The Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report states the goal as:
Paragraph #150 (on page 57)
39 A s s e s s m e n t D. Achieving Our Goals We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people.
“an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
This is not a goal for us. Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China all satisfy that goal, but they all act at times against us.
Let’s try substituting the word Islam for Iraq:
“an Islam that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
“an Islamic Republic that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
Consider this different goal:
A Secular Republic that abolishes religious law and courts and gives equal rights to Christian, secular and other minorities, that does not export violence, does not threaten its neighbors, and that does not possess or seek weapons of mass destruction.
This goal has already failed because Iraq is an Islamic Republic. Why should American soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan to uphold the decisions of Islamic courts and judges? Why did U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad agree to Islamic Republics in both places?
We didn’t agree to a Fascist Republic in Germany? We fought in Japan to change the role of the emperor because we thought it would make a wasted sacrifice of the lives of our soldiers not to. Why didn’t that apply in Iraq and Afganistan?
How about, America:
“an America that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
“a West that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
What would defending America or the West mean? It would mean no nukes for Iran. It would mean no immigration into the West.
How about this modified goal:
A region of Secular Republics or Kingdoms that abolishes religious law and courts and gives equal rights to Christian, secular and other minorities, that does not export violence, does not threaten its neighbors, and that does not possess or seek weapons of mass destruction.
Search on goals
Paragraph #19 (on page 15)
The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive ArabIsraeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.
Everyone is entitled to their view of the root cause of conflict. Is Israel really the problem (see Ralph Peters on this)?
The Ottoman Empire was engaged in genocide of Christians from the 1890’s onwards. They still discriminate against them. This has gone on continually from the 1890’s to now.
This was not because of Israel. The genocide of Christians by the Ottoman Empire was not caused by Israel. So even in the 20th century, the attack on Christians by the Caliphate predates Israel. The genocide of Christians by the Caliphate can’t be traced to Israel, and neither can the Muslim immigration into the West that has made it its goal to establish Sharia law in Europe and America.
It seems they know their goal. Their goal is to use immigration, Dhimmi PC, Marxist self hate, apology, etc. to infiltrate and take over our lands. Their aim, as stated from the beginning clearly, is a world under Islamic law and rule. The Baker Hamilton study group clearly either never studied this, or rejects it.
Is Islam at war with the West? It says it is. Its history shows it has been continually from 622 AD to the present. Islam has never been at peace with the non-Muslim world, which it defines as the House of War. There has never a century without Muslim attacks, atrocity, piracy, discrimination or enslavement of non-Muslims.
How do we know that Islam is at war with the West? Because it says so. Its declared war in the name of Islam in every century from the 7th to the present. Bin Laden is only one in a long line of affirming and reaffirming this war of Islam on the West. They know their goal and have made it clear, our subjugation or death.
Search on goal
Paragraph #219 (on page 72)
4. The Wider Regional Context The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Why not Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? Why not Iran’s nuclear program? Why aren’t these the wider regional context? They are missing from the section titled, “The Wider Regional Context”.
They rejected more troops, because they were not available in their view.
Paragraph #298 (on page 91)
Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.
Modified version:
Because of the importance of Nucleaer Weapons to blowing us up and to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to denuke Iran and Pakistan. This might include a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan. We rejected this course because we weren’t asked to think about it and we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment.
The Iraq Study Group Report recommends limiting aid to Iraq if they don’t meet timelines. Why not limit Baker Botts fees from pipeline deals or defending Saudi Arabia? If Saudi support of insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn’t stop within 6 months, Baker Botts can’t take any more fees from Saudi Arabia. If Pakistan doesn’t stop supporting the Taliban or give up bin Laden within 6 months, Baker Botts can’t take any more pipeline deal fees.
This article represents hypotheses, speculation or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.
December 7, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Baker (an agent of the Saudis) is determined to destroy Israel. Although the mess in Iraq has to do with Iran’s shi’ite clients and the sunni jihadists coming into Iraq through Syria, Baker, to please his Saudi employers, just HAD to strike out at Israel.
This Baker-Hamilton bunch was formed ostensibly at the behest of the older Bush, who along with the entire Bush clan is in bed with our primary enemies the Saudis. Remember, Mecca, the nest from which emanates the jihad, is in Saudi Arabia.
Hitting Iran, without dismantling the economic and military capacities of Saudi, Egypt, and Pakistan will not solve the problem of Islam versus the rest of us.
Islam must be beaten back, as it has in the past, to seethe and smolder in its self-imposed misery until it rears its scaly head again in future centuries. The alternative–to finish off Islam for once and all–is unpalatable at the present time (but not to me nor others who know the score).
December 8, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Thanks and nice website, Islamic Danger at blogspot.