Those recommendations are applauded in some quarters, with great relief, as an end to dangerous neocon adventurism, the beginnings of bipartisanship, a way out of the morass of sectarian war and terrorism in Iraq. Popular opinion, by large margins, demands it.
The recommendations put forward by Hamilton and former Secretary of State Jim Baker last week, they told us rather arrogantly, must be taken in whole. No “cherry-picking.” It is not, Baker said, “fruit salad.” It can only work if adopted as a whole.
This is what a group of self-described “has-beens” dictated to the president and Congress of the United States. It is notable that there is no recent military experience in the group. Indeed, only one of its members ventured beyond the Green Zone when they visited Iraq.
I gotta tell you, I heard Baker make this same comment and it struck me as just bizarre. He said it was a comprehensive plan and must be enacted in an all or nothing fashion.
So Baker thinks we should negotiate with the Iranians but our own President has to do exactly what Baker says. Mr Baker, nobody voted you president. Our government, our executive branch is not required to follow your every ill-advised talking point. To say such a thing is frankly on the verge of being delusional and maybe explains the mind set behind the report that believes Iran will help us.
Why on earth would anybody believe Iran would make a commitment and then follow through? Wouldn't Iran instead pretend to cooperate while still working against the interests of Iraq and the US in order to take all the benefits of appearing reasonable yet getting to stab the US in the back at every step and doing it under the legitimacy of international cooperation? If you think Iran would not do such a thing, you are either sympathetic to the defeat of the United States or a fool. There is no middle ground here. Iran will actively work to destroy the US as long as the Islamic extremists are in charge. How's that for an absolute Mr. Baker?
Comments