Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MRT144


one where 40 year old men who lived in a very possible world where nuclear war could have ended civilizaion are more shook about 3k people dying than the world they grew up in.

I grew up with shelter drills and the risk of annihilation. 1. I hoped that threat was over, when the miracles of 1989 and 1991 happened. We werent supposed to have to still face threats like this. And we DONT want to.
2. With all due respect to the shelter drills, it was all pretty remote for most people. I actually smelled the smoke from the Pentagon on 9/11, I never saw a nuke go off in the cold war. And BTW, on that day, no one knew it was only 3000. The first announcements gave the impression it could be as high as 50,000. And that another plane or two were going to hit. It was, need I remind you, a frightening day.


"a dream world where im more likely to die at the hands of a fellow american than a terrorist?"

Murders are bad, but are a routine part of society, and are mainly the duty of local authorities to stop. The national govts principle duty is to protect our national security.


"a dream world where my tax dollars protect wyoming and the dakotas and fight wars based on truthiness?"

Odd apportionment formulas have been around forever in Washington, Im afraid. Dyslexic politicians may be a new thing.


"a dream world where if i say im not afraid and i wont fear the unlikely i am cold and a traitor?"


Theres "Im not afraid because Im resolute" and "Im not afraid cause Im indifferent" which arent quite the same thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cranky


I wouldn't mind, as long he is not some inbred buffoon from hillbilly land like the one you have now.

Are you posting from an alternate time line, where we have a President who isnt descended 100% from New Englanders?

[Ned]

Seeker, you UNDERSTAND!

We need honesty above all and a plan that will win.

Withdrawing leads to disaster.

Doing the same will fail.

Relying on Iran and Syria, or the settlement of the Palestinian issue first, is folly (and everyone knows it).

Increasing the boots without dealing with the externalities (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) will fail.

After having eliminated everything that will fail, we have to begin to look at what will work.

LoTM already said it here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Admittedly I haven't read it yet, but I believe the Baker Commission concluded that any plan that does NOT include Iran and Syria will not work.

Not quite. IIUC one of the reasons they give for reaching out to Syria and Iran is so that if they refuse to talk, or they talk and dont cooperate, this will show that they are the obstacles and so will be a public diplomacy victory for the US.


I would suggest Mr Baker and Mr Hamilton call up Dennis Ross and Ehud Barak for some discussion of how well that strategy tends to work out.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Not quite. IIUC one of the reasons they give for reaching out to Syria and Iran is so that if they refuse to talk, or they talk and dont cooperate, this will show that they are the obstacles and so will be a public diplomacy victory for the US.


I would suggest Mr Baker and Mr Hamilton call up Dennis Ross and Ehud Barak for some discussion of how well that strategy tends to work out.

True, we will show the world that Iran and Syria are the enemy. But if they continue to undermine Iraq, we will never win there. This is another Vietnam in that regard.

[Ned]

Good suggestion LoTM. Israel and the US really need to talk.

[Seeker]

"dealing with the externalities (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia)"

..err...this looks like one of those small but vital detail things. How do you want to 'deal' with them?

[Cranky]

Yanks made a big mistake when they kicked out the English, when the english left so did taste, class and civility.

[Zkribbler]

Are you referring to kicking them out of Iraq?

Or kicking them of here out back in 1781?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


True, we will show the world that Iran and Syria are the enemy. But if they continue to undermine Iraq, we will never win there. This is another Vietnam in that regard.

I think youre missing the point. Public strategies based on giving the enemy an offer, and waving around that he rejected it, tend not to work. Talking, IF it appears as a sign of desperation or weakness, will incent the adversary to escalate, to pressure you for MORE concessions. And any proposal you make that isnt wholly a onesided concession can be spun as an unreasonable offer, esp to the audiences are adversaries are most concerned with. IE Jim Baker, if he goes to Teheran, may no more end up getting world and regional opinion to the US side, than Ehud Barak succeeded in getting world opinion to the Israeli side by his offer at Taba.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have more faith in the diplomatic skills of James Baker than Ehud Barak though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I have more faith in the diplomatic skills of James Baker than Ehud Barak though.

The man who flubbed warning Iraq against invading Kuwait?

" But all too often, Mr. Baker's tenure as secretary of state was characterized by a disconcerting tendency to focus on winning the kind of short-term diplomatic victories that ended up costing the United States a great deal in the medium and longer term. This was particularly true of U.S. policy toward Saddam prior to the invasion of Kuwait and to Syrian strongman Hafez Assad. In the case of Iraq, one could plausibly argue in favor of U.S. efforts to engage Saddam during the 1980-88 war with Iran, arguably the most dangerous threat to U.S. interests in the region. The problem with Mr. Baker's approach was that such policies continued after the conclusion of the war -- even as it became clear that Saddam was girding for conflict with his Arab neighbors and Israel. In fact, throughout 1989 and 1990, Mr. Baker's State Department spent much of its time fending off efforts by Democratic and Republican lawmakers and officials in other federal agencies to prevent transfers of militarily related technology to Iraq. The same was true for agricultural subsidies and Export-Import Bank credits benefiting Saddam's regime. These policies were pursued by the State Department until shortly before the invasion of Kuwait.

In February 1990, for example, just one month after the president waived a congressional prohibition on Export-Import Bank financing for Iraq, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs John Kelly pressed for continuation of Commodity Credit Corp. subsidies for agricultural deals with Iraq. The State Department continued lobbying for these subsidies even after the Agriculture Department suspended them because of fraud and concern that the money was being diverted to Saddam's military. Also, the Baker State Department stood alone among U.S. agencies in opposing a sting operation that would have prevented Saddam from obtaining kryton switches that are used to detonate nuclear weapons.

After the invasion of Kuwait, Mr. Baker, intent on securing Arab support for military action against Saddam, traveled to Syria in an effort to woo Mr. Assad, who demanded a free hand to act against Lebanese Christians. One month later, Syrian forces invaded Christian areas of Lebanon, massacred hundreds of Lebanese and consolidated their control over the country. It is no exaggeration to say that many of the problems Lebanon faces today -- with a weakened Christian minority and moderate Muslims up against powerful [Islamist] forces -- are traceable to Mr. Baker's green light to Mr. Assad. "




I dont have faith in his diplomatic skills. I also think hed be negotiating from weakness (esp if theres no attempt at a military solution) rather more than Ehud Barak was - Barak was backed by the IDF, and whatever happened in the territories, Israel wasnt going anyway. The Iranians and Syrians know that they can wait out Baker, and that he doesnt think the situation in Iraq is sustainable.

[Ned]

We have three goals

1) suppress the insurgency;

2) build up the Iraq army; and

3) end outside interference and support of the insurgency.

If the world were to put sanctions on Syria and Iran and isolate them as best we could, ditto Saudi Arabia, if necessary, that might work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or rather the man who helped form the UN coalition against Iraq. It's more impressive than anything on Barak's resume.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Ned
If the world were to put sanctions on Syria and Iran and isolate them as best we could, ditto Saudi Arabia, if necessary, that might work.

Good luck with that.