Comments on: Everyone Hates Baker (Updated Again)

By: mike

mike — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:30:22 +0000

Yea after reading a few pages i couldnt continue reading the report. Its not really worth reading in my opinion

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:14:27 +0000

I think Ayad al-Sammarai and Byron Skinner have made the most profound contributions to this discussion:
1) The ISG report offers answers, but no questions. They didn’t take the time characterize the problems in Iraq or even a case for why their recommendations are the right ones.
My impression of the report is that the ISG wasted American dollars and time to come up with feel-good recommendations geared towards the largest and lowest common denominators. What ever happened to steely-eyed skepticism in Washington?
2) The ISG recommendations focus on American ass-saving at the expense of Iraqis. Does a realist like Baker actually think that pulling out Iraq even part way will stop the violence?
Since they aren’t overly invested in their weak democratic institutions, Iraqis are sorting out their politics the old fashion way, violence. Legitimizing the Iraqi government and the democratic process may be possible, but it would undoubtedly require more resources than we’ve been willing to commit thus far.
The U.S. needs to put up the resources or get out in Iraq. We’ve half-assed it for 3 years and what has it gotten us? A bill for $400 billion and almost 3000 flag-drapped coffins. Trying to win in Iraq on the cheap has been a disservice to our men and women in uniform.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:02:36 +0000

SGlover you sir are the genious I should have known that a bunch of retired PROFFESIONAL POLITICIANS would be much more pure and without political bones.
Stupid me„, to actually accept the fact that life is not perfect and thier will with anyone always be some amount of biased, imagine the thought that when looking for advice on a WAR effort to seek advice from men who have dedicated thier entire lives to the study of WAR over a politician that at best may have served under one of these selected Generals in the military or even better as a appointed cabnet member by some other Politician.
Hell man letting politicians run a war effort has worked so well through history (Vietnam being the shinning example) we should do all we can at every opportunity during a war be sure to let the politicals make all the military dicisions.
Yeah cause it’s not about winning its about the warm Fuzzy.

By: sglover

sglover — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:08:54 +0000

Blue Ribbon for WAR would be table full of 4+star Generals that all have spent thier entire lives in the study and implimentation of WAR. That is Blue ribbon that is were you get answers. F*ck the Pharmicist he can’t diognose go to the DOCTOR IN HIS SPECIALTY and get treatment that will kill the DESEASE wether its a ugly treatment or not is Irrelevent.
Oh yeah. Guys like Generals Pace and Myers. Fearless guys, without a political bone in their body, who aren’t afraid to say what they really mean.
Thanks for the laugh, genius.

By: BT

BT — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:21:58 +0000

Baker is a Realists and he is Sunni biased. He, and most of the World, is interested in peace and stability for the here and now. Realists don’t solve underlying problems, they cover them up. They percolate under the surface for generations. Just kick the can down the road, or ignore it. It’s all about the status quo. The major World powers (G21) should not tolerate certain governments. Iraq deserved a chance to find their way in the new world, the US just happened to be a dysfunctional “father”.
The problem lies when one wants to get involved into these troubled areas. As we see in Iraq, you better know WTF you are doing, and you can’t be half assed about it. You also need as many allies as possible. An “occupation lite” will never work, but the US will never get away with the “heavy handed” tactics we used in past conflicts. Democracy is over rated and can’t be forced upon a population from the top down anyway. Better figure out how to handle something like this before one gets involved in the next conflict.
Iraq will probably be torn apart like Lebanon, with the help us its neighbors. Lebanon was a 20 year mess and it

By: Haninah

Haninah — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:59:16 +0000

“‘It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq’s problems,’ said Ayad al-Sammarai, an influential Sunni Muslim politician.“
I’m confused, Ayad — was this ever in doubt? If I’m not, mistaken the last guy to argue that the US can solve Iraq’s problems for it with zero investment of effort or goodwill from Iraqis was the guy whose picture is now coming down from office walls in the Pentagon, ca. AD 2003.
We’re doing our best to figure out how to fix this situation with as little damage as possible to you guys — but if you think that the fact that we’re the idiots who uncorked this bottle of demons absolves you of all responsibility for actually *being* those demons — sorry, pal.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:32:07 +0000

Maybe its just me but am I the only one who thinks that a panel of proffesional POLITICIANS are not the best people to work up a plan for a WAR?
If I got a heart desease I don’t go to the local Pharmacist becuase he looks familure, smiles nice, talks good game, and knows a little about heart desease plus every other desease. I go to the stuck up, ugly, a*shole HEART DOCTOR becuase he doesn’t know a little about Heart Medicine he has dedicated his entire life to the subject. He maynot not give me a warm fuzzy and tell me what I want to hear but he can diognose and come up with treatments painfull or not. And I can always get the warm fuzzy from the Pharmacist when I pick up the script the DOCTOR wrote.
Bottom line blue ribbin panel my a*s this was nothing more than a bunch of washed up politicals that did what politicals do compromise and try to make everyone happy and therefore make everyone equally unhappy.
Blue Ribbon for WAR would be table full of 4+star Generals that all have spent thier entire lives in the study and implimentation of WAR. That is Blue ribbon that is were you get answers. F*ck the Pharmicist he can’t diognose go to the DOCTOR IN HIS SPECIALTY and get treatment that will kill the DESEASE wether its a ugly treatment or not is Irrelevent.
I saw CNN interview a soldgier the other day and he had a amazing KISS answer to the violence in Iraq here it is “I don’t get everyone’s worry at some point someone will win and they will stop killing eachother, then we can deal with them”. I think this guy actually understands what most of US common folk understand that when the Radical Sunni get done fighting the Radical Shia (Both US Enemies) the winner will be weaker and easier for US to deal with not to mention the loser will be already beaten. People forget wether we stay or run the daily death in Iraq will continue. If we stay we will be in position to influence the outcome and assist the Moderates if we run it will be Iran on one side and Radical Sunni nations on the other that influence the outcome and get to assist thier OWN RADICALS while crushing killing the moderates chances. See Afghanistan thier was somewhat moderate possible allies for the west in the N Alliance who when we abandoned were overrun by the Radical Taliban influenced and assisted by Pakistani Radicals.
you can influence people you can assist people but you can’t control them.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:12:29 +0000

Here’s an alternative no one seems to talk about, but I think is the only one that will work:
1) initiate a massive conventional US Military buildup over 2 years a) Double the size of the Army and Marine force b) completely rebuild and toughen the weaponry that has been destroyed (M1’s etc) in conjunction with additional air assets (sorry Navy, we have enough subs) etc.
This buildup must occur quickly and massively with whatever funds are needed. Then begin facing down countries such as Syria, Iran, and NK with the ultimatum (and the military muscle to back it up): stop supporting terrorism or we will invade and do regime change in your country in short order (but not like Iraq).
Otherwise, we have failed and the terrorists have won. There is no other alternative than this one, in my opinion.

By: campbell

campbell — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:57:29 +0000

god it’s so tiresome.……
(1) publicly, fervently, acknowledge that we have a president who hasn’t the balls to ‘fess up that Iraq wasn’t the walk he/they thought it was going to be; and who is unable to face the families of those military casualties he/they have caused.
(2) get the hell out, (as we did in Nam)
(3) allow the remaining factions to fight it out themselves (as we did in Nam)
(4) watch as the infighting spreads to neighboring countries (as Nam did to Laos and Cambodia)
(5) watch as this latest fiasco develops its own “killing fields” (as in SE Asia)
(6) isolate the surviving factions/states economicaly, (as much as possible)in order to make them rebuild on their own (as we did for Nam)
(7) see, when CAPITALISM finally wins.…and Iraq/Afganistan become more interested in LIVING well instead of dying.…and they become the next “economic powerhouse”.…that Nam is rising to become.
there. seven point program.
done.

By: Mark Aaron

Mark Aaron — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:48:41 +0000

This typical leftist anti-military group, is missing the Key ingredient, VICTORY!!
God Bless all of you in the Military! I have such a high respect for all of you! I wish our politians were not tying your hands with there “PC” policies.
Please be carefull out there and know that the majority of us “True Americans” are behind you guy’s 100%. Thank you for all your sacrifices from you and your families. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to this Country!!
God BLess!
Mark Aaron & Family