"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
Half Baked: A Look at a Few of the Recommendations of the Iraq Study Group
By Aaron Goldstein (12/07/06)
I’ve not read the report of the Iraq Study Group in its entirety so I cannot comment on it wholly. However, based on what I have read my confidence has not been inspired.
Over the past several weeks I have (along with many others) warned that the ISG would a) recommend direct negotiations with Iran and Syria and b) demand that Israel surrender more land. This is precisely what the ISG has recommended. Then again I would not have expected anything less from a motley crew led by former Secretary of State James Baker.
When reading some of the passages in the report I had to bite my tongue to keep from bursting into laughter. Consider this gem:
The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria involve difficult issues that must be resolved…The United States has diplomatic, economic, and military disincentives available in approaches to both Iran and Syria. However, the United States should also consider incentives to try and engage them successfully, much as it did successfully with Libya.
I suppose this is in reference to Libya’s disclosure and surrender of its weapons of mass destruction program. The end of Libya’s WMD program had nothing to do with American diplomacy and everything to do with the willingness to use American military strength in ousting fellow Arab dictator Saddam Hussein. Colonel Qadaffi was shaking in his boots and it wasn’t because he danced the night away with Madeline Albright.
While ceding that engagement with Iran is “problematic” the report notes that the U.S and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan and as such “both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.” Iran, of course, condemned the September 11th attacks. That should not come as a surprise since Iran’s Shiites have little love for the Taliban and al Qaeda’s Sunni extremism that deems them apostates. So it is perhaps understandable that under those circumstances Iran would offer the U.S. military landing rights for search and rescue missions along the it’s border with Afghanistan. It must also be remembered that Iran’s then President Mohammed Khatami, at least publicly, wanted to appear friendly to the West and help to fight terrorism. But Iran is now led by a man who fashions himself a Hitler with a tan jacket. President Ahmadinejad has no such pretensions. It also cannot be emphasized enough that the Shiites comprise the majority in Iraq. There was no Shiite government in Afghanistan let alone Shiite majority to speak of. This model cannot possibly be replicated in Iraq.
It is this sort of delusional thinking that informs the ISG’s recommendations on negotiating with Iran and Syria and urging Israel to surrender more land.
The ISG’s first recommendation concerning Iran is that its nuclear programs should continue to be addressed by the UN Security Council, specifically the five permanent members of the Council as well as Germany. In other words, nothing is going to happen. Even if the Security Council does pass a sanctions resolution (which France seems to think will happen any day now), Ahmadinejad will take it about as seriously as Saddam Hussein took the 17 Security Council resolutions adopted against his regime.
The ISG next recommends steps Iran could take in improving the situation in Iraq. They suggest that Iran “stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.” I guess its too much to ask the Iranians to stop sending equipment, technology and personnel to train Shiite militias in Iraq so stemming its flow will just have to do for now. It is also suggested that Iran support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a unified Iraq, that it use its influence over the Shiites to encourage national reconciliation as well as aiding in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.
So what if Iran decides to none of these things? What if they pledge to recognize Iraq’s territorial integrity and then renege on their pledge? What consequences will Iran face if they don’t act on the ISG’s recommendations? None. Indeed, the ISG is doling out carrots, not shaking sticks. One of these carrots “emphasizes political and economic reforms instead of (as Iran now perceives it) advocating regime change.”
As bad as the ISG approach is with regard to Iran it is even worse with Syria:
Although the U.S.-Syrian relationship is at a low point, both countries have important interests in the region that could be enhanced if they were able to establish some common ground on how to move forward. This approach worked effectively in the early 1990s. In this context, Syria’s national interests in the Arab-Israeli dispute are important and can be brought into play.
Syria’s “national interests in the Arab-Israeli dispute” is that Israel be driven into the Mediterranean. And the ISG wants Syria’s national interests brought into play? But the ISG insists that engaging Syria worked in the early 1990s. Gee, wasn’t James Baker Secretary of State in the early 1990s?
The ISG recommends the establishment of joint Iraqi-Syrian border patrols to “stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.” Again, stemming the flow. It’s curious why the ISG doesn’t recommend joint Iranian-Iraqi border patrols. Then again one cannot but help think such a border patrol will just whistle as Hezbollah terrorists run ram shod in Iraq. And if an honest border patrol officer tried to stop Hezbollah he might very well get one right between the eyes - from his fellow border patrol officer.
In addition to increasing political and economic cooperation with Iraq, the ISG recommends that Syria “establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis.” A hotline? What kind of information are we talking about here? A tip line that would assist Muqtada al Sadr in locating American military barracks and ambushing our soldiers or facilitate the killing of Sunni civilians? Gee, why don’t they just give Syria the Golan Heights while they are at it.
Well, funny I should mention that.
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So let’s see if I have it straight. Iran and Syria are destabilizing Iraq by providing equipment, technology and training to Shiite militias and this will only stop if Israel gives up more land. And Israel can only give up more land if the United States is directly involved. Hmmm, I don’t seem to recall the deployment of the IDF in Iraq. I also seem to recall that the United States dealt directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict during the process that led to the Oslo Accords.
But Baker would undoubtedly remind me that Oslo only addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus the ISG has recommended the United States make “renewed and sustained commitment…to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts.” In addition to a two state solution for Israel and Palestine there would be commitment to peace agreements with Syria and Lebanon. This would be done under the auspices of either the United States or the Quartet (the U.S. along with the European Union, Russia and the United Nations) between as the ISG states “Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.)” And what Palestinians would those be? And as if it couldn’t get any worse:
The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks – one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.
Ah yes, the Madrid Conference. Say, didn’t James Baker organize the Madrid Conference about six months after the Gulf War? What a smashing success that turned out to be. I mean Israel was able to negotiate peace with the Palestinians and Syrians and live happily ever after.
Umm, wait a minute. A peace agreement between Israel and Syria? I must be thinking of some yet to be discovered alternate universe.
Despite several years of negotiations with the Syrians there was never a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Why? Because Syria wants to destroy Israel. It’s pretty hard to have a peace agreement with someone who wants you in pieces.
As for the Palestinians, the Madrid process was supplanted by the Oslo Accords after the Clinton Administration took over although the agreement was certainly inspired by the happenings in Madrid. And we know how faithful a partner in peace the late Yasser Arafat was.
The only concrete thing to ever come out of the Madrid Conference was the peace treaty negotiated between Israel and Jordan that was signed in 1994.
Of course, the ISG is making demands of Syria in any peace agreement with Israel. Well, sort of. There are some elements they believe should be the framework of a peace agreement with Israel. They recommend that Syria adhere to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 allowing Lebanon to re-establish its sovereignty, full co-operation into all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon (namely Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel), ceasing to provide aid to Hezbollah and use of its territory to harbor Hezbollah, use its influence with Hezbollah and Hamas to release IDF soldiers captured this past summer, cease efforts to undermine Lebanon’s democratically elected government, cease shipping arms to Hamas and other Palestinian groups, urge Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist and sealing its border with Iraq.
And what does Israel have to do in exchange? Why return the Golan Heights, of course. The ISG does offer there could be an international force on the Israeli-Syrian border, including U.S. troops. But there is a catch. The force would have to be requested by both parties. I’m sure that if Hezbollah uses the Golan Heights to launch rocket attacks into Israel the Syrians will immediately agree to an international force on the border. And if you believe that then you might very well believe that Bobby Fischer will return to America and become President of B’nai Brith.
What reason is there to believe that Syria would agree to any of the “elements” set out by the ISG? They have been less than forthcoming in the UN’s investigation into the Hariri assassination. As I pointed out in my recent article “Syriaus Mistake” (www.americandaily.com/article/16486), the Mehlis Report concluded that Syria’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Farouq al-Sharaa, had submitted a letter containing false information. A few months later, al-Sharaa was named Syria’s Vice-President. If the Syrians have not been forthcoming on the assassination of a Lebanese Muslim politician why would they be forthcoming on the assassination of a Lebanese Christian politician, especially from the Gemayel family? Here’s a recommendation of my own for the Syrians. Stop assassinating Lebanese politicians.
The ISG on the one hand wants Syria to stop its support of Hezbollah but on the other hand wants it to use its influence with Hezbollah to release the IDF soldiers. There’s little chance either will happen.
Why does the ISG think Syria will actually take steps to stop Lebanon’s nascent democracy? Have they not seen the demonstrations that have been organized by Hezbollah to overthrow the Siniora government? If they have how could they believe demonstration attended by one million people demanding the Siniora government’s ouster been organized without the co-operation of Syria and pro-Syrian forces in Lebanon such as Lebanese President Emile Lahoud? I gather Baker and company have been too busy striking a pose for Annie Leibovitz. Vanity is so unfair.
James Baker is often described as a foreign policy realist. But none of the recommendations that I have discussed here are grounded in realism. At best, the ISG’s recommendations concerning direct negotiations with Iran and Syria and Israel giving up more land are a bevy of wishful thinking accompanied by wanderlust to Baker’s halcyon days as Secretary of State. At its worst, the ISG’s recommendations tell Iran, Syria as well as other totalitarian regimes that when the going gets tough we placate our enemies and sell out our friends. With apologies to admirers of Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate, the ISG’s ideas on Iran/Syria and Israel aren’t half baked. They are completely baked.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
Aaron Goldstein was a card carrying member of the socialist New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP). Since 09/11, Aaron has reconsidered his ideological inclinations and has become a Republican. Earlier this year, Aaron put out a chapbook titled Oysters and the Newborn Child: Melancholy and Dead Musicians.
Send Feedback To Aaron Goldstein
Site:
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
