HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

On Baker, Syria Negotiations and 'Escalation'

Former Secretary of State and Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group James Baker has once again called for negotiations with Syria, this time to leverage diplomatic power in order to "get them (Syria) to get Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist." Insistant on edging over the cliff of delusional table-talk between diplomats and terrorists, he continued and further insisted that the United States also "could get them to stop arming Hizballah," as well.

At some point, it must be recognized soberly by the various American lot who maintain that they somehow can insert themselves as the solution to Middle East woes that there will be no peace between Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah or Syria and Israel settled among them, even if they desired it. The principal powerbroker and conflict multiplier is Iran and the mullah regime in Tehran. They want the destruction of Israel. Nothing less.

Syria, a broken state beyond its profitable terror industry driven by their Tehran masters, is wholly incapable of standing on its own two feet - even if the fantasy were to materialize that they actually desired peace.

Iran drives Hizballah and has, through Syria, completely re-armed the terrorist group (and more) since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon this summer. The current ongoing coup attempt in Lebanon is driven not by Lebanese Shi'a desires for it, but as yet another crisis that serves the Iranian regime while yet another UN Security Council deadline looms, just days away.

Iran drives (Sunni) Hamas, pumping it with weapons, explosives, ammunition and Merkava tank-killing Kornet rockets and maintaining consistent attacks into and upon Israel.

Iran drives Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (yes, another Sunni terrorist group funded by the Shi'a mullahcracy), coordinating the group's actions with Hizballah and Hamas attacks on Israel.

Iran drives Palestinian Islamic Jihad, co-ordinating the frequent supplier of suicide bombers' attacks with each of the above.

That is to say nothing of Iran's ongoing war with the United States within Iraq and Afghanistan, once again feeding both Shi'a and Sunni killers without prejudice.

And James Baker is going to solve the Arab-Israeli crisis through negotiations with Syria?

And, while Baker an others insist upon negotiating the non-negotiable, the enemy kills us without consequence in Iraq and elsewhere. And there remains the relentless criticism from DC's elected leaders, complete with clear demonstrations of strategic ignorance, including from the man many consider the new front runner for the Democrat presidential nomination. Barack Obama declared today that "It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy, it's time to give Iraqis their country back."

Give them their country back? Forget that this is a suggestion that we have stolen it from them rather than provide them with their first true free elections, regardless of the difficulties. But precisely whom does the would-be president intend to hand it over to? Iran? That would be the net effect, and the incalculable expansion of international terrorism with untold amounts of free-flowing Iraqi blood in the streets 'given back to them.'

That no one seems to stop and think about the Iraqi citizen is a source of national shame, whether some care to acknowledge it or not.

One last parting shot. Am I the only one that is just about sick and tired of hearing the DC talking-point phrase dujour of Bush's "escalation" in Iraq, especially with regard to Iran? Iran has been killing our boys for three years, and our belated acknowledgment is somehow the culprit and not a justifiable reaction to Iranian "escalation"?

They support the troops how, again?

I know that sounds a bit 'snarky', but it's been a long past 48 hours and I offer no apologies. Growing very tired of the self-defeating posture.



I absolutly agree with you on every point. I don't understand why some people (James Baker, et al)insist on negotiations with our enemies. There is no way we could have fruitful negotiations with a regime or country that has completely different goals and objectives than we do. Also, as you state, Syria is the small dog in this scenario. All roads lead to Iran. Thank you for your commentary sir.

All of those calling it "escalation" know very well that they are dusting off a play from the how-we-ended-Viet-Nam playbook (like Nebraska trying to make the option work despite the fact that it hasn't worked in five years); and like Viet Nam not one of them will stand up and accept responsibility for the aftermath their actions will help bring about. I would happily listen to anyone of them who would come up with a plan that goes beyond "load everyone up on a starlifter and hit the trottle."

No, you are not the only one tired of "escalation", but your supporters are fewer and fewer by the day. The majority of Americans are sick of Bush-speak such as "surge", and done supporting this pointless, unnecessary war. You are, indeed, in the minority now. And remember, supporting the war is NOT the same as supporting the troops.

I am tired of the biased usage and subtle deriding that accompanies the more overt, Tony.

In your boldness, you gloss over the fact that the reason the Iraq war has lost support within the public is not becuase it is either 'pointless' or 'uneccessary.' It is and was neither.

The support has waned because the public percieves we are not winning.

Isn't it ironic that the open policy of those elected is now one of defeat? That is a leap of logic that the public does not share.

This 'non-binding resolution' afoot now in the Senate is more binding than the Senators think. They make the same error in judgment. They will find out how binding it truly is when their next election rolls around.

You percieve a base of support that does not exist, quite frankly. Certainly not with the broad and encompassing sense in which you state it, nor for the false reasons you suggest.

Anything else?