Carnal Reason

Marx quipped that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. If only. History does repeat itself, first as tragedy, then as tragedy, followed by more tragedy. Real Clear Politics:

“…[Y]ou have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam.”

That was a pledge by President Richard M. Nixon to Republic of South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu that the United States would not abandon his nation, if he would only cooperate in negotiations with North Vietnam to end the war.

Nixon’s word wasn’t worth crap.

Nor, obviously, is our word to the Iraqi people, if the Iraqi Study Group has its way. We betrayed millions of people by abandoning our principles and trashing our promises when we stood by–willingly and intentionally–as South Vietnam fell to the tyranny of North Vietnam. Now, as the ISG provides us with intellectual cover for weaseling our way out of Iraq, we’re about to do the same to the Iraqi people.

For a while I thought the US had changed, that we could avoid this. But the ISG has come up with an amazing plan. If we are really lucky, diplomatic, and nuanced, agree to a nuclear Iran, and give the Golan heights to Syria, the terrorists will stand down long enough for us to exit Iraq with all due haste. A brisk redeployment; we’ll get to jog away instead of running away. And wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we will once again have peace with honor.

The Jersalem Post:

When the history of our times is written, this week will be remembered as the week that Washington decided to let the Islamic Republic of Iran go nuclear. Hopefully it will also be remembered as the moment the Jews arose and refused to allow Iran to go nuclear.

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former US secretary of state James Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the US’s sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America’s allies.

Baker and his associates claim that the US cannot win the war in Iraq and so the US must negotiate with its primary enemies in Iraq and throughout the world - Iran and Syria - in the hopes that they will be persuaded to hold their fire for long enough to facilitate an “honorable” American retreat from the country.

Like his unsupported assertion that the US cannot win in Iraq, Baker also asserts - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that Iran and Syria share America’s “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.” Because of this supposed shared interest, Baker maintains that with the proper incentives, Iran and Syria can be persuaded to cooperate with a US withdrawal from Iraq ahead of the 2008 presidential primaries.

The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

For a limited time only, we can sell out Iraq and Israel at the same time. Two for the price of one. The question is what will the Israelis do? I don’t see how they can afford to allow a nuclear Iran.

Posted on December 10th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics, war