| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Austin Bay: Iraq Study Group is a political facade |
| 2006-11-14 |
| I do believe Col. Bay may be on to something here . . . The Baker-Hamilton study group will not produce any new thinking. The U.S. military has analyzed and gamed every course of action, including cut and run. For that matter, it gamed “non-intervention” in Iraq as well. What Baker and Hamilton provide is political cover for Democrats. Our plan has been a sound one — build Iraqi security and political institutions to the point US and coalition forces move to “strategic overwatch.” John Murtha suggested we move our troops to Okinawa– that’s a little bit far, but hey, he’s going to be the new House majority leader so we will be entertained with similar Murtha “quips” for the next two years. Be prepared. 2009 is the earliest date I see strategic overwatch beginning — and that assumes Pelosi and her clan don’t go with Murtha and Cindy Sheehan. Which is where Baker-Hamilton comes in. Baker-Hamilton is an academic committee. I guarantee the John Kerry-level strategic geniuses who participated in the study have radcially differing views of the issues, different definitions of problems, and a spectrum of mutually-incoherent policy prescriptions. (Like I said, it’s an academic committee.) My bet is the Baker-Hamilton “consensus” will ultimately reflect Jim Baker’s and Lee Hamilton’s two-man consensus (in other words, truth in packaging unusual in government and academia). If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton magic show will drop a scarf over the top hat and with a the ”poof” of a New York Times headline produce a “unifying” policy of words that will let the Democrats join the war, despite the howls of their blogosphere nutsroots. Then the military will continue to do what it’s been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing — and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #7 Is Baker still a resgistered agent of the Saudis? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-11-14 22:48 |
| #6 Iff the Dems begin any pullout and new 9-11's/Amer Hiroshimas take place, whether preplanned =random, they won't escape any blame, espec for 2008. Unfortunately for America, its politically "safer" for them to let US milfors "stay put" so that Dubya will get the blame for keeping our milfors in Iraq > you know, SECULAR ETHICS. GIVEN THAT THE LEFT KNOWS MAINSTREAM AMERICA SUPPOR DUBYA'S POLICY OF PRE-EMPTION + TENOUS = LANDLSIDE/MANDATE 2006 "VICTORY", I DOUBT THE BLAMELESS DEMOLEFT WILL WILLINGLY PULLOUT UNLESS THE MSM CAN DE FACTO CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF BLAME. IRONY > to do the latter for the sake of POLITIX conversely invites AMer Hirsohimas. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-14 22:02 |
| #5 I figure that whatever Baker comes up with is just cover for W to start making some changes. If there is no agreement on policy, then after a lot of howling and wrangling the Dummocrats will flash their ace and refuse to back funding for operations. They'll say they don't want to , but are forced to. Same song, different verse. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-11-14 18:55 |
| #4 You know Doc, when I heard that McGovern was giving advice to the Dems I about choked. Why go to him? Because he's a loser and they want to lose in Iraq. It's always Vietnam to these idiots. Losing is a badge of honor to them. If only they could take all the consequences themselves. |
| Posted by: Spot 2006-11-14 11:11 |
| #3 When did Baker ever produce a plan or strategy that was NOT a weak compromise with tyranny? |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-11-14 10:59 |
| #2 He's wrong. George McGovern is advising the 'Democratic wing' of the Democratic party. Also known as the modern Copperheads, their goal is to get out troops out ASAP and screw the consequences. Baker-Hamilton might have worked if the Trunks had held the Senate, thus confronting Pelosi, et al., with no chance to force an end-the-war-now resolution through. But Pelosi and Reid together can get such a resolution, and they'll need it to keep the Copperheads in their party from revolting. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-14 09:52 |
| #1 I hope Col Bay's right - because it means that the Dems will finally climb on board by having a set of objectives for leaving Iraq they can use as a fig leaf, and a timetable that's broad enough to ensure that US objectives (not neccesarily Iraqi ones) are met. Personally, thier "we need to be OUT NOW" drum beaters are going to make it hard for them to have any room to manuever sensibly on this. One thing's for sure: the war and world look a lot different when you must deal with them instead of just talk about how bad the other guy is doing. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-14 09:20 |