Roger L. Simon: Moveon.org and their ilk and the State Dept. Arabists...

.. Baker, Scowcroft, et al.... have more in common then they would like to admit. They both advocate dialog with Syria. Of course, that's not looking very good this morning. Across the Bay puts it most succinctly:

This assassination [Pierre Gemeyal] will likely ensure that if such street rallies do take place, clashes would erupt, as it's clear that the Syrians are set on that. (Just another reminder for the idiots who believe Syria is a force of "stability.")

Syria has a primary objective that outweighs everything else: kill the Hariri tribunal, and redominate Lebanon at any cost. This is nothing short than a fight to the death for the Syrians. And, as these thugs have done throughout their bloody history, they will kill anyone.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

1) Bush, wake up call or not, has completely blown his political capital, as far as I can tell. His poll numbers and the recent election, don't seem to give him a leg to stand on. It appears that Baker et all will probably recommend buddying up with Iran and Syria and Bush will probably have no real choice in the matter. I could insert something in here about picking one's battles, but its really probably too late for our President to make use of such an idea.

2) What other option is there? The current plan doesn't seem to be working. The Iraqi military and police seem corrupt, clueless and not at all trusted by the populace. We could send in more troops, but I doubt that would win us any more hearts and minds... instead it would likely provide fuel for those who cast us as an empire. Pulling out and leaving them to their own devices, seems a recipe for disaster... so what other options do we have left, other than some realpolitick deal with the devil?

If only this administration had been more careful, more open and more thoughtful, we might not be painted into a corner now.

I'm not a betting woman, but my guess is that even if Syria takes out two more Lebanese cabinet ministers so Hezbollah can have an even freer hand in Lebanon, there will be the usual gang of idiots still saying that Syria and Iran too, for that matter, can be "partners for peace".

Hmm, nice to see the person above has got it all figured out. Meanwhile, he seems to forget Bush is still Commander in Chief. I doubt Bush has. (I am one of those who has many criticism of Bush, but when I read blanket statements like the above I am repelled.)

Oh come on. Bush needs a clue? He has been out there in front on this issue for years and now a lot of people [most of whom do not have any idea what they are talking about] have decided he needs a clue because Congress called for and got some ISG with Baker on the commission.

I would like to add something that has really been bugging me lately. Rumsfled was both the oldest and youngest Sec of Def. in history. None of the people who think they are so cutting edge and new age on the issue of the ME are actually new to the scene. Baker is not a bad man, he has never betrayed a Repbulcian president and he is no more of a throw back than a lot of other people who seem to think they have all the answers. Kristol has been around forever. So have a lot of these other people, including McCain.

Baker is not calling for a cut and run policy in Iraq or the ME and even if he were there is no reason to believe Bush would listen to him.

I find the knee jerk reaction to Baker and the ISG from a lot of the right to be so much grandstanding. They do not know what is in the report but have already decided it is a bad thing promoted by bad people and no doubt they will stick to that. And to say that Bush needs a clue considering the amount of time and energy and resources he has devoted to this is just plain ridiculous.

I agree... I am hoping that Baker will have some good ideas. I really hope that he's not hanging his hat on being buddies with Syria and Iran.

JK,
Hmm, nice to see the person above has got it all figured out. Meanwhile, he seems to forget Bush is still Commander in Chief. I doubt Bush has. (I am one of those who has many criticism of Bush, but when I read blanket statements like the above I am repelled.)

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? Of course Bush is the CiC, however, in this nation the CiC has to rely on the populace and the Congress in order to do much of anything. Right now, the populace isn't too friendly (at least according to the recent polls and the recent elections). Congress... well I think we all know where Congress is at this point, Bush will be lucky if he gets through the next two years without fighting impeachment the whole time (let's hope that the Dems aren't going that direction).

However, if the Barker report recommends working with Iran and Syria and since Blair has already said thats what should happen (and he's really the last major member of the Coalition of the Willing), the President will be in a difficult position to say no. More importantly, if he decides to ignore the recommendations of Blair and Baker, the Republican party could find itself at the butt end of some very nasty campaign ads come '08, if the War is still on the boil.

IN America, the Commander in Chief has lots of Power... and he usually ahs lots of controls around his ability to make use of that Power. In the current political environment, I think Bush will not be nearly as functional.

No Blair did not say that would happen. This is exactly what I am talking about. Blair said that if Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions and stop meddling with its neighbors then there might be a chance that they could be allies for peace. However, he did not offer them any carrots and he did not say that they were any help now or that we should pander to them in anyway. I read an excerpt from the man's speech, instead of relying on hysterical bloggers and media who never get it right.

It could well be that the only thing this report will do is acknowledge the obvious, Iran and Syria border Iraq and they are causing lots of trouble and we can deal with all that trouble without dealing with them.

A piece in the (London/UK) Times about Blair's speech confirms both the PM's ultimatum to Iran and Syria and also President Bush's committment to a free Iraq -- and his lack of interest in pressuring Israel to give up more concessions for "the peace process" (a.k.a., the process in pieces):

Mr Blair said there could be a new �partnership� with Iran if it stopped supporting terrorism in Iraq and gave up its nuclear ambitions. Syria and Iran could choose partnership or isolation, he said....

Mr Blair said that the choice for Iran was clear. �They help the Middle East peace process, not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations. In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or, alternatively, they face the consequence of not doing so: isolation.�

Thank you for clarifying. I think that my information came from audio quotes and may easily have been misconstrued. I also hope you're correct on the report.

Iran may or may not be making a bomb, but it seems rather clear to me that they would have no reason to see a successful democracy in Iraq... More likely, they would stabilize Iraq under a Shiite "democracy" that took its orders from Tehran. I can't even imagine what Syria would love to do with them.

At least, thats how it appears to me. If Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were all tied to the same puppeteers...

Rather I should say we can NOT deal with all that trouble without dealing with them. Fingers outpaced brain. again.

I agree to a great extent.... but I think the larger problem is not with Baker as some people seem to be saying, it is with the American people who do not have any desire to expand this war. It may expand anyway, I would not argue with that, but it seems to me that there are a lot of people who do not even think in terms of what is and is not politcally viable. Of course the pundits just talk, they do not have to actually carry out the policy.

Think China/Russia... not necessarily holding the strings, but able to influence... the cold war isn't over, it just took a big breath.

This would by no means be a revival of the Cold War. Russia is presently worried that it's population will be 50% Muslim by 2050 at current birthrates. (The demographics are scary in Western Europe too.)

In fact, it would be the infancy of the Caliphate. It's power would be Islamic radicalism (i.e. theocratic dictatorship as in Iran), nuclear weapons and control of massive oil reserves. This would be the worst nightmare the West could have.

As Terrye points out, this war may expand whether we want it to or not. I cannot see another outcome sometimes. The Iranian President, Osama and others all say this is their goal. Why don't people believe them?

Start drilling for oil and gas everywhere, build nuclear power plants, get solar and wind going wherever possible and get yourself one of those little home hydrogen power plants from Honda that will also fill up your hydrogen car. We have maybe 10 years to at least become free of the economic threat we face because of energy dependence.

Regarding nuclear power, Iran is asking the UN for assistance. How is that for a "pair of stones"?

Lastly, you have to deal with a theocratic dictatorship using religious zeal to do unspeakable things. (While this may infuriate Muslims, Mohammed would be considered, among other things, a pedophile today. The more I learn about Islam, the more I am dismayed.) The only way to save our nation and way of life may require the loss of human life on an unimaginable scale.

Maybe my fears are running away with me, but this is the biggest issue for my generation and perhaps the next generation.

Barrett pretty well summarizes my view of the situation, except that I do not believe we can come close to cutting the oil umbilical. Hydrogen power is a joke that we need to get over. There are many source of energy that we may exploit, but it will take a long time to get free of the oil dependency - and it isn't just us - it's the nuclear armed, untrustworthy and cynical Chinese who need that oil - you know, the same folks who gave the plan for the Islamic bomb to Pakistan (and North Korea).

There is going to be massive bloodshed this century, in one or many wars between rapidly radicalizing Islam and whatever is left of western civilization as it breeds itself out of existence (except in the US).

All things considered, I'd rather have a place that can provide food, water, shelter and good fields of fire than a Honda hydrogen generator.

"I find the knee jerk reaction to Baker and the ISG from a lot of the right to be so much grandstanding."

Terrye, they don't call him Fuck-the-Jews Baker for nothing. One of the main reasons we are in our predicament today is that Baker kissed up to Saddam almost up to the day he invaded Kuwait, then when we had the dictator by the throat in GW1 we let him go at the behest of Baker's oil buddies in the Middle East, abandoning thousands of Iraqis who were ready to overthrow him to a murderous fate. Baker's plan will probably involve sucking up to Syria and Iran by throwing Israel (and now the Lebanese Christians) under the bus. This has always been his MO.

The only strategic justification for Baker's actions in 1991 would be to claim Hussein as a counter against Iran. But in the early '90s both countries were severely drained by their long war and presented far less of a strategic threat than they do today. That was when we should have taken advantage of the situation by "regime change". The eternal lesson of history is that kicking the can down the road only makes the problem worse.

Oh puleaze. I did not even support the war against Saddam back then. I was wrong. And as far as that is concerned there is the famous pic of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. It would be nice if people kept in mind the context of the times.

This hysteria is unseemly, it really is. Why not wait until the report is out to attack it? Why not wait until Bush actually supports the report to attack him? The anti war people must be loving this.

Back in those days Bush1 did not have the support from the UN to go after Saddam. Bush1 had even less support from the Democrats to go after Saddam than his son had years later and yet somehow we are going to blame Baker for a policy that was not in the least uncommon in Washington at the time.

So to blame Baker for Bush not doing something he did not have the support to do in any case it just not right. Is there any reason to believe that if Baker had not been there and if all the other things had been the same, the lack of support from Congress or the people of the US and the lack of international support from the UN or NATO or any other international coalition to actually invade and depose Saddam..that the outcome would have been different?

A lot of people have come to believe that if we had removed Saddam back then would be better off today, I believe that myself..but going back in time is not a realistic option and assuming that Baker is a bad man is not fair either. It is not as if the neocons have been right about everything themselves.

"The summa of wisdom in these circles is the need for consultation with Iraq's immediate neighbors in Syria and Iran. Given that these two regimes have recently succeeded in destroying the other most hopeful democratic experiment in the region - the brief emergence of a self-determined Lebanon..."

"This will present few difficulties to Baker, who supported the Syrian near-annexation of Lebanon. In order to recruit the Baathist regime of Hafez Assad to his coalition of the cynical against Saddam in the Kuwait war, Baker and Bush senior both acquiesced in the obliteration of Lebanese sovereignity..."

And James Baker is now worthy of our trust in selling out the Iraqis? Resulting in a unified Iran-Iraq-Lebanon-Syria under a nuclear-armed, terror supporting mullahcracy holding Israel in its sights? All so that the NYT can fawn over Baker and repeat the inane "he got us out of war"?

Have you ever heard some of the really jnasty things Hitch had to say about the dead Pope?

Well I guess the right blogoshpere is just going to turn into a mirror image of the left. Hateful, spiteful and judgmental. so long.

Well I guess the right blogoshpere is just going to turn into a mirror image of the left. Hateful, spiteful and judgmental. so long.

It always has been, from the perspective of someone not actively with the "right". Just as the left has been from the perspective of someone not actively with the "left". I've had the rare fortune to disagree with both, just enough to see that the problem appears across the political spectrum...

Once upon a time, at least here in Ohio, the general political situation was one of compromise. It was obvious that good Americans voted in all members of the State Legislature and Gov. Rhodes. When there was an issue, debate or problem, Gov Rhodes would call the heads of the Democratic wing of congress and they would sit down and work on the issue until they could reach a consensus. Gov Rhodes didn't always get what he wanted, but he always got the undivided attention of the Dems. They knew that he was more interested in a policy that could appeal to the broadest group of citizens, rather than a policy to appease his "base". More often than not, they picked their battles carefully, because they respected him and more importantly Ohioans respected him.

We've lost the ability to work together as a nation, because (I think) both parties have swung to appeasing their base, rather than working with the elected members of the government to find a decent middle ground. Since elected officials only try to appeal to their base, then they lose the respect of everyone else (and probably deep down, they even lose respect in the eyes of their base).

As the politicians go, so goes the populace. Thus we have no possibility that "the other side" might have value... they are all reduced to "nazis" "dhimmis" "fascists" or "appeasers".

I think it may be the single largest threat to our nation, even more than that of Islamic aggression. How difficult will it be to destroy us, if we're too busy tearing each other apart? I often wonder what Bin Laden had in mind when planning 9/11. Did he forsee that it would split wide open political divisions? Did he know that we would react by restricting freedoms, by spying on citizens, by getting dangerously close to the line on torture? Did he plan to scare us, or did he hope to discredit us, through our subsequent actions?

I don't know, I'd like to think he's not that bright. But, if not, then we have brought the Hateful, spiteful and judgmental political environment upon ourselves.

I don't worry about the spying. After all I am in my 50's and I grew up in a time when the law could easily do much worse than it does now. Trust me.

I worry about the demonizing of perfectly decent people simply because someone thinks that might disagree with them.

Have you ever heard some of the really jnasty things Hitch had to say about the dead Pope?

And Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, and even poor old Bob Hope. He's also praised much of Soviet rule singling out the destruction of Orthodox Christianity as a great achievement. The man is vile. The fact that "conservatives" (mostly neocons, but not exclusively so) love the unreformed Trotskyite (sorry Trotskyist as they insist on saying) speaks volumes about the state of the so-called Right.

Incidentally, James Baker did great work putting together the incredible coalition to fight Desert Storm, a war that was not as unanimously supported from the get-go as people now claim a decade and a half later. "Hitch" was, of course, one of the most shrill critics of the liberation of Kuwait. Bush-Baker support for green lighting Syria's destruction of Lebanese Christian Michel Aoun's forces was unfortunate but the neocons didn't object to it at the time. (If some of them did they were very discreet about it as I had subscriptions to NR and the WSJ at the time and followed what Krauthammer, Safire, and company wrote and said and I don't recall them objecting to the destruction of Maronite resistance to syrian rule). Their animosity towards Baker only began when he stood up to Yitzhak Shamir's demands for $10 billion in loans for illegal settlements right in the middle of Desert Storm.

Have you ever heard some of the really jnasty things Hitch had to say about the dead Pope?

Dogmatism is difficult to deal with whether it is from the Left or Right. Those in power whether Democratic or Republican put a lot of pressure on members of the party to conform. Comply or there will be some kind of retribution. It's often more about power and staying in power than trying to create policy that works as best as possible. It will be interesting to see this phenomenon at work in the new Congress.

Regarding the prejudgment of Baker, all of these folks have an axe to grind even if it the creation of controversy to sell their columns. Some are motivated by fear of what may be in the report and how it may impact their own views of policy. It's not like character assasination is something new to either side.

It would be great if both parties were working together through their disagreements to accomplish something for the citizens of this country.

What seems to me to be the loss of character and integrity in Congress and in our larger society is disappointing. Here in New Jersey, we had choice between "under federal investigation" Menendez and Tom Kean "Lite". Crummy choices. We elected the fellow under investigation for corruption. I have always tried to determine a person's character before anything else becasue it reveals something about what a person will do under pressure. Menendez is a miserable failure on that score. But I digress...

Have a nice Thanksgiving and thank God that we are lucky enough to live in the greatest country with more freedom than anywhere else in the world.

I forgot, when you give Christopher Hitchens as a source everyone gets to stick their fingers in their ears and demonize him, instead of considering the arguments he gives. Afraid he might have some good points, hey?

One thing about him, he had the sense to consider the events leading to and following 9/11 - and changed some of his longstanding positions to recognize the growing threat of Islamofascism, and to support the regime change in Iraq in hopes of nurturing a government there less likely to add just one more tyrannical gang of thugs to the group of Middle Eastern governments (and to the UN General Assembly).

But now omitting Hitchens from the discussion, will this august company of philosphers consider another achievememt of the Baker-Scowcroft influence on Bush 41? Think Jugoslavia. There was such a place, on his accession in 1988. The failure of that administration to recognize the Serbian push for dominance (JNA weapons were freely distributed to the gangsters who rained artillery on all the mixed-ethnic towns like Vukovar in order to foment murderous conflict between formerly peaceful neighborhoods) was so blatant that large numbers resigned from the State Department on account of Administration failure to take any noticeable action to call anyone to account.

I voted for Clinton in '92 precisely for the reason that the Bush administration had run out of gas in its pitiful - and ignorant - foreign policy efforts. Big mistake of course, Clinton promised much re Jugoslavia but it was mere feelgood blather as far as holding together Jugoslavia. Still, it's hard to separate the current ISG from the blokes in 1991 who failed any sort of attempt to head off six years or so of murder in a once-civilized, and very successfully diverse, country.

"Have you ever heard some of the really jnasty things Hitch had to say about the dead Pope?

And Israel? Oops, Coisty left that one out because it would have ruined his cheap-shot, thinly-veiled Jew-baiting.

I rarely agree with Coisty about anything, but Hitch has some things in his background that people would not be comfortable with, just like Baker does. The difference is Baker never went out of his way to insult a dead Pope and the entire Catholic Church.

I am just saying maybe we should ease up until we actually know what it is in the report. Or we can run our mouths and insult each other. Whichever.

Just to be clear, I never cited Hitchens as a source. There are quite a few people besides myself and Hitchens who are suspicious of Baker. Nevertheless, Terrye's last post was reasonable and I will refrain from making further comments about Baker here.

November 21, 2006: Moveon.org and their ilk and the State Dept. Arabists...

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post