ISG Report Fails On Reality Check

One of the key points in the whole Iraq Survey Group recommendations was the linking of the situation in Iraq to the Israel-Palestinian peace process. Good luck with that Baker on whatever planet you're residing. No matter how he'd want to spin things, reality is a cold harsh master and Hamas is the group in charge of the Palestinians.

He says, and I quote:

Haneya, who arrived in Tehran on Thursday for talks with Iranian leaders, made the remarks in a speech at Tehran University.

He said that the Hamas-led government "will never recognize the Zionist government and will continue the Jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem."

The West has been pressing the Palestinian Hamas-led government to recognize Israel and previous peace accords and renounce violence since it took office in late March.

But the three demands were turned down by the government, which led to grave political and financial crises in the territories due to aid cutoff by western donors.

In other words, Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist. That's quite a bit of harsh reality that Baker and the ISG disregard.

Baker thinks that if the situation in Israel and the territories were resolved, everything would be fixed in Iraq. He couldn't be more hopelessly wrong considering that his base assumptions are all wrong.

Consider the following:

1) Israel has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Baker wants to link the two issues, but the only thing that the two separate conflicts have in common is that Iran and Syria are both backing the Islamic terrorists that are seeking to destablize Iraq and to destroy Israel. If Israel were to suddenly disappear, the situation in Iraq would not change for the better - they would get worse as the full attention of the jihadis would be on Iraq and US forces there.

2) A peace process requires both sides seeing common cause in peace. That simply does not exist. Hamas seeks to destroy Israel and put its own state on its place. The comments by Haniyeh reflect that desire to carry out the jihad against Israel. Baker cannot substitute his own fantasy on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He cannot invent facts and he cannot invent positions that do not exist for the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not committed partners in peace with Israel, unlike the Jordanians and Egyptians who both recognized that peace with Israel was in their interests.

3) The US presence in the region is not creating new terrorists. Jihadis will invent new excuses to go to war against the West. Someone prints cartoons in an obscure newspaper? Riot. Someone makes claims of discrimination against an airline that turn out to be baseless? Demonstrate and protest. Claim that the Israelis are committing genocide and engaging in war crimes in Lebanon, spurring on jihadis, only to find out that the media was a willing or unwitting partner in spreading Hizbullah propaganda. Riot and fire rockets. The Pope speaks out about the historical use of violence to spread religion. Riot and demand the Pope's head on a platter. The list goes on and on. Islamists intimidate and seek to force the submission of non-Islamists to their brand of Islam. It is central to their religious beliefs and there is no way to sway that belief.

4) Why would Iran or Syria cooperate? The jihadis are coming from places like Syria and Iran because they're waging war against the West and the central battleground is Iraq. They think that they can score a victory against the US there, which will spur victories elsewhere in the world. Indeed, the Iranians and Syrians are bolstered by the ISG report because there's no plan for victory - just a plan to bug out of Iraq at some point in the future (yes, it's an indeterminate point in time, but the media is painting the whole venture as a failures so the Islamists cannot help but feel bolstered). It is the same reason that a US victory in the region would result in a catastrophic defeat for the jihadis. A stable Iraq would put a dagger through the heart of the jihadi dreams of a restored caliphate.

After all, if the ISG report were designed around victory in the fight in Iraq, why are the Islamists cheering? They know that if the ISG report gets implemented, they achieve their goals without having to take any more action or can actually accelerate their plans for attacking US interests elsewhere.

5) The other Arab states are not disinterested observers and thugs cheer their ability to stay in power. The countries in the region welcome the report because the report essentially calls for a return to the status quo, which is just as dysfunctional now as it was when Baker proposed a regional plan back in 1992 at Madrid. The thugs large and in charge cheer because they wont become the next thug in a docket standing charged of crimes against their citizens.

6) The Europeans are not disinterested observers. The Europeans cheer the report because it means that their stature in the region could be enhanced - spreading their influence that worked out so well over the past few decades while they coddled dictators and looked the other way as they provided key items to arsenals in the region including Saddam's Iraq. They're also already in the frying pan with their resident Islamic populations that are on the verge of rioting in the streets of Europe (see France for where they've already been at it for some time). They figure that if they can offer up Israel on a platter that they will buy time on their own futures.

7) The UN is anti-American and cheers bad news for the US. Of course, Kofi Annan is cheering. He's always cheering whenever the US gets a bloody nose - even if it's self inflicted. The General Assembly is anti-American to the extreme with dictators and thugs dominating the conservation. Losing Bolton at the UN was a hit because he wouldn't stand for the constant bashing and actually fought for US interests there.

UPDATE:
Bryan at Hot Air is on the same wavelength and takes Baker behind the woodshed with a thorough debunking of Baker's key points and the opening paragraph should give you some idea of where Bryan is coming from:

Former Secretary of State James Baker is known around Washington as being a foreign policy realist. But the evidence suggests that Baker is a realist in the same way that Ramsey Clark is a patriot. Clark demonstrates his patriotism by defending the likes of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, and by denouncing America whenever and wherever he can. James Baker demonstrates his realism on foreign policy by conjuring up fantasies and re-writing history to cover up his failures and turn even the most modest success into earth-shattering conquest.

HT: Ace of Spades

Technorati: iraq, isg, iraq study group, bush, baker, terrorism.