Iraq Study to Reshape National Debate About War

[falcon]

Iraq Study to Reshape National Debate About War

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 12:28 PM

The Iraq Study Group's report promises to reshape the national debate about a war that even President Bush's nominee for defense secretary says the United States is not winning, but its implementation would require the president to abandon many of the goals that have been the foundation of his second-term national security policy.
Bush offered a tentative reaction this morning to the harsh findings of the bipartisan commission headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana representative Lee Hamilton. He described the report as offering "a very tough assessment" of conditions in Iraq and "some really very interesting proposals" for changing course. But he stopped well short of endorsing any of the recommendations.


The report marks the second repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy in a matter of weeks. Last month, the public delivered a vote of no-confidence in the president's Iraq strategy, turning the House and Senate over to the Democrats in a midterm election that was in large measure a referendum on a war that has divided the country like nothing since Vietnam.
Now the Baker-Hamilton commission has rendered a verdict on the particulars of Bush's approach by proposing a new way forward that encompasses a series of steps the administration has been reluctant to embrace.
Those recommendations include a plan for removing almost all combat forces by early 2008, pressuring the Iraqi government to accept benchmarks for progress and penalizing them if they don't, opening a dialogue with Iran and Syria and becoming more deeply engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to avoid a collapse of the administration's entire Middle East strategy.
The president clearly understood the midterm election returns. Even before the voting took place, the administration jettisoned its stay-the-course rhetoric. It took Bush only a matter of hours to announce that he was replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, a veteran of his father's administration.
How far the president goes in changing course in the wake of the Baker-Hamilton report -- and how successful those changes turn out to be -- will shape his legacy and the political fortunes of the Republican Party. It will also influence the early stages of the 2008 presidential campaign that is off to a quick start already.
Many of the recommendations included have been floated before, some by Democratic critics of the administration, some by military leaders. Although the president has generally ignored those critics, he will have a far harder time turning back the pressure generated by the Baker-Hamilton report.
Still, in the run-up to the release of the report, the president has offered a stubborn defense of his own goals for Iraq that runs contrary to the idea that he is anxious to change course.
Last week, after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Jordan, Bush appeared dismissive toward the pending recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. He said talk of a graceful exit "has no realism to it whatever" and said the United States would stay "to get the job done, so long as the [Iraqi] government wants us there."
Nor has he abandoned his rhetoric that the goal of U.S. policy is to win the war. Baker noted that the commission had pointedly avoided using certain words that he said had been "bandied about" during the midterm campaign, and the thrust of the report is that significant policy changes might make a bad situation better, but did not set out victory as a goal.
In his confirmation hearings on Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates delivered a gloomy assessment, saying the United States is not winning in Iraq and even that it is too early to say whether the decision to invade in 2003 was a mistake. That is the kind of candor long missing in the administration's public discussions of the war.

But Gates will serve at the pleasure of the president. It is not clear whether Bush now shares Gates's assessment or whether the commander-in-chief is still so wedded to his policies that he will resist the kinds of significant changes that others around him are calling for.
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Sunday the president is open to ideas he has previously rejected because he too recognizes that Iraq is not moving quickly enough toward success. The president's decisions are expected before the end of the year.

Although the principal onus from the report falls on Bush, the stakes now are high for the Democrats as well. The Baker-Hamilton commission report carries an implicit warning to the party now in control of Congress: Criticism of the president's Iraq policy alone is no longer sufficient.
One notable finding of the Baker-Hamilton commission was the rejection of a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, a policy favored by many Democratic elected officials and even more rank-and-file Democrats around the country. Just as the report puts pressure on Bush to change, it will require adaptation by Democratic leaders as well.
The real value of the bipartisan report may come in pushing Bush and Democratic leaders in Congress toward more cooperative efforts to develop a workable strategy for beginning to disengage from combat in Iraq without leaving that country and the region in chaos.
Bush alluded to that this morning. "The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington and they understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together," he said.
Bush has contributed to the climate of distrust and polarization. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other Republicans used the fall campaign to warn that Democrats favor a strategy of capitulation to the terrorists. As Bush put it in October, "their approach comes down to this: "The terrorists win and America loses."
But the Democrats, too, approached the Iraq debate through much of the past year as an opportunity to score political points ahead of the midterm elections. Those elections are now history, and the Baker-Hamilton report now stands front and center.
As Baker noted this morning in unveiling the findings, "there is no magic formula" that will convert Iraq into a qualified success story. Managing failure, preventing things from becoming worse and gradually turning around a bleak situation in the Middle East are the immediate challenges facing the president and the Democrats in Congress.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0600935_2.html

ISG Report pdf. file
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf

[Sean Osborne]

Oh, this is about far more than just reshaping "debate" about the war.

This is about a 180 degree reversal of longstanding US strategic policy in the Middle East.

This is about the American abandonment of Israel.

This is about a "new world order" as spoken of by Bush 41 after Operation Desert Storm.

This is about James Baker, Lee Hamilton and the cabal of internationalists and globalists - the same crew driving the creation of the NAU.

[Jag]

And this is what Israel thinks about it Sean....

Dec. 7, 2006 3:05 | Updated Dec. 7, 2006 3:10
Analysis: The fears of a regional war


A doomsday scenario: America pulls prematurely out of Iraq. A civil war erupts and turns into a bloodbath ripping apart the country. Neighboring countries are motivated to come to the rescue - Iran invades to save the Shi'ites while Syria and Saudi Arabia join in to save the Sunnis. Turkey also decides to get involved and invades Kurdish Iraq to prevent the establishment of an independent state there.

This is one of Israel's greatest fears when it comes to America's plan to withdraw from Iraq, one that, at the moment, the defense establishment would like to believe is more fantasy than reality. But if the US does ultimately run away from Iraq, a Shi'ite takeover could happen in just a matter of months, one top official predicted Wednesday.

The conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report, published on Wednesday, did not come as a surprise to the Israeli defense establishment.

The call for direct talks between Israel and Syria and a US advocated push for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace were not surprising. Neither was the idea that President George W. Bush sit down and negotiate with Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

But what was concerning for officials was the urgent call to begin pulling American troops out of Iraq, which if done prematurely, high-ranking Israeli government and defense officials warned, could destabilize the entire region and bring about the rise of radical Shi'ite regimes across Israel's eastern front - in Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Bush's nominee for secretary of defense Robert Gates voiced these concerns on Tuesday during his confirmation hearing at the US Senate.

"My greatest worry if we mishandle the next year or two and leave Iraq in chaos is that a variety of regional powers will become involved in Iraq, and we will have a regional conflict on our hands," he said.

In addition to the possibility of a regional war, Iraq would most certainly turn into a haven and breeding ground for Islamic extremism. Terrorism would flourish there and Al-Qaida cells that were kicked out of Afghanistan and then Chechnya would only escalate their terror attacks in Iraq and begin spreading out to other countries right at Israel's doorstep, like Jordan and Egypt.

Another point of concern is that a premature withdrawal from Iraq would signify weakness not only for the US but also for Israel. "Our deterrence relies on a strong America," the top government official said. "If America is presumed weak, then Israel is also presumed to be weak."

Iran and Syria already expressed their willingness to sit down and talk with the US about Iraq. The question is, however, what price Bush will be forced to pay to obtain stability from these two countries, which until not long ago were part of the infamous "axis of evil."

One defense official raised the possibility this week that during the talks, the Iranians would ask for a guarantee that the US not work to undermine the current regime and for the US to turn a "blind eye" to their nuclear development program. In return, Iran would guarantee to help stabilize Iraq by damping down the Shi'ite violence, thereby enabling a US troop withdrawal.
What this would mean for Israel, the official said, is that it would be left alone to deal with stopping the Iranian nuclear threat.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1164881836826

Jag

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Hiya Sean,

This is about the American abandonment of Israel.

I was listening to discussions about the Study Group all day and at one point this is the exact same thought that I came up with too. Israelis can not be feeling very secure tonight.

*CLUNK*...the sound of another piece of the puzzle falling into place.


***

[Joey Bagadonuts]

Wow, what timing!

Baker et al are wasting no time in the "abandon Israel" movement!
They want to invite Iran and Syria but bar Israel?? Amazing! This shows you exactly where the USA is heading if they have anything to say about it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++


http://www.insightmag.com/Media/Medi...er/Baker_1.htm


Baker wants Israel excluded from regional conference

The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.



The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.



“As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”



Officials said Mr. Baker's proposal, reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, has been supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. The most controversial element in the proposal, they said, was Mr. Baker's recommendation for the United States to woo Iran and Syria.



“Here is Syria, which is clearly putting pressure on the Lebanese democracy, is a supporter of terror, is both provisioning and supporting Hezbollah and facilitating Iran in its efforts to support Hezbollah, is supporting the activities of Hamas," National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told a briefing last week. "This is not a Syria that is on an agenda to bring peace and stability to the region."



Officials said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25. They said Mr. Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.



“He [Cheney] didn't even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit—that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks,” another official familiar with Mr. Cheney’s visit said. “Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis’ attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.”



Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.



“Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”



Officials said Mr. Baker's influence within the administration and the Republican Party’s leadership stems from support by the president's father as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Throughout the current Bush administration, such senior officials as Mr. Hadley and Ms. Rice were said to have been consulting with Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security advisor, regarded as close to Mr. Baker.



“Everybody has fallen in line,” the official said. “Bush is not in the daily loop. He is shocked by the elections and he's hoping for a miracle on Iraq.”



For his part, Mr. Bush has expressed unease in negotiating with Iran. At a Nov. 30 news conference in Amman, Jordan, the president cited Iran's interference in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.



“We respect their heritage, we respect their history, we respect their traditions,” Mr. Bush said. “I just have a problem with a government that is isolating its people, denying its people benefits that could be had from engagement with the world.”



Mr. Baker's recommendation to woo Iran and Syria has also received support from some in the conservative wing of the GOP. Over the last week, former and current Republican leaders in Congress—convinced of the need for a U.S. withdrawal before the 2008 presidential elections—have called for Iranian and Syrian participation in an effort to stabilize Iraq.



“I would look at an entirely new strategy,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. “We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want.”



In contrast, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel's expense. They said such a strategy would also end up undermining Arab allies of the United States such as Egypt, Jordan and Morocco.



“The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon. “If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America's enemy than its friend. Jim Baker's hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel's foes in the region.”



But Defense Secretary-designate Robert Gates, a former colleague of Mr. Baker on the Iraq Study Group, has expressed support for U.S. negotiations with Iran and Syria. In response to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, which begins confirmation hearings this week, Mr. Gates compared the two U.S. adversaries to the Soviet Union.



“Even in the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China, and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations,” Mr. Gates said. “Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral. It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference.”


***

[Sean Osborne]

Hiya Sean,



I was listening to discussions about the Study Group all day and at one point this is the exact same thought that I came up with too. Israelis can not be feeling very secure tonight.

*CLUNK*...the sound of another piece of the puzzle falling into place.


***

Hiya Joey,

Israel has nothing to fear from the ISG. As a group of gray-haired, Israel hating old men the ISG has no chance when placing itself in the direct path of a freight-train of Divine purpose.

The 'State of Israel' will participate in any "peace" deal. That is an absolute, unalterable and imminent reality.

Israel has everything to fear from the appeasers in its current government as it has to fear from Iranian, Syrian and Russian intentions.

[falcon]

Baker is only protecting his intesrest in Saudi Arab,with his law frim. The ISG group did not even have ONE Military person on this panel. The only way we are going to win this war is through STRENGHT.

WND Exclusive FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan'
Reaction to Study Group: 'Allah and his angels' responsible, 'era of Islam and of jihad' declared
Posted: December 6, 2006
7:40 p.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – A high level U.S. commission's recommendations for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq and for dialogue with Iran and Syria proves "Islamic resistance" works and America will ultimately be defeated, according to senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND.

The militants, from the largest Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, welcomed the policies outlined by the Iraq Study Group, which they claim recognizes Islam is the "new giant of the world."

The group is led by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker.

"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.

The Islamic Jihad terror group is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel during the past two years.

"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu Ayman said.

According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by "Allah and his angels."

"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen (fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.

"It is no doubt that Allah and his angels were fighting with them (insurgents) against the Americans. It is a sign to all those who keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground so let us negotiate with them," Abu Abdullah said.

Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be defeated on its own soil.

"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S. itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.

Abu Nasser, the second-in-command of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the West Bank, called the Iraq Study Group report a "great victory" from which other jihadist organizations can learn.

"The Iraqi victory is a great message and lesson to the revolutionary and freedom movements in the world. Just to think that this resistance is led by hundreds of Sunni fighters who defeated hundreds of thousands of Americans, British and thousands of soldiers who belong to the puppet regime in Baghdad. What would be the situation if the Shiites will decide to join the resistance?" commented Abu Nasser.

The Al Aqsa leader said his group learned from the "Iraqi resistance" that jihad will ultimately destroy Israel.

The Al Aqsa Brigades is the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

"If Israel will not start negotiating its withdrawal we are ready to launch the new stage of the intifada," Abu Nasser said.

Islamic Jihad's Abu Ayman said after the U.S. "defeat" in Iraq is finalized, insurgents there should move to the West Bank and Gaza to help destroy Israel.

"We hope that after chasing the occupation from Iraq, these jihad efforts and experiences will be transferred to Palestine, and yes, I mean that we expect these fighters will come to Palestine as part of a big Islamic army."

The Iraqi Study Group's report called the U.S. position in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," and recommended the withdrawal of most combat troops from Iraq by 2008.

It warned, "The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing."

The report stated the U.S. should engage Iran, Syria and insurgent leaders in Iraq, and said Israel should be pressured into withdrawing from the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

The West Bank runs alongside Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Israel's international airport. The Heights is strategic mountainous territory that looks down in Israeli and Syrian population centers.

President Bush received the report at the White House this morning. Flanked by Baker and other commission members, Bush pledged to treat each proposal seriously and act in a "timely fashion."

The White House said Bush will make key decisions within weeks.

Some terror leaders, though, were unsure whether the Baker report would actually be implemented. They claimed Israel controls U.S. foreign policy and would ultimately block changes in American actions in the Middle East.

"The problem is that I think the political structure of the U.S. and the role of the Zionists in the U.S. turns impossible the possibility that this report would be implemented," said Abu Ayman.

Still the terror leader said the report shows insurgent actions are working.

"It is the dawn of the real Islam what we are seeing now, young people who are leaving everything in their countries and are coming to fight in Iraq," said Abu Ayman.

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53269

THE COUNSEL OF COWARDS
PrintEmailStory Bottom

December 7, 2006 -- After nine laborious months, the Iraq Study Group yesterday recom mended that there be peace in the Middle East.

Well, of course.

But how to achieve it?

One word: Surrender.

Surrender in Iraq - and, in due time but inevitably, beyond.

Not in so many words, of course.

The 10-member group, headed by Republican Jim Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton, wants to pull out U.S. combat troops within 16 months.

It wants Washington to ask those fomenting violence in Iraq - Iran and Syria - to be good fellows and stop it.

And it wants Israel to begin another "dialogue" in pursuit of peace. (Translation: It wants Israel to surrender, too.)

"The situation is grave and deteriorating," the much-hyped report begins, adding: "There is no path that can guarantee success" and "There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq."

Of course there are no guarantees.

There are never guarantees.

The report decidedly avoids using the word "victory." Rather, it sees only the possibility of somehow improving the odds of "success."

But that's just putting lipstick on this pig of a report.

The fact is, the study group offers 79 recommendations adding up to a cowardly exit from Iraq - and the abandonment of tens of thousands of Iraqis who took America's promises at face value.

Also to be tossed overboard are regional allies who believed America has the will to finish the fight it began.

Does it? That is the question.

President Bush has said quitting the fight "simply has no realism to it at all."

Here's hoping he means it. Because Iraq is a key theater in the broader War on Terror. And anything short of a win there doesn't mean the larger war is lost - but it makes ultimate victory immeasurably harder to achieve.

The group's solution?
Talk to Tehran and Damascus.

But those regimes are already talking: Iran is actively supporting the Shia insurrection in Iraq, and Syria is murdering members of the freely elected Lebanese government.

Which brings us to the study group's focus on a new peace process for Israel and its enemies - which represents utterly breathtaking disregard for decades of failed earlier such efforts.

Israel has made every manner of concession, fruitlessly. To this day, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran vow only to erase Israel from the map.

But the group wants more diplomacy, because it sees the Arab-Israeli conflict as central to the Middle East puzzle.

Which is nonsense: Israel, in fact, is a vivid symbol of the broader clash between Islamic fundamentalists and jihadis, and Western civilization.

Ending the conflict there can come only with victory in the War on Terror - not the other way around.

Why - absent a strong threat - would Iran, Syria and their puppet dispensers of terror quit, when their efforts to spread their power seem to be succeeding?

Why would they agree to help their enemies - America and Israel?

The answer: They wouldn't.

Baker himself all but admits it: "We didn't get the feeling Iran is champing at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq," he said. "And in fact we say they very well might not."

No fooling.

Call it anything you like, but this latest prescription for Iraq is nothing more than a plan for surrender. Notwithstanding the disaster that would surely follow.

President Bush should thank the ISG for its work - and promptly toss the report in the trash.

The president has a lot to answer for, but Operation Iraqi Freedom, while badly mismanaged, was a noble - and necessary - undertaking.

The war is not yet lost, nor need it be.

Bush needs courage right now.

The Iraq Study Group counsels cowardice - and, ultimately, a shameful defeat.

www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/postopinion/editorials/the_counsel_of_cowards_editorials_.htm?page=2

[falcon]

By the way the ISG Report never talks about a "Victory" why is that?

Baker is only protecting his intesrest in Saudi Arab,with his law frim. The ISG group did not even have ONE Military person on this panel. The only way we are going to win this war is through STRENGHT.

WND Exclusive FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq 'plan'
Reaction to Study Group: 'Allah and his angels' responsible, 'era of Islam and of jihad' declared
Posted: December 6, 2006
7:40 p.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – A high level U.S. commission's recommendations for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq and for dialogue with Iran and Syria proves "Islamic resistance" works and America will ultimately be defeated, according to senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND.

The militants, from the largest Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, welcomed the policies outlined by the Iraq Study Group, which they claim recognizes Islam is the "new giant of the world."

The group is led by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker.

"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.

The Islamic Jihad terror group is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel during the past two years.

"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu Ayman said.

According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by "Allah and his angels."

"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen (fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.

"It is no doubt that Allah and his angels were fighting with them (insurgents) against the Americans. It is a sign to all those who keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground so let us negotiate with them," Abu Abdullah said.

Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be defeated on its own soil.

"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S. itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.

Abu Nasser, the second-in-command of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the West Bank, called the Iraq Study Group report a "great victory" from which other jihadist organizations can learn.

"The Iraqi victory is a great message and lesson to the revolutionary and freedom movements in the world. Just to think that this resistance is led by hundreds of Sunni fighters who defeated hundreds of thousands of Americans, British and thousands of soldiers who belong to the puppet regime in Baghdad. What would be the situation if the Shiites will decide to join the resistance?" commented Abu Nasser.

The Al Aqsa leader said his group learned from the "Iraqi resistance" that jihad will ultimately destroy Israel.

The Al Aqsa Brigades is the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

"If Israel will not start negotiating its withdrawal we are ready to launch the new stage of the intifada," Abu Nasser said.

Islamic Jihad's Abu Ayman said after the U.S. "defeat" in Iraq is finalized, insurgents there should move to the West Bank and Gaza to help destroy Israel.

"We hope that after chasing the occupation from Iraq, these jihad efforts and experiences will be transferred to Palestine, and yes, I mean that we expect these fighters will come to Palestine as part of a big Islamic army."

The Iraqi Study Group's report called the U.S. position in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," and recommended the withdrawal of most combat troops from Iraq by 2008.

It warned, "The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing."

The report stated the U.S. should engage Iran, Syria and insurgent leaders in Iraq, and said Israel should be pressured into withdrawing from the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

The West Bank runs alongside Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Israel's international airport. The Heights is strategic mountainous territory that looks down in Israeli and Syrian population centers.

President Bush received the report at the White House this morning. Flanked by Baker and other commission members, Bush pledged to treat each proposal seriously and act in a "timely fashion."

The White House said Bush will make key decisions within weeks.

Some terror leaders, though, were unsure whether the Baker report would actually be implemented. They claimed Israel controls U.S. foreign policy and would ultimately block changes in American actions in the Middle East.

"The problem is that I think the political structure of the U.S. and the role of the Zionists in the U.S. turns impossible the possibility that this report would be implemented," said Abu Ayman.

Still the terror leader said the report shows insurgent actions are working.

"It is the dawn of the real Islam what we are seeing now, young people who are leaving everything in their countries and are coming to fight in Iraq," said Abu Ayman.

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53269

THE COUNSEL OF COWARDS
PrintEmailStory Bottom

December 7, 2006 -- After nine laborious months, the Iraq Study Group yesterday recom mended that there be peace in the Middle East.

Well, of course.

But how to achieve it?

One word: Surrender.

Surrender in Iraq - and, in due time but inevitably, beyond.

Not in so many words, of course.

The 10-member group, headed by Republican Jim Baker and Democrat Lee Hamilton, wants to pull out U.S. combat troops within 16 months.

It wants Washington to ask those fomenting violence in Iraq - Iran and Syria - to be good fellows and stop it.

And it wants Israel to begin another "dialogue" in pursuit of peace. (Translation: It wants Israel to surrender, too.)

"The situation is grave and deteriorating," the much-hyped report begins, adding: "There is no path that can guarantee success" and "There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq."

Of course there are no guarantees.

There are never guarantees.

The report decidedly avoids using the word "victory." Rather, it sees only the possibility of somehow improving the odds of "success."

But that's just putting lipstick on this pig of a report.

The fact is, the study group offers 79 recommendations adding up to a cowardly exit from Iraq - and the abandonment of tens of thousands of Iraqis who took America's promises at face value.

Also to be tossed overboard are regional allies who believed America has the will to finish the fight it began.

Does it? That is the question.

President Bush has said quitting the fight "simply has no realism to it at all."

Here's hoping he means it. Because Iraq is a key theater in the broader War on Terror. And anything short of a win there doesn't mean the larger war is lost - but it makes ultimate victory immeasurably harder to achieve.

The group's solution?
Talk to Tehran and Damascus.

But those regimes are already talking: Iran is actively supporting the Shia insurrection in Iraq, and Syria is murdering members of the freely elected Lebanese government.

Which brings us to the study group's focus on a new peace process for Israel and its enemies - which represents utterly breathtaking disregard for decades of failed earlier such efforts.

Israel has made every manner of concession, fruitlessly. To this day, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran vow only to erase Israel from the map.

But the group wants more diplomacy, because it sees the Arab-Israeli conflict as central to the Middle East puzzle.

Which is nonsense: Israel, in fact, is a vivid symbol of the broader clash between Islamic fundamentalists and jihadis, and Western civilization.

Ending the conflict there can come only with victory in the War on Terror - not the other way around.

Why - absent a strong threat - would Iran, Syria and their puppet dispensers of terror quit, when their efforts to spread their power seem to be succeeding?

Why would they agree to help their enemies - America and Israel?

The answer: They wouldn't.

Baker himself all but admits it: "We didn't get the feeling Iran is champing at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq," he said. "And in fact we say they very well might not."

No fooling.

Call it anything you like, but this latest prescription for Iraq is nothing more than a plan for surrender. Notwithstanding the disaster that would surely follow.

President Bush should thank the ISG for its work - and promptly toss the report in the trash.

The president has a lot to answer for, but Operation Iraqi Freedom, while badly mismanaged, was a noble - and necessary - undertaking.

The war is not yet lost, nor need it be.

Bush needs courage right now.

The Iraq Study Group counsels cowardice - and, ultimately, a shameful defeat.

www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/postopinion/editorials/the_counsel_of_cowards_editorials_.htm?page=2

[frankrm]

I guess that message bears repeating, and it was. I would guess the insurgency will crank up to force us to accept these proposals. There is some other plot it seems that this is drawing us into. Perhaps it will have to do with a closing down of the Persian gulf. I don't know but it seems they want to draw a strike out of us even though we are shying away from it. I think they are looking for this to gain more favor from those who appose our current course.

Anyway, bad news for Israel and eventualy us. Oil, the lubricant of Islam.

[falcon]

[falcon]

Kurdish leader blasts Iraq group's report
POSTED: 8:53 p.m. EST, December 7, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The president of the Kurdistan region of Iraq issued a stinging rejection of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, saying Kurds "are in no way abiding by this report."

President Massoud Barzani said Thursday that the report contradicts assurances given to Kurdish officials by study group co-chair James Baker before the report's release.

Baker "assured us that the special status of Kurdistan was taken into account in the report," Barzani said in a written statement issued late Thursday.

Iraqi Kurdistan officials had "conveyed in a letter the Kurdish point of view," he said. "But the group did not attach any importance to the letter, and it seemed as if they had not read it at all."

Barzani said the Kurdistan officials believe the study group "made some unrealistic and inappropriate recommendations for helping the U.S. to get out of these difficulties."

"If under this pretext, these inappropriate recommendations are imposed on us; we declare, on behalf of the people of Kurdistan, that we reject anything that is against the constitution and the interest of Iraq and Kurdistan," he said.

Barzani rejected the study group's call for a "new diplomatic offensive" that would include discussions with all of Iraq's neighbors.

The leader's comments came on the same day Bush indicated that Iran and Syria might be included in regional talks about Iraq, if the countries meet certain conditions. (Watch whether Bush will listen to report's suggestions Video)

Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Thursday at the White House, acknowledging during a news conference that, "It's bad in Iraq."

Blair said the report "offers a strong way forward" toward success "because the consequences of failure are severe."

Bush said victory in Iraq is important to security in the Middle East, Britain, the United States and "the civilized world."
Barzani is standing his ground, however.

"We think that this is contrary to the interest of the people of Iraq in general and the people of Iraqi Kurdistan in particular, and also the territorial integrity of Iraq," he said. "It is also interference in the country's internal affairs."

He also said the report places emphasis "on strengthening the central government and weakening the regional ones."

Such a move would be "contrary to the principles of federalism and the constitution that forms the basis upon which the new Iraq is built," he said. "Here we make it clear that federalism is the only way for preserving the unity of Iraq."

Barzani rejected proposals that seek to pull opposition groups into the government, saying they would amount to "rewarding those who are against the political process and have conducted acts of violence, by including them into the government and authority."

Barzani also:

# Criticized the study group members for "failing to visit Iraqi Kurdistan," calling that "a major shortcoming that adversely influenced the credibility of the assessment."

# Rejected the call for a review, with the help of U.N. experts, of the Iraqi constitution.

# Blasted a proposal to put "oil revenues under the power of the central government and redistribute it in accordance with the ratio of the population."

# Opposed any delay in implementing a constitutional provision in regard to Kirkuk.

# Stated that Iraqis should look first to national reconciliation before the nation's problems are solved by others.

# Said the democratic progress of Iraq and Kurdistan should not be put aside, recalling previous elections and the country's constitution, which "received the support of more than 80 percent of the people in Iraq."

Barzani said he would urge "all Iraqi groups, who believe in the political process, the constitution and a democratic federal Iraq, to take radical steps to solve these problems so that they can be freed from the solutions of the wrong recommendations of the regional and international countries.

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/07/kurds.reject/

[Backstop]

Yesterday, I heard the Iraq Study Group refered to as the Iraq Surrender Group.

Sad, but accurate.

[Sean Osborne]

Yesterday, I heard the Iraq Study Group refered to as the Iraq Surrender Group.

Sad, but accurate.

Exactly correct IMHO also. We're in trouble. Baker and Gates big time trouble IMHO.

[frankrm]

BEWARE JIM BAKER

Jim Baker is once again on center stage in Washington D.C. with his "Iraq Study Group."

Let's review Jim Baker's anti-Israel posture over the past 15 years. In 1990, Baker lured Assad of Syria into an anti-Saddam coalition.

Baker overlooked Assad's leadership role in international terrorism and showered the butcher of Hamas with international legitimacy and gave Assad a free hand in Lebanon.

Assad took that free hand to fully occupy Lebanon where thousands of Lebanese were massacred and the anti-Syrian Christian administration was replaced with a pro-Syrian puppet administration in Beirut. We are still suffering in Lebanon from Baker's "pragmatism."

This is an example of what Jim Baker calls his "pragmatism" in his dealmaker political role.

During the 1980's and until the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, Baker referred to Hussein as "a constructive leader."

Baker considered Yasser Arafat (before the 1993 Oslo Accord) as an essential partner to a peace process. Baker's "pragmatism" turned a blind eye to Arafat's record of terrorism, pandered to the PLO and attempted to break the back of Israel's Prime Minister Shamir by denying Israel the loan guarantees (not cash) for the absorption of Soviet Jews and convinced President Bush Sr. to threaten to veto any pro-Israel legislation proposed on Capitol Hill.

Baker's "pragmatism" pressured Israel to freeze Jewish settlements and to roll back to the 1949 lines and accused Israel of being an obstruction to the peace process.

Baker is once again sticking the knife in Israel's back by connecting America's problems with Iraq and Iran to Israel. He's saying that America's problems can be settled if the Israel-Arab affair is settled.

Fact: America's problems with Iran have nothing to do with Israel. Iran's president has said he intends to use nuclear weapons against the United States of America. My father's generation would have considered this statement a declaration of war and bombed Iran by this time.

America's problems in Iraq have nothing to do with Israel.

The fact is this: Israel cannot make peace with Terrorist Organizations (Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) whose covenants call for the death of all Jews and the absolute destruction of Israel. Israel has no partner for peace.

Once again the Jim Baker "pragmatism" is dead wrong! He was and remains anti-Israel.

Commentary By John Hagee
www.cufi.org (Christians United for Israel)

[frankrm]

BTW read the above brief article re Baker.
It shows who he is realy friends of.
If we follow his advice it could spell trouble for us if the theory that Bill Koenig puts forth is true.

http://watch.org/

[Sean Osborne]

Iraq Surrender Group Key Recommendations:

Recommendations
• Change diplomatic and military missions
• Engage Iran and Syria to address border, insurgency and reconciliation issues
• Renew commitment to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and provide additional support to Afghanistan as part of regional approach
• Evolve U.S. military role to support Iraqi Army units as Iraq moves to take responsibility for security sooner
• Move all U.S. combat brigades not needed for protection out of Iraq by first quarter of 2008
• Make no open-ended commitment to Iraq to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
• Improve Iraq's criminal justice system, oil sector, U.S. reconstruction efforts
• Implement recommendations in coordinated fashion

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpo...t.exclude.html

[Ryan Ruck]

Some off topic posts for this thread have been pruned (not permenantly deleted) from this thread for organizational reasons.