Monday, December 11, 2006

Neo-Cons and the ISG Report

The war hawks, chastened and humbled by their utter failure in Iraq, are taking the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group to heart and offering their thoughts in the sincere hope of bettering the situation in Iraq:
"It's preposterous, period," said Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute, about the proposal for a new dialogue with Iran and Syria. "Talking to them is not going to bring anything but a perception of American weakness."

Uh, or not.

Perle, the font of wisdom who believed that Chalabi was the answer to concerns over a lengthy occupation, has this to say:
"The report is a monumental disappointment, for all the hype," said Richard Perle, a former Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the Iraq invasion. "The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things."

As opposed to the "right" things, such as bombing Iran or Syria.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a former Reagan administration hawk who heads the Center for Security Policy, said he believes the panel's output was "certainly driven" by Baker.

"It seems so transparently in keeping with his modus operandi: the quest for the deal without regard for the content or the repercussions," he said.

As opposed to the quest for a war without regard for the repurcussions.
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide who resigned in protest from an Iraq Study Group expert panel, said he believes Baker's assessment is unrealistic. He said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gains strength from positioning himself as a rejectionist and foe of the United States, so it is wrong to believe that Syria would think it would gain from an alliance with Washington.

"Sometimes realists have to deal with reality," said Rubin, now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have." He said the report, as a strategy document, was a "Cliff Notes high school paper."

As opposed to the Axis & Allies cheat sheet that has been the neo-cons' policy towards Iraq.

I have neither the will nor the inclination to write a refutation of their absurd "criticisms." Nor is there any need. Their arguments are self-refuting in their absurdity, and the utter failure that is Iraq is a condemnation of everything they believe in.

Fortunately, the Republican Party seems incapable of ejecting the hawks from their party. I say fortunately because as long as the hawks keep advocating war as solution for war (and the right-wing blogs keep pushing for eternal war with Islamofascism) Democrats will keep getting elected to office.

No comments: