Wednesday, December 06, 2006


Here's the ISG homepage.

Rick Moran writes in advance of the report's release today:

You will excuse me if I believe that talking to Syria while it is in the process of gobbling up its tiny Lebanese neighbor to be one of the most cynical, immoral, and ill-considered diplomatic ideas in a generation – which of course is right up Baker’s alley. He is a specialist at sacrificing others for the greater good; just ask the Iraqi Kurds.

And talking to the fanatical true believers in Iran (Ahmadinejad purged the foreign service last year, replacing experienced hands with ideological purists) about helping with security in Iraq is like inviting the wolf in for a drink and having Little Red Riding Hood give him a lap dance; the temptation to insinuate themselves even more into Iraqi affairs just might be too much to resist.

I don’t know if there is a way to “victory” in Iraq. Clearly the rest of the world has already made up its mind (not to mention the American media) that we have lost so that no matter what we do in Iraq, how we leave it, what we accomplish from here on out, the onus of defeat will accompany our withdrawal.

Is the ISG simply acknowledging this fact? Or are they encouraging it?

Both, probably. But in the end, it comes down to doing the best we can to bring some kind of definitive denouement to our Iraqi adventure.

To one prominent Democrat congressman--Nancy Pelosi's choice for intel chairman--that means more troops in Iraq. Yes, he said more.

Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel looks like he's already preparing to de-fund the war. Via USAToday's blog:

Not only are Democratic leaders predicting there will be more congressional oversight of U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they're going to control both the House and Senate, they're also hinting they may not automatically OK the Bush administration's next request for funds to pay for those operations, USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports from Capitol Hill.

"The days of a rubber stamp on a request by the administration for this effort are over," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said today, Kiely tells us.

Andy McCarthy says "Fight the Real War:"

There is only one good reason for American troops to be in Iraq. It is the reason we sent them there in 2003: To fight and win the “war on terror” — i.e., the war against radical Islam — by deposing rogue regimes helping the terror network wage a long-term, existential jihad against the United States. You can argue that Iraq was the wrong rogue to start with; but destroying radical Islam’s will and its capacity to project power is what the war is about.

Iraq is but a single battlefield in that war. It is not “the war.” Stabilizing or even — mirabile dictu! — democratizing Iraq is not winning the war. It is the overseas equivalent of rebuilding the World Trade Center. The hard reality is that war exacts a terrible toll and its fallout must be addressed. This is why we hate war and resort to it only in the face of greater evils. But cleaning up war’s unavoidable messes is not the same as winning.

Winning the war means taking on the regimes and factions that are waging it. That is what the president promised to do after 9/11. “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

No comments: