"Can't Stay The Course, Can't End The War, But We'll Call It Bipartisan"
It's a mostly critical assessment of the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group, well worth a read.
And let me excerpt my [predictably] favorite part of the essay.
....
Fundamentally, while the ISG rejects the harshly unilateralist approaches of the Bush White House, it does not challenge the current understanding that U.S. power remains primary in Iraq and the region. Recommendation One calls for a New Diplomatic Offensive, whose goals include "support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq; stop destabilizing interventions and actions by Iraq's neighbors; secure Iraq's borders...; prevent the expansion of the instability and conflict beyond Iraq's borders; promote economic assistance, commerce, trade, political support, and, if possible, military assistance for the Iraqi government from non-neighboring Muslim nations."
[While we're at it, let's join hands and sing "Kumbaya"].
But the proposed diplomatic campaign is thoroughly coercive. A later recommendation calls for creation of an Iraq International Support Group, "as an instrument of the New Diplomatic Offensive," meaning as an instrument of U.S. diplomacy. That group "should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; the European Union; and, of course, Iraq itself...." And there is a specific reference to a potential Iranian refusal to join the "Support Group" would "demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, Iran's refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks."
[Blueprint for a house of cards would be a charitable characterization of the previous paragraph].
The ISG's call for the U.S. to talk with Iran and Syria represents one of the strongest points of departure from the Bush agenda. It is important that the report calls for these talks. However, there is little serious discussion of changing the U.S. diplomatic posture that could make such talks fruitful. On Syria, there is a recognition that a qualified end to Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights must be on the table. But the ISG refused to include discussion of Iran's nuclear issues in any new talks and the overall approach to Syria and Iran emphasizes that the reason they should negotiate with the U.S. is because of "prospects for enhanced diplomatic relations with the United States; and the prospect of a U.S. policy that emphasizes political and economic reforms instead of (as Iran now perceives it) advocating regime change." In other words, they should negotiate with Washington because if they don't the U.S. will continue to isolate and threaten them. Not exactly a model of "new diplomacy."
[Nor exactly a threat to make then quake. Notice how swimingly "regime change" is going in Iraq?]
And on Israel-Palestine, the ISG again rejects Bush's position by linking the Iraq crisis with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is a general call for a renewed U.S. commitment to Bush's 2002 claimed support for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. But the report's recognition that "in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests," including Syria and Iran, still leaves out Palestine. The ISG supports the U.S. refusal to talk to the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority government led by Hamas, using the language of a call for "direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and particularly Syria...."
[Well, we're reached the real heart of the matter, BUT that's going exactly nowhere. See : AIPAC. [Also : Xtian Fundies/Xtian Zionists.] Their new motto can be : "What have YOU DONE for Israel lately? Like in the last 5 seconds?" Baker and Hamilton should have more self-respect than this. Israel can be expected to make zero sacrifices to help extricate the US from Iraq. Everyone knows this, even Baker and Hamilton, I'm sure. But hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and this had to get mentioned, even though, less than zero chance... Well, it is Santa Claus time, so fantastic imaginings do seem seasonally appropriate.]
But the real problem is the ISG's refusal to acknowledge or call for an end to the Israeli occupation, instead only urging new negotiations aimed at an unspecified resolution. Unlike the report's explicit call to "return the Golan Heights" to Syria, there is no call for Israel to end its occupation and "return the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem" to the Palestinians. Reassertion of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which U.S. and Israeli routinely do is insufficient. Further, the proposed negotiations would once again be under the control of the U.S., thus insuring that U.S. policies would dominate any outcome.
...
Interestingly, the report's listing of issues to be included in any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations does include a specific reference to the "right of return." The use of that term, as opposed to the usual generic reference to "the problem of Palestinian refugees," may well be its first use in a quasi-official U.S. diplomatic statement. Of course there is no recommendation that discussing the right of return (guaranteed in UN resolution 194) should lead to implementation of the right, but even acknowledgement is a step Bush has always rejected.
[Right Of Return? I'm laughing myself into cardiac arrest. Baker. Hamilton. What cutups! I'd like to ask them if the check's in the mail].
Ironically, the report does seem to acknowledge the Israeli threat in the region. In the section dealing with regional diplomacy, the ISG recognizes that "none of Iraq's neighbors--especially major countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel--see it in their interest for the situation in Iraq to lead to aggrandized regional influence by Iran. Indeed, they may take active steps to limit Iran's influence, steps that could lead to an intra-regional conflict." While the Arab countries certainly remain wary of Iran's rising influence, only Israel has both the political approach and the military capacity to take "steps that could lead to an intra-regional conflict," referring clearly to a possible Israeli strike on Iran.
["The Israeli Threat"? That may be a first in a more or less official US gov't product. But it could be argued the other way as well -- the Iranians threaten to become so regionally powerful that the hapless Arabs swollow their very questionable pride or whatever, backburner their political/ideological warfare with Israel, and quietly line up in a de facto political front with Israel against Iran. Of course, an alignment fragile as hell. And, Americans, doltish saps we so often are, remember this simple fact -- THAT political configuration would give the Israelis a serious vested interest in an ongoing policy of threatened Iranian agrandizement in the region. Hey, just like right now? Wait, I really didn't mean to think that, let alone type it. I mean, Our Most Relaible Ally In The Middle East would never, ever even think of playing a political game like that. Especially at US expense, since the US bears so many costs of that play. Yeah, that's it, too suspicious. I take it all back.]
