Libertarian Leanings

Campaigning for the ISG

Having done its part to convince Americans that we are losing the war in Iraq, the Washington Post embarks on a campaign to build support in Washington for that part of the Baker-Hamilton report that demands troop withdrawal by 2008.  They say:

Most Americans think the United States is losing the war in Iraq and support a bipartisan commission's key proposals to change course, according to a poll released yesterday. But the Iraq Study Group's report has become a political orphan in Washington with little backing from either party.

Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops, the Washington Post-ABC News survey found. Sizeable majorities agree with the goal of pulling out nearly all U.S. combat forces by early 2008, engaging in direct talks with Iran and Syria and reducing U.S. financial support if Iraq fails to make enough progress.

Yet neither President Bush nor Democratic leaders who will take over Congress in three weeks have embraced the panel's report since it was released last week.

After a multi-year bombardment of the news consuming public with the message that it was a mistake to go into Iraq and that the war can't be won, the Post now finds that public support for the war effort has been sufficiently eroded for them to turn their attention to Washington politicians.  To them they present the fruits of their anti-administration campaign in the form of poll results with the unspoken message:  think of what this means in terms of future elections, punctuating it with a quote from a former administration official.

I don't think I've ever seen politicians walk away from something faster," said Gordon Adams, who was a White House defense budget official under President Bill Clinton.

This message of anti-war poll results is aimed at inside-the-beltway-Washington, and the message is that most American voters don't think winning the war is that important.  So pay heed you politicians, and think twice before walking away from this proposal.

The bad news is that the Post is joined in its victory dance over George Bush and the Republicans by Afghan insurgent leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

The leader of the Hezb-e-Islami militant group also touts the Republican Party defeat in last month's U.S. midterm elections as a victory for militants fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"It seems that every bullet that mujahedeen had fired toward the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan has turned into a vote against Bush," Hekmatyar said in the undated video statement received by Associated Press Television in Pakistan.

"There is no doubt that is a great victory and success for Afghan and Iraqi mujahedeen," he said. "I am convinced that the fate Soviet Union faced is awaiting America as well."

It bears noting, however, that the rest of the world is not in unanimous agreement with the Post as regards the Baker-Hamilton recommendations.  Listen to the Kurds of northern Iraq.

The fundamental nature of the report is hovering on what it has described as not only the failure of Bush administration in Iraq in the post Saddam era and the impossibility of victory over terrorists, but also is implicitly stating that there was no need for the Bush administration to even overthrow dictator Saddam and free Iraqi people in the first place.

In their attempt to find a way out, the creators of the report, are basically dismissing the significance of liberating Iraq from the tyranny of dictator Saddam and his bloody Baath regime. Their recommendations are clearly calling for the restoration of the old order of pre- liberation, undermining everything the Bush administration has accomplished to free Iraqis. It should not have come as a surprise, if the report had called for the dictator Saddam to be reinstated instead of facing the gallows.

Adding his voice to those of the Kurds Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the report "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution.

"We can smell in it the attitude of James Baker," Talabani said, referring to the report's co-chair who served as secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Iraq war.

Talabani blamed Baker for leaving then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in power after that conflict, which ousted Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

He also criticized the report for recommending a law that would allow thousands of former officials from Hussein's ousted Baath party to serve in Iraqi government posts.

The report, released Wednesday, makes 79 recommendations. Among them: Most U.S. combat troops should be withdrawn by early 2008, Iraq's vast oil wealth should be more centralized and the U.S. should launch a diplomatic offensive that would include seeking help from Iran and Syria.

"As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.

Unfortunately for the Kurds and the Iraqis, it's the position of the Washington Post, and the position of the rest of the mainstream press for that matter, that appeasement is the politically correct course for U.S. action.  When we abandoned South Vietnam it was called "Peace with Honor". Withdrawal under the cover of Baker-Hamilton is being sold as "realism".  Whatever they call it, if the press is ultimately successful in beating down the Administration and stampeding congressional politicians into surrender, it will be decades before any American leader will have the political courage to do anything other than appease our enemies.

A Sunni-Israeli alliance?

According to the Washington Times Israel welcomes the consideration of a joint atomic energy program by a group of Persian Gulf states.

While historically hostile to any step that could lead to an "Islamic" nuclear bomb, Israelis are weighing that risk against the possibility of an implicit alliance with neighboring Sunni Arab states that share their concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Shi'ite Iran.

The Washington Times reported yesterday that Sunni-Shi'ite fighting in Iraq is already spilling over into the region, with elements in Saudi Arabia and Iran offering financial and other backing to competing Iraqi factions.

Leaders of six Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, ordered a feasibility study of a joint atomic energy program Sunday at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Riyadh.

The oil-rich countries, all predominantly Sunni Arab states, made it clear that their declaration was intended to prod the West into stopping Shi'ite Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

In Jerusalem, where authorities see an unspoken alliance taking shape between Israel and some Sunni states, officials said yesterday they viewed "positively" the increasing pressure from the Gulf states.

"This move is directed against Iran," an official who requested anonymity told the Jerusalem Post. "In the past, these states only talked about the Iranian nuclear issue using code words, but now they are coming out of the closet in a big way, and this is an example."

That assessment was echoed by Abdelaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "They are trying to say that if the Iranian program continues, [the West] will oblige us to become nuclear-capable too."

The GCC is made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Its statement said the GCC had commissioned a study "to set up a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

There are villains and there are villains

Now that you mention it, it does seem rather odd that of all the loathsome dictators in the world, Augusto Pinochet is the only one to be demonized by the left.  As to why that might be, Opinion Journal has an answer.

Augusto Pinochet died on Sunday at the age of 91, more than 18 years after he agreed to a 1988 plebiscite that turned him out of power. The standard Pinochet narrative is to emphasize the loss of liberty during the 17 years he ruled the country as a military dictator. The real story is more complicated.

Though General Pinochet became a devil symbol of the international left, he was a far more complex figure and cannot be understood apart from the global Cold War conflict of which he and his country were a part. Pinochet's legacy is a paradox--a long string of them.

He took power in a coup in 1973, but ultimately he created an environment where democratic institutions would prevail.

Had he stayed in power to continue the murder and torture the left would no doubt have lionized him as they have Fidel Castro.  But Chile is a democracy now.  What a tragic turn of events for the left.

Compassionate war

The News Junkie at Maggie's Farm says the war in Iraq is not a war.

When we bombed Cologne, Berlin, and Hiroshima, we did not worry about these things. If the war in Iraq were a true war, we would have already bombed Iran, which is supporting the "insurgents."

This is not a "war" in Iraq: it's a magnified "police action," or "surgical action," with the best of intentions - but now the enemy is those who oppose a free Iraq - and not the US, really: they want to kill eachother.

What we're up against

Opinion Journal's featured article documents Hezbollah's tactics in Lebanon.

Mohammad Abd al-Hamid Srour moved missiles across southern Lebanon under cover of a white flag. Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman used the porch of a private home to fire rockets. Maher Hassan Mahmoud Kourani dressed in civilian clothes, hid his Kalashnikov in a tote bag and stored anti-aircraft missiles in the back of a green unmarked Volvo. The three men, all members of Hezbollah, were captured by Israel during last summer's war.

Now their videotaped interviews form part of a remarkable report by retired Lieutenant Colonel Reuven Erlich of Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. Relying heavily on captured Hezbollah documents, onsite and aerial photography and other first-hand evidence, the report shows how the Shiite group put innocent civilians at risk by deliberately deploying its forces in cities, towns and often private homes.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, has accused Israel's military of "indiscriminate warfare" and "a disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians." Mr. Erlich demolishes that claim, and in the process shows the asymmetric strategy of Islamist radicals.

And this affects us as well as Israel.

Beyond the war in Lebanon, these images suggest how Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras and wait for the likes of Mr. Roth to denounce America or Israel for war crimes.

And I think you can add the New York Times and the Washington Post to the list of news outlets who reliably promote the terrorist cause in this way.

Iraqi Oil Potential

Iraq the Model reports that Iraqi oil revenues are expected to jump in the coming year, and this presents a problem. 

According to a recent paper published last November by Dow Jones (don't have a link, read a summary on paper) after the world economic forum in the dead sea, Iraq's income from oil exports for this year was at 35 billion dollars with a 14.3% increase from last year's total.

And that if oil export levels retain the current level and under stable prices, the coming year will witness a record income that was never reached in the history of modern Iraq and revenues will jump up to 40 billion dollars; a huge figure given the humble plans of the government and a figure that will put the government in a position where it must come up with new and ambitious plans to match the new revenue figures.

Apparently government departments have not spent all of the funds allocated to them, even though there are several regions in the country that are relatively stable and where planned projects could be completed.  ITM blames corruption and red tape.  But question is what to do with all the money.  Solution:  pass it out.

I think this was what pushed the government to announce a number of new measures to cope with the condition, perhaps the easiest measure to come up with was to announce plans for massive raises for civil servants; according to al-Sabah the raise will be as high as 60% of current payments in some cases, especially to those with lower incomes.

Another announcement followed soon, yesterday al-Sabah brought the news that the parliament is discussing a suggestion to set aside 30% of oil sales income to distribute among the citizens of Iraq. The draft law sets 3 classes of payments according to age and subsequent needs and responsibilities; from one month to 6 years, from 6 to 18 years and the third one 19 years and older.

Not a bad idea since the private sector has been churning right along in spite of all the hardship.

The private sector in Iraq had witnessed giant leaps immediately after the fall of Saddam; that could be seen in the form of the thousands of private businesses that were established in the course of the past three years and that had a direct positive effect on the standards of living after long years of deprivation.

It's worth mentioning that between 1946 and the beginning of 2003 a total of 8374 businesses were registered while between April 2003 and the end of 2005 more than 20,000 have been registered. During last month alone 286 new businesses were added.

If Iraq actually embarks upon this distribution plan how long will the average Iraqi tolerate religious zealots as morality police behaving like common thugs.  I wonder if there is anyone who still considers the various murderous factions sowing bloodshed in Iraq to be freedom fighters. 

Bush, Blair, and the ISG

What stood out when I watched bits of the Bush-Blair press conference the other day were those reporters who framed their questions with the goal of getting either or both leaders to admit failure, to say it's time to quit.  While the press focused on that part of the Baker-Hamilton report that recommends substantial troop withdrawal from Iraq by 2008, both Bush and Blair focused on the part that emphasized the consequences of losing the war in Iraq.

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)

Q Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --

PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir...

...one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.

So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you.

Prime Minister Blair echoed the President, reiterating that it's a tough fight, but it's crucial that we win it.  He praised the part of the report that provides a way forward.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Look, there isn't any -- as I said a moment or two ago, there isn't any doubt about how tough this is. It's hugely challenging. But what the report did not say is that we should just get out and leave it. What it did say is that it's immensely important that we succeed.

Now, the question is, therefore, how do we do it? And in that regard, I think the report is practical, it's clear, and it offers also the way of bringing people together.

The other thing that we want to do, because this is part of succeeding in this mission, is actually to make people understand that this is something where you've got to try and bring people together around a set of common objectives and a practical set of methods to achieve those objectives.

For the moment Bush and Blair have framed the debate for the American people.  By acting as if the ISG report is a set of serious proposals, even the absurdly stupid notion that Syria and Iran can be considered reliable negotiating partners, the President and the Prime Minister confer credibility.  Their focus on the dire consequences of failure gain credibility in their turn, and thus they transform the ISG recommendations from being the road map for escape from Iraq into steps toward victory in Iraq.

Meanwhile the mainstream press wasted no time jumping on the road-map-for-escape bandwagon.  Trumpets David E. Sanger of the New York Times:

Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III was the architect of the “new diplomatic offensive” in the Middle East that the commission recommended Wednesday as one of its main prescriptions for extracting the country from the mess in Iraq.

But while Bush and Blair spoke approvingly of it, and champions of surrender have found vindication in it, the report has encountered very little in the way of approval, and the study group leaders have done little to help the matter.  Bill Bennett's summed up the report this way.

In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible.

If the report is smug, arrogant, and insufferably superior, it is only because Baker and Hamilton themselves are smug, arrogant, and insufferably superior.  At their hearing before the Senate their arrogance came through loud and clear. 

Baker displayed little of the deference witnesses customarily show senators. At one point, he impatiently interrupted Lieberman's questioning about whether Iran would engage in talks. "We say it in the report, Senator -- it's in the report," he said, noting that the United States conferred with Tehran about events in Afghanistan.

Hamilton also told the senators that they are part of the problem. "I, frankly, am not that impressed with what the Congress has been able to do," said the 34-year House veteran. "I think the Congress has been extraordinarily timid in its exercise of its constitutional responsibilities on the question of warmaking and conducting war."

While Baker and Hamilton claim to be unimpressed with Congress, members of Congress are not all that impressed with what Baker and Hamilton have done, even on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Separately, in another indication of the difficulties the commission's recommendations may encounter in Congress, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, characterized the Iraq Study Group report as "theater" and "devoid of any basis in reality" because it offers what he considers overly ambitious plans that almost certainly cannot be carried out.

"The practical realities of these empty recommendations will be clear when we try to implement any of this stuff," Abercrombie said in an interview.

What remains to be seen is whether or not people will come together as Prime Minister Blair challenged when he said, "you've got to try and bring people together around a set of common objectives and a practical set of methods to achieve those objectives."  The Democrats, still heady over their electoral victory, will have to decide whether they can still afford to fight George Bush when it means they fight against achieving victory, and in the final analysis means they would be fighting against our troops in the field.  We already know which way the media will lead them, but it's no longer an election that's at stake.  The President spelled it out for us.

...one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.

For the moment Bush and Blair have made lemonade out of this lemon of a report.  They have found something redeeming in a study that details how to go about losing a war in which your army suffers not a single defeat.  Bush will use what can be salvaged from it to find a way forward.  But make no mistake, this puts the Democrats on the spot.  They can join in the effort to establish a secure and democratic government in Iraq, or they can guarantee defeat by demanding that we quit.  But defeat will belong solely to the Democrats.

Iraq Survey Group

What we have is a political document -- a compromise.  However, there are those who believe it may prove useful.

National Review editors:

...the ISG report is an analytic embarrassment. But President Bush can still make political use of it by emphasizing its responsible aspects. The report opposes timetables or deadlines for withdrawal. It warns of a precipitate pullout: “The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.”

Andrew McCarthy:

The ISG says:  “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….  Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.”  The ISG does not appear to proffer what concessions it believes the United States should make in order to get Iran and Syria to take these helpful actions.

Implicitly, though, it seems the concessions the ISG has in mind should be made by … Israel.

Hugh Hewitt:

...the ISG talked to 15 senators (not one of whom was elected for the first time since 9/11, creating a generation bias in the interviews, one which appears replicated in the 10 House members interviewed.,)  and that of the 21 foreign officials interviewed, only David Abramovich, the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was consulted from the state most threatened by the Iranian mullahs and Syrian thugs the ISG demands the US appeal to.

Incredibly, the ISG did not consult with anyone from the democratic government of Lebanon, even as the ISG urges us to reach an understanding with Syria.

Of the 43 "former officials and experts" consulted --including Mark Danner of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Friedman, Leslie Gelb, Sandy Berger, Anthony Lake, Ken Pollack, Thomas Ricks, and George Will-- the ISG did not find it necessary to talk with, say, Victor Davis Hanson, Lawrence Wright, Robert Kaplan,  Mark Steyn, Michael Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, or Christopher Hitchens.  The ISG did talk with Bill Kristol.  I wonder how long that sit down lasted?

Aside:  The ISG consulted Sandy Berger?  They consulted Thomas Friedman and George Will?  Opinion columnists?

David Ignatius:

DUBAI -- The Iraq Study Group's report achieved the goal of any blue-ribbon commission: It stated the obvious, emphatically...

A cynic might argue that this laundry list is precisely what the Bush administration was moving toward in its own internal review of policy. But I think that's the point about the bipartisan commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton. They have stamped an interwoven "D'' and "R'' on recommendations that seem so familiar you wonder why they haven't been official policy all along. (Some of them have, actually, though you wouldn't have known it from President Bush's bluff and bluster.)

Paul Mirengoff:

Thus, the ISG report lives up to its advanced billing. The best the "wise men" can come up with is to have our worst enemies try to help us stabilize Iraq. And, apparently, the primary inducement will be to pressure Israel into creating a Palestinian state (as if Iran really cares about that). It's difficult to say which is more pronounced, the craven nature of this recommendation or its lack of realism.

Jordan Tama:

Debating the fate of the Iraq Study Group report has become, for now, Washington’s favorite parlor game. Senator John Kerry has said the report will “change the debate in this country.” Time has predicted President Bush will follow the commission's advice. But responding to earlier leaks of the report, Bush peevishly said its plan for a gradual withdrawal “has no realism to it whatsoever,” while Rep. John Murtha, a leading opponent of the war, called it “unacceptable” because it would leave U.S. troops in Iraq.

Phillip Klein:

The Iraq Study Group's report does acknowledge that "Our limited contacts with Iran's government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq," but that does not prevent the commission from concluding that "as one of Iraq's neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility..."

Ed Morrissey:

The Iraq Study Group released its long-awaited report today, and while it has some important information on the current state of our operation in Iraq, its recommendations descend from some strange Utopian vision of peace and brotherhood that only exists in the fevered imagination of the so-called realists. The ISG calls for a "support group" of nations surrounding Iraq and relies on their supposed self-interest in a stable and functional Iraq...

T.F. Boggs, 24-year-old sergeant in the Army Reserves, back home from his second deployment to Iraq.

The Iraq Survey Group’s findings or rather, recommendations are a joke and could have only come from a group of old people who have been stuck in Washington for too long. The brainpower of the ISG has come up with a new direction for our country and that includes negotiating with countries whose people chant “Death to America” and whose leaders deny the Holocaust and call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Baker and Hamilton want us to get terrorists supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism!

If the ISG report is successful in uniting the country in an effort to win the war I will judge it to be a useful document.  However, I expect the Democrats interpret the report to say retreat and surrender are now officially our goals.  Judging from the name that appear on the list of those who were consulted (and the names that do not appear) I would guess that many of the report's conclusions were predetermined.  They went after the answers they wanted.

A balance

Early on at his confirmation hearing yesterday, Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates said he agreed with General Pace, that U.S. is not winning in Iraq but not losing either.  Later on he took a moment to clarify.

GATES: ...Mr. Chairman, before I answer that question, with your indulgence, could I amplify on one of my answers this morning?

WARNER: Yes.

GATES: And only because I'm concerned that the troops in the field might have misunderstood something I said.

While I was having lunch and eating my sandwich, I was watching the news. And I certainly stand by my statement this morning that I agreed with General Pace that we are not winning but we are not losing. But I want to make clear that that pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole. Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq. And I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost. And I didn't want my comments to be interpreted as suggesting that they weren't being successful in their endeavors.

The picture that takes shape is of an unbeatable army held back from pursuit of military victory and engaged in a something of a balancing act instead.  Administration strategy has limited U.S. military force with the expectation that Iraqi military and political force would fill the breach.  They didn't.  And because the strategy has not lead to victory so far, Senate Armed Forces Committee members are in unanimous agreement that something has to be done, but divided on what exactly that is.  Inevitably the "what" centers on troop levels with one side represented by Senator John McCain favoring more troops and the other represented by Senator Edward Kennedy who favor pulling troops out.

But adjusting troop levels isn't a change in policy.  Bush has said time and again that victory is the only viable exit strategy, and his Secretary of Defense in waiting has said we have one president and he will make the final decision.  The committee's unanimous approval of Robert Gates puts members for this brief instant all on the same page, which may have the effect of forcing them into the position where they should always have been -- deliberating over how we can win instead of squabling over whether or not we should continue trying. 

The Democrats have been engaged in a balancing act of their own.  They loudly demand American troops be withdrawn from Iraq -- a wish echoed by the terrorists in Iraq -- while claiming it's a strategy for victory.  Nobody believes the part about it being a strategy for fighting a war, but it's been a good strategy for fighting George Bush.  It got them a majority in Congress, but how long can Democrats go on fighting against George Bush and not be recognized as fighting against the American people.  So the question now is, has the Gates confirmation provided Democrats with the political cover they need to openly favor victory in Iraq?

Perseverance

Major General William Caldwell IV writes in this morning's Washington Post,

As the Iraqi people labor to build a country based on human rights and respect for all citizens, they are moving from the law of the gun to the rule of law. Violence will increase before life gets better. Those who know that freedom and democracy offer more hope than anarchy will not give up.

Regardless of what academics and pundits decide to label this conflict, hundreds of thousands of brave Iraqi soldiers, police officers and civil servants will continue to go to work building a free, prosperous and united Iraq. And every day more than 137,000 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen will lace up their boots, strap on their body armor and drive ahead with our mission to support these courageous Iraqis.

General Caldwell is the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq.