Surrender is not an Option
8 December 2006This from the executive summary of the Iraq Study Group Report. “Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.” So Hamilton, Baker, et. al., actually believe that Iran and Syria have an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq? Pardon me but what are these folks smoking?
I am, of course, somewhat late in joining the debate surrounding the ISG Report and much of what I will say has been said in other ways by other people. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to reinforce what others before me have said. I will end with conclusions but first it is necessary to point out some of the more blatant flaws in the report itself.
The ISG Report (here after refereed to as the report) reaches at least one correct conclusions.
If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.
While the above includes many hypotheticals, it is basically accurate in my view. The remedy the ISG prescribes, however, seems designed to encourage the very outcomes hypothesized. One must wonder whether the ISG simply does not understand the dynamics at play with Islamic fascists or their stated goals and their true goals are the same.
Again, from the executive summary, “No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.” The final sentence illustrates the fallacy of the first sentence. Clearly Iran and Syria believe they have much to gain from instability in Iraq as demonstrated by their continued interference in Iraq. How then does the ISG conclude that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq?”
The ISG has a real talent for stating the obvious.
In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
Okay, not much to argue with here. Everyone would likely agree that Iran should stop providing arms to insurgents and “respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and that Syria should “control its borders with Iraq.” The question is, how do we influence them to do so? The ISG would have us believe that all we need do is sit down at the table with them and explain it to them diplomatically using a series of incentives and disincentives. Well what have we been doing? Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. has worked diligently to stop that process with virtually no success. Without the cooperation of the rest of the western world and without the willingness to use “what ever means necessary” to achieve that goal, we will continue to meet with failure. The same is true of our attempts to stop Iraq and Syria from interfering with Iraq.
Both Iran and Iraq have interests that do not coincide with American interests. In fact, they cannot coincide with American interests because their are interested in destroying us and western civilization. They want Sharia law to rule the world. It is difficult to see how the U.S. or any other nation can negotiate with that. The only negotiating tool we really have at our disposal is our military strength and a willingness to use it as necessary. The conflict in Iraq, as fought thus far, has demonstrated repeatedly that we are NOT willing to use our military might! And therein lies the problem.
Cal Thomas had some interesting observations yesterday regarding the ISG report.
The ISG must not have noticed that Iran and Syria are largely responsible for destabilizing Baghdad. Syria is simultaneously using its Hezbollah proxy to undermine the elected Lebanese government. What possible reason would Iran and Syria have to stabilize Iraq so that the United States can leave behind a free nation? Iran and Syria would see a free Iraq as a threat to their own dictatorial regimes.
Quite right. Either the ISG is living in la la land or they have another agenda. Thomas had more to say.
There are noble calls for cooperation between Republicans and Democrats and between the White House and Congress, but the problem is not on our side. It’s on the other side. The ISG failed to deal with the religious motivations of those who believe their God wants us dead and who have no qualms about devising weapons of mass destruction to wipe out millions of us. “Infidel” diplomats are not about to influence dictators and mullahs who believe their “holy book” commands them to lie to the “cross worshippers” and “crusaders” in their own crusade for world dominance by force.
Note to ISG; Islamic fascists are not interested in negotiations, they simply want to kill us! They see our desire to negotiate as an indication of our weakness and they are more than happy to exploit that weakness. Indeed, that is precisely what they have been doing in Iraq for some time.
For the ISG, America is the ultimate cause of the problems in the Middle East. Our policies supporting Israel top the list of ISG complaints and they see any ultimate solution in Iraq involving a two state solution with Palestine and Israel. But again the ISG ignores the fact that several administrations have attempted just that and failed. And the reason for that failure has nothing to do with American diplomacy. It boils down to the fact the Islamic fascists are not interested in or willing to tolerate a two state solution. As the Iranian President has stated on numerous occasions, they will settle for nothing less that the destruction of Israel. That seems an awfully high price to pay for “stability” in Iraq and the Middle East and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that even the destruction of Israel would result in stability in the region.
Thomas concludes with a statement that mirrors what I have been saying for some time.
Enemies like this understand only one thing: power. They do not keep promises, or honor treaties and agreements that do not serve their primary interests. For them, those interests include humiliating the United States, securing Iraq for the acolytes of Osama bin Laden and then moving on to challenge America in other places and finally on our own soil. The problem is that if we wait to crush them until they reach our shores (and too many are already among us), it will be too late.
George Orwell said, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” The Iraq Study Group Report won’t contribute to our safety. Finishing the job we started, by whatever means necessary, will.
Thomas uncovers what the ISG refuses to admit. We do not face a problem with a diplomatic solution. Diplomacy is doomed to failure because of the enemy we face and the longer diplomacy is used, the stronger the enemy grows.
That leads back to the conclusions of the ISG report. While a plurality on both sides of the aisle have embraced the ISG report, many have done so out of frustration and a desire to rid ourselves of the Iraq problem at any cost. And make no mistake, if the ISG recommendations are followed, the cost will be high indeed. Ultimately, the ISG recommendations, if followed, will result in a U.S defeat in Iraq and the complete loss of American credibility around the world. But that is minor compared to the victory the Islamic fascists would have achieved.
If the U.S. leaves Iraq without crushing the insurgency, if we leave with anything short of complete and total victory, the Islamic fascists will have everything they have worked for. They will have control of both Iran and Iraq, they will have nuclear weapons and they will then challenge America directly. And there is no doubt that should Iran get nuclear weapons, they will use those weapons in short order against Israel. Whether you you believe in a biblical Armageddon or not, what will follow such an American defeat will be exactly that.
So whether the ISG simply wants any way possible for America to gracefully exit Iraq with as little loss of credibility as possible or they have a hidden agenda, the result is the same. There will be no graceful exit. We may lie to ourselves and call it that but it will be nothing short of utter defeat and that defeat will not be because we did not have the ability to win. It will be because we did not have the will to win. Elan Journo writing for the Ayn Rand Institute put it this way.
America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.
(snip)
Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.
The only solution in Iraq and indeed in the larger war with Islamic fascism is American willingness and resolve to fight to win, “by whatever means necessary.” Anything less is doomed to failure.
Print This Post
Tags: Islamofacism, Israel, Leadership, WarRelated Posts
- iPad Good & Bad
- Printer Friendly Posts
- Assumptions and Conclusions
- Time for a Rant!
- Is the War in Iraq Worth Supporting?
No comments yet
