IRAQ STUDY GROUP PROPOSALS CHANGE NOTHING
Joel Skousen< – 2006-12-08
SAME OLD, SAME OLD DEPT.
Idiocy is making the same mistake over and over again yet expecting a different outcome. The Iraq Study Group is merely old political hacks buying time for the thoroughly-disgraced Bush Administration. You might recall that I opposed the invasion of Iraq, saying that the rationale for the invasion was based on a tissue of untruths. Time and events have once again proven me correct.
World Affairs Brief
by Joel Skousen
December 8, 2006
IRAQ STUDY GROUP PROPOSALS CHANGE NOTHING
With much fanfare and media hype, the much vaunted Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group (“ISG” issued its 79 recommendations for “new direction” in Iraq. The media crowed its approval. So did Congress. President Bush promised to give it every consideration, calling it “very constructive” and “worthy of study.” Salvation is at hand … or is it? Is there no one in the halls of any branch of government willing to label this propaganda as the farce that it really is?
As I listened to former Sec. of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton make the rounds of the Washington talk shows, only one thing was obvious. This is an exercise in deception, forcing the public to give the government yet another indefinite period of time for sorting through these latest minor adjustments – delaying once again the public demands for a real change in policy in Iraq. The majority of the grand sounding recommendations have no substance at all – they are simply labels for actions that can’t really be implemented any better now than before. But, by putting these grand sounding generalities before the public, they give the appearance of change. Nevertheless, there will be no real change in the globalist strategy of intervention to create conflict.
The bipartisan ruse: The five Democrats and five Republicans on the commission unanimously approved “every word” of the report according to one of the commissioners. Of course, they were all hand-picked establishment insiders with perfectly predictable allegiance to this scam. It matters not what party label they carry. Never forget that Lee Hamilton was part of the cover-up team on the 9/11 Commission. Only serious collaborators get asked to head these commissions.
Naturally, the carefully crafted report carries a euphemistic title: “The Way Forward,” which implicitly gives the false impression that its recommendations are intended to lead to a more favorable result in the future. This is not possible. The ISG first attempted to curry public opinion by labeling the current strategy a “failure.” That was easy to do (and the only aspect of the report Arab leaders were pleased with), but they engage in the same deception as the administration by projecting the image of staying engaged in Iraq as “forward” progress. It is not progress and will only guarantee further hostilities. These men only further prove to me that they are part of the same globalist deception promising some beneficial result from more world-wide military intervention (the neo-conservative mantra).
Let me make some brief comments on the ABC news summary and ISG report, which can be divided into two main areas: (1) changing the central mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, and (2) a renewed diplomatic effort in the Middle East.
“The primary mission of U.S. forces should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army.” This is nothing new. This is the same strategy the Bush administration has been mouthing for years and it isn’t working. US troops going on joint missions cannot even reveal the day’s destination to Iraq troops lest the word get out to insurgents. That’s how much trust there is!
“It’s clear [the] Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities.” This is not new either. It’s merely a continued justification for dumping more billions of dollars into this quagmire.
“Yet the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.” This is reverse psychology, if not an outright lie – as if Iraq really wants us to stay longer, and as if the US globalist’s are anxious to leave. Baker and Hamilton openly talked about veiled threats of “pulling out” and “cutting off funding” if the “Iraq government doesn’t step up to the plate.”
“The most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the responsibility of Iraqis.” As we can see, the US manipulators of foreign policy are carefully crafting a strategy of shifting blame to the hapless government of Iraq, which has no real sovereignty nor effective control of its oil nor control of its own military.
“The report recommends an initial increase in the number of U.S. troops dedicated to training and supporting the Iraqi security forces, but calls for the gradual withdrawal of all other U.S. forces. All U.S. <=”” b=””>.” Gradual withdrawal is the bait for public consumption. All of this depends on what is defined as troops “necessary for support or security.” Anyone in Iraq could be labeled under these terms. After a year or so, the administration will have nullified the people with a few token withdrawals, however small. But, one thing you can bet money on: the US intends to fully man the four major military bases it has built in Iraq. Expect to see “redeployment” defined as shifting troops into secure bases inside the Iraq/ Kuwait region – not actually leaving the area.
“What we recommend demands a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation between executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. … Foreign policy is doomed to failure – as is any action in Iraq – if not supported by broad sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country towards such a consensus.”
A further look at the report shows that the ISG pushes the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. While I am generally in favor of private development of a country’s oil, with appropriate royalties paid (always the most efficient way to develop and keep oil flowing), this deal smells of insider contracts with favored international corporations. Baker and many others surrounding this globalist foreign policy team have ties to big oil.
James Baker emphasized time and again the word “consensus” and “bipartisanship” on Wednesday night’s series of interviews. But, consensus is evil when grounded in public pressure to move everyone to a central position that will lead to more war and intervention. It’s like touting the virtues of unity without coming to a unity based upon what is right.
Diplomacy: “As expected, the Iraq Study Group recommends that the United States deal directly with Syria and Iran, something the Bush administration has resisted. The report also calls for an aggressive and comprehensive diplomatic initiative to deal with instability in the Middle East. ‘The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability.’ Talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognize Israel’s right to exist.” Baker backtracked when challenged if the report meant “face to face” talks with Iran. He said “no,” knowing that the Bush administration is refusing those kinds of talks. This new emphasis in diplomacy is nothing new and neither is the idea that talks must center around the Palestinian-Israel conflict, which will never be resolved. I guarantee it. As I have said in prior briefs, the only purpose of this diplomatic initiative is to document its failure so as to justify future military intervention!
The report rules out four frequently mentioned courses of action, which guarantees that the US policy will stay essentially unchanged.
(1) “Precipitate Withdrawal (Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.) ‘A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence … greater human suffering, regional destabilization … [a]nd could eventually require the United States to return.'” There you have the hook that will justify continuous US involvement in the Middle East: “regional destabilization will require the US to return!” Count on the US government to NOT leave Iraq, and count on our government to use every new attack to justify staying.
(2) “Staying the Course (President Bush) ‘We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course.'” The ISG is saying something only a trifle different: “We will go forward in Iraq if we stay the ISG course” (which differs little from the current Bush course).
(3) “More Troops for Iraq (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.) ‘Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq.'” Of course not, and neither will keeping troop levels the same or reducing them a third. Only a full, orderly withdrawal within six months to a year will prove the US has any real intent to withdraw.
(4) “Dividing the Country Into Three Regions (Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.) ‘The costs associated with devolving Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions with loose central control would be too high.'” This is the only real solution, and they rule it out.
Bottom Line: There will be no good outcome to all of this, whether we stay or leave, so we might as well get out and stop the bleeding and unlimited spending. Even better, as Rep. Ron Paul recommends, we ought to swear off aggressive intervention and mean it. Then, suddenly, the US would cease to become a target of terror. Muslims don’t really hate our freedoms or our life style. They just hate our government interference.
RUMSFELD MEMO A PLANT
I had to laugh when the Bush administration “leaked” the outgoing memo of Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, claiming he was “just about to change everything.” Really? More like Rummy was just trying to salvage his reputation as he leaves in disgrace. Listen to Mike Whitney’s wry comments:
“By now, everyone has heard about Rumsfeld’s memo. It was leaked to the New York Times supposedly without Rumsfeld’s knowledge. It makes the case that Rumsfeld was just about to make major changes in Iraq because he could see that the strategy was failing and had created a disaster. Everything about the memo reeks of deception. In fact, the Times even admits, ‘Rumsfeld may have been trying to shape the coming discussion and present himself as open to change.'”