explixitly linked the Arab-Israel conflict to Iraq. They told us that by invading Iraq, we could solve the underlying problems of the region. THAT IS LINKAGE. They did it first, when it suited THEIR purposes.

Now, along comes the ISG, which concludes that a region wide settlement is required. Problem for the neocons is that Baker is someone who would actually hold Israel's feet to the fire.

That is unnacceptable to the dual loyalist neocons. Israel must have carte blanche at all times.

So, suddenly, the neocons now tell us that there is no linkage between Israel, the Arabs and Iraq.

They must have been as wrong about that as they were wrong about everything.

They are wrong again now when they attack Baker-Hamilton.

Liars and charlatans the lot of 'em.

 

[Saintshizzle]

Adder,

You have to keep in mind that bipartisanship would end many of these "pundit's" careers.

 

[dapperdan]

The neocrazies are attacking Baker-Hamilton because the ISG is suggesting a comprehensive approach to the region, with equal focus on Israel and the Palestinians. A COMPREHENSIVE approach. No exemptions for the favored.

Terrorism in the region is rooted in the regional instability that comes from the festering Arab-Israeli conflict. Terrorism was introduced to the region via the Arab-Israeli conflict. The region will never be stabilized and we will not be fully secure until that issue is settled. So, it is in fact all linked.

The kicker is that the neocons in 2001 and 2002 told us that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad":

Now, along comes the ISG, which concludes that a region wide settlement is required. Problem for the neocons is that Baker is someone who would actually hold Israel's feet to the fire.

That is unnacceptable to the dual loyalist neocons. Israel must have carte blanche at all times.

So, suddenly, the neocons now tell us that there is no linkage between Israel, the Arabs and Iraq.

They must have been as wrong about that as they were wrong about everything.

They are wrong again now when they attack Baker-Hamilton.

Liars and charlatans the lot of 'em.

OK, I'll bite.

Let's start with Iran. Iran is hurtling forward at breakneck speed in an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. And while the Iranians may use the Israelis as justification, virtually any reasonable analysis would view the nuclear acquisition by Iran as having multiple benefits: control of the straits of hormuz - which would give them de facto control of world oil prices as well as an effective blackmailing mechanism against the Saudis, the leaders of the Sunni world; but also a credible threat against the West. I don't know what would be number one and number two on their list of objectives, maybe it would be 1A and 1B, but dominating the Arab world and emasculating the Sunnis is probably #1A and bringing in blackmail monies from the West #1B.

Do you really believe that the Iranians give two cents how the Israelis treat the Palestinian Sunnis? Strategically, I don't think they care at all; but from a PR standpoint, the Israelis are a convenient rallying point for the Iranians.

And this does not even begin to address a more fundamental problem. Let's presume for a moment that you are correct in your analysis. How do you actually propose to bring peace? Let's be realistic, President Clinton brought all of his considerable politcal talents and skills to bear to bring a peaceful solution to the problem. Yasser Arafat practically had a private wing at the White House during Clinton's tenor, visiting the White House more than any other politician in the world. President Clinton failed.

Before President Clinton, you had the first Bush Administration, led by the genius that was James Baker (yes, sarcasm). I happen to remember how James Baker single handedly precipitated the 1987 stock market panic with his German-U.S trade comments over the weekend prior to black Monday, but that's another story. Anyway, Bush 41 and Baker already had their shot at cobbling some sort of agreement with the Palestinians. Again, failure.

So now, we've got an even more militant Hamas in charge of the Palestinians. And you somehow believe that we would succeed now.

Holding Israel's feet to the fire cuts both ways. The Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for the situation they're in; and failing to acknowledge that is not going to move the peace process forward.

The other problem we have is that Hamas, in all their infinite wisdom, has struck an accord with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda has been moving considerable resources into the West Bank. At the same time, Hizbollah has rearmed their Southern Lebannon strongholds to where they have more weapons now than before their summertime provocation. Thank you United Nations.

This is not a recipe for peace in the region, but of course, it is all the fault of Israel. {Cue the "Blame Canada" music from South Park, The Movie and substitute Israel.}

 

[rubberneck]

Just leave and let them sort it out.

 

[DadsDream]

 

[dapperdan]

So Baker-Hamilton lays out the counter-insurgency: the Sunni counter-insurgency based in Syria, the Shiite counter-insurgency being directed from Tehran primarily being run through al Sadr as the point man.

Ok, great, Baker-Hamilton can describe the obvious, kudos. That's the easy part. Even a dolt like myself can figure this part out. The tough part, and conveniently the part that Baker-Hamilton leaves out is what in the world are we going to do about it.

While railing against the neocons criticism of Baker-Hamilton might be a feel-good exercise, it fails to address the crux of the problem, the problem that Baker-Hamilton itself identifies. There are answers, they just aren't very palatable.

 

[DadsDream]

"Baker-Hamilton Condemned by the Usual Suspects..."

Not just the "Usual Suspects."

MSNBC
Iraqi president calls panel’s report ‘dangerous’
Talabani says Study Group’s plan could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty
Updated: 32 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were “an insult to the people of Iraq.”

President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution.”

READ MORE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16134560/

 

[dapperdan]

On the bright side, it's good to see Pres Talabani taking precious time out of his busy Tehran travel schedule to read the report.

 

[blackadder]

OK, I'll bite.

Let's start with Iran. Iran is hurtling forward at breakneck speed in an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. And while the Iranians may use the Israelis as justification, virtually any reasonable analysis would view the nuclear acquisition by Iran as having multiple benefits: control of the straits of hormuz - which would give them de facto control of world oil prices as well as an effective blackmailing mechanism against the Saudis, the leaders of the Sunni world; but also a credible threat against the West. I don't know what would be number one and number two on their list of objectives, maybe it would be 1A and 1B, but dominating the Arab world and emasculating the Sunnis is probably #1A and bringing in blackmail monies from the West #1B.

Do you really believe that the Iranians give two cents how the Israelis treat the Palestinian Sunnis? Strategically, I don't think they care at all; but from a PR standpoint, the Israelis are a convenient rallying point for the Iranians.

And this does not even begin to address a more fundamental problem. Let's presume for a moment that you are correct in your analysis. How do you actually propose to bring peace? Let's be realistic, President Clinton brought all of his considerable politcal talents and skills to bear to bring a peaceful solution to the problem. Yasser Arafat practically had a private wing at the White House during Clinton's tenor, visiting the White House more than any other politician in the world. President Clinton failed.

Before President Clinton, you had the first Bush Administration, led by the genius that was James Baker (yes, sarcasm). I happen to remember how James Baker single handedly precipitated the 1987 stock market panic with his German-U.S trade comments over the weekend prior to black Monday, but that's another story. Anyway, Bush 41 and Baker already had their shot at cobbling some sort of agreement with the Palestinians. Again, failure.

So now, we've got an even more militant Hamas in charge of the Palestinians. And you somehow believe that we would succeed now.

Holding Israel's feet to the fire cuts both ways. The Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for the situation they're in; and failing to acknowledge that is not going to move the peace process forward.

The other problem we have is that Hamas, in all their infinite wisdom, has struck an accord with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda has been moving considerable resources into the West Bank. At the same time, Hizbollah has rearmed their Southern Lebannon strongholds to where they have more weapons now than before their summertime provocation. Thank you United Nations.

This is not a recipe for peace in the region, but of course, it is all the fault of Israel. {Cue the "Blame Canada" music from South Park, The Movie and substitute Israel.}

Hamas, Al Queda, Hezbollah...none of these organizations existed before the 1980s after 15 years of Israeli occupation and settlement. With respect to Hamas and Hezbollah, they formed in direct response to Israeli occupation.

Hamas was helped off the ground by Israel through covert funding because Arafat wanted to cut a deal for the West Bank and Gaza but Israel wanted to buy time to colonize those territories. Hence, a more inveterate and ideological foe was needed in order to have a terror threat that justified occupation and allowed colonization:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10456.htm

Hezbollah came into being as an insurgency against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 80s and 90s.

Clearly whatever Israel is doing is not working after 60 years of the status quo.

The Israelis could build their separation wall on the 1967 border and forget the Palestinians. They can get their coolie labor from Asia or Africa, bar entrance of Palestinians to Israel and move on.

Why then are they inserting their citizens into the Middle of Arab communities and STEALING land from Palestinians???:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1953702,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100482.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/w...7e6e4fabaf2545&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This is a strange strategy for fighting terror. Seems more likely to ensure that terror attacks continue.

Instead of keeping their wall on the '67 border, however, they build the wall through the West Bank and confiscate land and water resources that do not belong to them. This is certainly not helpful in bringing a solution any closer. Two wrongs never make a right.

"Holding their feet to the fire" means to reverse the occupation because, whatever has happened in the past, there will be no way to move forward to a solution unless the Israelis stop colonizing the West Bank.

The Gaza "pullout" was another slick P.R. move of little substance. About 7,000 Israelis were "pulled out" of Gaza, where they sat in the middle of almost 2,000,000 Palis living in squalor. The 7,000 Israelis controlled some ridiculous percentage of arable land and consumed something approaching 50% of Gaza'a water while the Palis have clean running water for only a few hours a day.

Other than extracting those few thousand colonists, nothing changed in Gaza.

Life there is still like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5863204188744026936

Those are conditions which continue to produce terrorists in the same way as life in squalid projects produces criminals.

Meanwhile, as the Gaza "pullout" took place Israel simultaneously stepped up settlement activities in the West Bank:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0709/p07s01-wome.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1005/p01s01-wome.html?s=widep

So, they continue to steal land in the West Bank while yelling, "see we gave them Gaza and they still shoot at us." What does that tell you about their real long term intentions? The Israelis are masters of this kind of shell game.

It is just like during the "Oslo process." Terror attacks against Israel fell off dramamtically in the 90s while those "negoitiations" took place. Yet while at the same time they were supposedly negotiating a transfer of the West Bank to the Palestinians, the Israelis redoubled their settlement activity: the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem more than doubled. That is not what I call negotiation in good faith.

Israel shut down some small colonies in Gaza. They did not "give Gaza to the Palis." Israel still retains complete control of Gaza, air, land and sea.

There will be no progress in the region until Israel does not occupy or physically control Gaza, the West Bank and the people who inhabit those territories, not to mention the Golan Heights and Shebba farms, which are issues that still hang over Israel's relations with Syria and Lebanon.

Since progress and solutions are what we are looking for, it follows that we should expect something out of Israel too.

At a minimum they could start by ceasing any new settlement activity, but they refuse to do even that, despite the fact that they promised us they would do so:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1269880,00.html

Responsibility for all this failure you talk about is shared equally, not just by the Palis. All sides will have to have their "feet held to the fire." To date only the Palis ever get squeezed.

Fear that attention will be focused equally on Israel's part of the equation is why these people are condemning Baker-Hamilton.

 

[blackadder]

"Baker-Hamilton Condemned by the Usual Suspects..."

Not just the "Usual Suspects."

MSNBC
Iraqi president calls panel’s report ‘dangerous’
Talabani says Study Group’s plan could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty
Updated: 32 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were “an insult to the people of Iraq.”

President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report “is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution.”

READ MORE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16134560/

DD,

You know of course that Talabani is a Kurd and it is in his interests to keep us in Iraq as long as possible because it furthers his own goals and interests with respect to Kurdistan?

And then of course, the Kurds are also closely allied with the Israelis, who also are antogonistic toward James Baker:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1243588,00.html

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040628fa_fact?040628fa_fact

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5364982.stm

So, consider the source. Ta;labani is doing some "back channeling."

 

[SaintJ]

In this case, the usual suspects have developed an interesting splinter group, the General Custer wing of the Republican Party.

 

[blackadder]

In this case, the usual suspects have developed an interesting splinter group, the General Custer wing of the Republican Party.

Most of these guys are not really Republicans. They change allegiances depending on who is in position to further their "vision" for the Middle East.

They are a one issue group.

 

[purvis_guy]

Surrender monkeys the lot of them