Posted by Mark Silva at 6:15 am CST
Deep within the fast-selling, 150-page report of the Iraqi Study Group circulated this week comes an arresting little detail: “Our embassy of 1,000 (in Baghdad) has 33 Arabic speakers, just six of whom are at the level of fluency,’’it notes on P. 92. “In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage.’’
The truth is, the leaders of this bipartisan study group say, the United States cannot simply fight its way out of Iraq. If the U.S. is to gain any real influence in the region, they say, it must also talk its way through a crisis that is hardly limited to Iraq, but also plaguing the entire Middle East, and that means engaging all of the region’s powers in an aggressive new diplomatic offensive.
“The military is terribly important here,’’ said Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the study group, in an interview with the Tribune and several other major newspapers this week, “but to see the Iraqi problem… through the prism of military troop deployments is to woefully misunderstand how diffcult the problem is there. Every single general we talked with said we cannot solve this problem by military action and you have to solve it politically.’’
Communicating with Iraqis is only part of the problem, Hamilton and fellow cochairman James Baker say in their report. The U.S. should be talking with Iran and with Syria as well, they say, and the U.S. should be reenergizing peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, if the U.S. is to maintain any credibility among “moderate’’ Arab leaders in the region.
While much has been made of the military goals proposed by the Iraq Study Group – including a goal of drawing down most U.S. combat forces by the first quarter of 2008 – the diplomatic goals of this report could prove even more difficult – yet probably in the long run more important – to achieve.
“I think there is a tendency on the part of people… to look at one aspect of the problem, and think you can solve Iraq that way, by manipulating troop levels, by the Iraqi government doing something or not doing something, by the way you approach economic reconstruction,’’ Hamilton said. “We have in fact rejected that. In order to move forward with the situation in Iraq, you really need to have a comprehensive approach.
“We recommend a major diplomatic offensive,’’ the Democratic former congressman from Indiana said.
The study group’s report, received cautiously by a White House intent on crafting its own “new strategy’’ for Iraq, speaks of “the wider regional context’’ in suggesting that a strategy for Iraq alone is insufficient. It states: ‘’The U.S. will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle Easst unless the U.S. deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.’’
While the administration has been cool to the report – and some members of Congress openly hostile toward it – the public has shown some receptiveness, it seems. Vintage Books, the Random House division that published The Iraq Study Group Report, has entered a third printing, with 250,000 copies, and the book has neared the top of Amazon.com’s top-seller list. It retails for $10.95, though Amazon is moving it for $6.75. Part of the proceeds go to the National Military Family Association.
Hamilton and Baker, cochairmen of the 10-member study group appointed by Congress, are serving as tireless salesmen for the report. (It helps, too, that the Chicago-based Edelman public relations firm put 40 of its 200-member Washington, D.C., office on the case of managing a media-blitz by Hamilton and Baker that culminates with the Sunday morning talk shows.)
“The road to peace in Iraq lies in Baghdad,’’ Hamilton said, seated alongside Baker in one of an exhausting series of interviews that the two have given as a pair – this one in Edelman’s downtown Washington offices.
But “we believe that the problems in the Middle East are interconnected with one another,’’ he said. “The reason you have to energize – reenergize the Israeli-Arab discussions is because that’s absolutely critical for us to have any credbility or standing with moderate Arabs in the region…(That includes Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait, he noted). “Unless we are making an effort… we don’t have standing, we don’t have legitimacy. We don’t have credibility with these countries. That doesn’t mean you have to solve the problem. I don’t think they expect us to solve the problem. But they want to see us engaged in it in a major way… so we recommend that.’’
As Baker put it: “What we’re really saying, I think, is the road to peace in Iraq runs through Baghdad. The road to Arab-Israeli peace runs through Jerusalem. We’re not linking the two, but we are proposing a comprehensive strategy to improve our prospects in Iraq and to improve our prospects in the Middle East….We need to improve things for the United States in the Middle East generally.’’
This entails something which the Bush administration adamantly refuses to enterain: Direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. Not until Iran suspends its enrichment of nuclear material will the U.S. sit down with Iran, Bush says, and Syria is accused of sponsoring terrorism throughout the region – in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.
“We’re not proposing a broad-based bilateral discussion with Iran aobut everything, about all the differnces between us,’’ Hamilton said. “We are proposing that we do with Iran in effect what we did with them in Afghanistan, where we solicited their help in the reconstruction of Afganistan and they provided it…. We ought to ask them, invite them to the meeting…. Or if there is one or more meertings… invite them…If they don’t come, then hold them up to public scrutiny generally.’’
The notion of Iraq sliding into chaos – which the study group holds out as an immiment threat – is just as dangerous for Iran as it is for others in the region, they say.
“They don’t want a chaotic Iraq,’’ Baker said. “A chaotic Iraq would present Iran with some huge problems, just like it would prevent Syria with huge problems.’’
In addition, Baker, a Republican fomer secretary of state and veteran of 16 trips to Damascus 15 years ago, suggests that engaging Syria in the Iraqi problem could open a new door for peace in Israel and the Palestinian territory.
“Talking to Syria gives us an excellent opportunity to revitalize the Arab Israeli peace process,’’ Baker said. “Why? Because the Syrians are the transit point for arms shipments to Hezbollah, and if you can flip the Syrians you will cure Israel’s Hezbollah problem… Second, the Syrians will tell you, as they told us, that they do have the ability to convince Hamas to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist… If we did that, if we’d accomplish that, that would give (Israeli Prime Minister) Ehud Olhmert a negotiating partner on the Palestinian track, something that Israel is on record’’ as saying they want.
At the heart of all these proposals, they say, is the urgency of a renewed diplomatic initiative in the Middle East.
“How do you solve problems without talking to people?’’ Hamilton said. “We’ve got problems to solve, and you’ve got to talk to people to solve problems.’’
That’s tough in a place like Iran, where the U.S. has had no diplomatic ties since the hostage crisis of 1980, and in Syria, where the U.S. maintains a diplomatic mission but refuses to negotiate with accused state sponsors of terrorism.
“Talking doesn’t get you very fast sometimes where you want to go... but it becomes absolutely necessary,’’ Hamilton said. “You pull an ambassador out of a coutnry and cut off communications, that’s usually the last thing you should do, not the first thing you should do… The idea that you yank an ambassador out to express disapproval is a surefire formula for not getting anywhere in resolving a problem…
“We’re trying to resolve a problem here,’’ he said, “and we think you need to speak to the major actors in order to solve the problem.’’
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
“We’re trying to resolve a problem here,’’ he said, “and we think you need to speak to the major actors in order to solve the problem.’’
Well, duh.
Can't wait to hear the warmongers jump in and deride the very idea of "talking" to the "enemy." They trust their fists more than their brains, I guess.
Posted by: Figbash | December 9, 2006 7:15 AM
I’d be willing to bet 10 to 1 that the Bush administration will not do anything that was proposed by the Iraq study group. They’ll say that they are, but my guess is just more smoke and mirrors. Bush is incapable of any type of foreign policy, and his credibility around the world isn’t worth two cents. As for what will happen, I think after Democrats take control of Congress in January, the Bush administration will dump the problem in their laps and try to use any failure of resolving the Iraq issue as a political weapon against Democrats in ’08.
Posted by: Rory M | December 9, 2006 9:07 AM
Great post; hope this helps:
diplomacy
n 1: negotiation between nations [syn: diplomatic negotiations]
2: subtly skillful handling of a situation [syn: delicacy, discreetness, finesse]
3: wisdom in the management of public affairs [syn: statesmanship, statecraft]
negotiation
n 1: a discussion intended to produce an agreement; "the buyout negotiation lasted several days"; "they disagreed but kept an open dialogue"; "talks between Israelis and Palestinians" [syn: dialogue, talks]
2: the activity or business of negotiating an agreement; coming to terms
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | December 9, 2006 9:32 AM
It appears that the only people who are taking the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendations seriously are Beltway Washington D.C. reporters.
So says the Times of London, stating that the report is NOT a hit abroad:
"The recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group were broadly welcomed by most Republicans and Democrats in Washington yesterday, but received a far cooler reception in Iraq, Iran, Israel and from the US military.
The report, which calls for the withdrawal of all US combat troops from Iraq by early 2008, negotiations with Iran and Syria, and a renewed Middle East peace initiative, was a rare triumph of political compromise in Washington.
But for those directly affected by the Iraq war and the wider regional instability — the Iraqis themselves, Israel and the US troops on the ground — the report was widely seen as unrealistic and provocative. In Baghdad, it was branded by some influential Sunnis as designed to solve American, rather than Iraqi, problems."
This from the Washington Post, a Liberal voice often quoted by the Tribune:
"Democrats were guarded in their treatment of the report, especially its call for engaging Syria and Iran in diplomacy. In comments after a hearing yesterday with the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, [Dem. senator from Michigagan Carl] SenLevin suggested that "there could be some kind of effort to generally support the recommendations."
But Republicans and Democrats alike on the Senate Armed Services panel quizzed former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) about specifics. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the most dubious, singling out the group's decision not to call for sending more troops to Iraq. "I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq," he said.""
And in a more historical take (from blogger douglva):
"So the wise men met and decided that the price of a Normandy invasion was just too steep. According to leaked War Department memos, planners estimate deaths on D-Day alone could reach 10,000. In a lengthy, bipartisan recommendation the commission recommended America unilaterally meet with representatives of Berlin, Rome and Tokyo to develop a reasonable exit strategy. It would probably involve giving some concessions. England was a diminishing power in the world and could be abandoned. Other Allies were of little use to America’s long range interests.
There was widespread media opinion that President Roosevelt had made a mess of the War and refused—after repeated requests by key members of the press--to admit it publicly. Those in Congress who had voted in favor of the War after Pearl Harbor were changing their minds now that they suspected White House duplicity in the attack and the original rationale for the War.
A number of leading newspapers have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the War is lost and while sympathetic to the plight of millions enslaved people under Axis domination—some being exterminated—that it was just not in America’s best interests to continue to fight and die. After all, apart from several sub sightings off the Atlantic coast and a few rumors of Japanese ships near the Pacific coast, no further attacks on the American mainland had happened since Pearl Harbor.
The commission’s findings and recommendations will be discussed throughout Washington in the days ahead."
Posted by: Bruce | December 9, 2006 10:21 AM
Bruce ✻,
Once again, I guess your own rulebook on bias doesn't apply to your own posts. The Times of London is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. which owns FOX and the tabloid NY Post which ran the outrageous front cover referring to Baker and Hamilton as "Surrender Monkeys." Not exactly a level playing field or even good journalism.
The importance of the Report may lie in the bi-partisan wake-up call it gives to a paralyzed administration. They're rnning out of options, time, and excuses and it's a deadly game for our troops.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | December 9, 2006 10:59 AM
We have, in the past, been referred to as ugly Americans. We carry the mantle again. How incredibly snobby and ethnocentric to think we can go to a different culture and by speaking "loudy and slowly" in our foreign language have a hope of winning the hearts and minds of those we so dishonor and disrespect. When in Rome do as the Romans do - and start by speaking their language. We are worse than those pandering to the Emperor who wears no clothes. We accept that his gibberish is the clear truth and let him put us in harms way for money that none of will see and for a bill we will all have to pay.
Posted by: David Pilzner | December 9, 2006 11:46 AM
Would we be having this problem at all if we had elected the guy who won all three of the Presidential debates in 2004?
Perhaps if we want smarter leaders we need a smarter electorate to begin with? When we allowed ourselves to be cowed into voting our fears, we did this country and our children now serving in Iraq a tremendous disservice.
Posted by: Uther Pendragon | December 9, 2006 11:57 AM
1. Spread freedom and democracy. Look at the list of moderates and our friends in the Middle East Not one democratic country.
Do we not look like hypocrites.
2. What works in the Middle East for stability is a dominant group. As it has for 1000's of years.
3. It is not our religion to spread democracy. We should not interfere in the domestic politics of another country especially if culture and religion are involved unless asked. Because we do not understand sometimes centuries of their history, Iraq quicksands result.
4. Jihadist fervor flourishes in chaos. But even more fundamental is the Sunni and Shia antagonisms. In that chaos, the lines will be split there, in the police, in the Iraq military,
5. We left Vietnam in a war fought for what reason? Vietnam is a country that is now for the better.
6. LEAVE IRAQ NOW because what will occur is inevitable, a religious war fought between Shia and Sunni lines, and our presense will make no difference just as in Vietnam after we let South Vietnam govern itself. It will only prolong the misery and cost more American lives.
Posted by: Sam | December 9, 2006 12:04 PM
The Iraq Study Group was a very good idea. It is always necessary to evaluate progress and consider new ideas on anything in life.
President Bush is doing his best and is a strong president despite what the critics say. It is always easy to critisize when someone else is making the decisions. Everyone wants to play Monday morning quarterback. When the war started there was widespread support. Now we must finish what we have started.
The idea of engaging in diplomacy and starting dialogue with all Middle East countries is an excellent idea. We need to understand those countries, we need to let them know that we are not trying to control them. Are desire is safety and peace for them as well as us. Talking to them does not indicate that we support every action they take. It means we want to try to work things out for the good of the world.
Posted by: Chris Tolman | December 9, 2006 12:20 PM
you can be sure the Bush Administration will want to implement one gem in the report .. that of privatizing Iraq's oil ..
Posted by: david | December 9, 2006 12:28 PM
You all are so securely embedded in your enemy controlled thought processes that you're now thoroughly believing any and everything the enemy feeds you.
You're defeatists and weak limp wristed people whom your forefathers would be ashamed of.
You're a disgrace to America and American values established over 200 years ago.
If you puds would have been around after Dec,7 1941, you'd have been calling for the US to surrender to the Japanese.
Go surrender yourselves and leave us Americans willing to fight.
Posted by: TL Myers | December 9, 2006 12:30 PM
Why comment over and over on the unwillingness of the administration to negotiate (with Iran, Syria, North Korea, fill in the blank). Why avoid the likelihood that the administration simply concedes ins incompetence to negotiate?
Posted by: Nancy Nyberg | December 9, 2006 12:56 PM
The Iraqis I've known since the early sixties, Christian as well as Muslim, harbor some resentment of U.S. foreign policy for heavily favoring Israel over the Palestinian cause - as do most Arabs. This obviously has caused some cynicism and mistrust among Iraqis toward U.S. motives. Unfortunately, all too many Americans were innocent of this fact and expected unconditional love for simply overthrowing Saddam.
Posted by: BJ | December 9, 2006 1:27 PM
>Go surrender yourselves and leave us Americans willing to fight
you're going to be awfully busy. 60% of 23 million (the number of iraqiis who think americans in their country should be attacked) makes..oh well, i guess you're not much good at numbers. either.
Posted by: boudu | December 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Perhaps a review of the "Granting" and "Establishment" of Israel in the early 1920's (I think) would clarify what the Arab nations are concerned about.
Posted by: DOKTOR JAY | December 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Pearl Harbor and Normandy have absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War; not even a in a dirty Republicans pseudo-philosophical wet dream. The comparison is hyperbole designed to ignite strong nationalistic feelings in the absence of common sense.
Conventional warfare is dead. Conventional wisdom about what one should do in these kinds of conflicts is dead. Humanity is entering a new age.
Blindly throwing more troops at the country and keeping troops there until the end of time is a retarded policy. This isn't a war you can "win" in any sense of the word. Sometimes, and this is directed at you Neanderthals, military might can't solve all problems.
TL Myers,
You've lost touch with reality. Either that, or you're 95 years old a senile.
Posted by: Abraham "Stinken" Lincoln | December 9, 2006 1:58 PM
Lessee..we have a commission made up of a bunch of ex-Clintonistas,headed by the Saudis' leading shill in America (James Baker of Baker, Botts, representing the Kingdom against their fellow American who were victims of the WTC jihad) and a few congressmen who also have intersting ties to the Saudis and the UAE..and guess what?
It's the Jooos.
So, if we lean on Israel and try to force them into another Munich, that's going to stop the Sunni death squads, al Qaeda will pack up and go home, and the Shiite militias will stop killing people and trying to take over the country for their owner and master Iran, an dthe Saudis and others will stop exporting jihad into America.
And the Middle East is going to become one big peaceful nirvana.
Makes a lot of sense, right?
Even funnier is the notion that Iran and Syria have any interest in`diplomacy' or stabilizing Iraq. As Joe Lieberman recently said,that's like the fire department asking an arsonist for help putting out the fire.
Want a solution for Iraq? One that would allow us a strategic base for the eventual war we're going to have to fight against Iran and the Shiite Bloc, would provide us with a strong ally that would effectively double our combat strength without us shipping another American over there, among people who look on the Americans as liberators and would like nothing better than to have our bases there and to be our allies?
All we have to do is redeploy our troops to Kurdistan, put in bases and and help the Kurds establish a strong independent country of their own. Aside from the fact that they want us there, have oil and we would be fighting next to the Kurdish Pesh Merga (the best fighting force in Iraq next to our guys), an independent Kurdistan would cause a world of problems for Iran and Syria, who have their own restive Kurdish minorities.
Of course that would displease the Saudis. So neither the ISG or the Bush Adminstration wants to hear anything about it.
Posted by: JoshuaPundit | December 9, 2006 2:00 PM
You all are so securely embedded in your enemy controlled thought processes that you're now thoroughly believing any and everything the enemy feeds you.
You're defeatists and weak limp wristed people whom your forefathers would be ashamed of. You're a disgrace to America and American values established over 200 years ago.
If you puds would have been around after Dec,7 1941, you'd have been calling for the US to surrender to the Japanese. Go surrender yourselves and leave us Americans willing to fight.
Posted by: TL Myers | Dec 9, 2006 12:30:33 PM
Puds?
Spoken like a true corn-fed, Fox watching couch jockey. For all the tough guy crap and threats morons like you have spewed over the years, you would think that you would have the firm grasp and control on the country and the president you profess to love so much. You claim to be the working men, the salt of the earth, the core of American values. But your facist leadership has had his hand in your pockets so long, you can no longer tell the difference between stimulation and theft. Would the founding fathers be proud of a fat complacent intellectually lazy follower like you? I don't think so. This country was built on dissent from authority, not allegiance to a king. Why are you so determined to restore a form of monarchy that the founders rejected? Maybe it's you that is "limp-wristed", needing a strong man to see your way through a confusing world, but too cowardly to admit to it. If that's not treason in your eyes, you don't deserve to call yourself an American.
It seems like the only connections you 30 percenters have made recently involves the hair between your eyebrows.
Posted by: mg | December 9, 2006 2:24 PM
Why not use kurds?
Simply our ally Turkey would vehemently protest and not allow such to occur
Posted by: Sam | December 9, 2006 3:54 PM
The quote at the opening of this article, about the language skills of embassy employees, is one that after reading the report, I was mentioning to friends.
It is a metaphor for our lack of understanding, sensitivity, awareness and preparedness, not only in Arabic, but of everything about Iraq.
Our intelligence, trained in the cold war, has little effectiveness in penetrating Shiite militia, for example. As the report suggests, we are no longer talking about "victory" but instead dealing with how to avoid a catastrophe. That would be an escalating civil war, with larger exodus of civilians to neighboring countries which could destabilize their economies and make the U.S. -- who can rightly be blamed for starting this war -- the focal point of an even larger growing terrorist movement.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush wouldn't mind touching off a catastrophe, believing that he will avoid it through "the Rapture."
Posted by: Tim Clark | December 9, 2006 4:17 PM
Are there any constitutional provisions that could force the President to follow any kind of clear cut consensus regarding the Iraq Study Group recommendations?
Posted by: Mark G | December 9, 2006 4:25 PM
Some of you seem to think this is World War II, when all we had to do is storm into Berlin and Tokyo and then go home. Well, that part of the war is over. We stormed into Baghdad and ran up the stars and stripes. But Iraq isn't Japan or Germany. There is no nation there for us to simply take over and operate, and what little nation there was (the baath party, the army) we systematically destroyed. We thought we could set up a parliament, hold elections and create a nation--but it isn't working because not enough of the Iraqis share our vision for their country. Some of them do--but not enough of them. The point of the Baker Report is that we can't shoot and kill our way to victory. So now the question is, how do we get to some outcome that is better than catastrophic?
As a reminder--the Israelis have been trying to solve similar problems with tough-guy tactics for a long time now. It doesn't seem to be working for them either.
What would work, for them or for us? Both sides of this argument need to recognize that there is no quick fix--not guns, not diplomacy. It took a long time to get things this messed-up (the troubles started long before we got there) and we can't expect to sort it all out in a few weeks, months or even years. We may be in disaster-management mode for a long time to come.
Natural disasters are of short duration. Man-made disasters can go on for a lot longer.
Posted by: John | December 9, 2006 5:17 PM
to JoshuaPundit:
As Sandra Day O'Connor and others on the commission stated - many regional officials told them over and over that work on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is CRUCIAL to settling unrest in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Why? For one thing so that the U.S. might possibly seem like an unbiased honest broker to the majority of people in the Middle East.
Another interest that Syria and other neighbors of Iraq have is that they have been inundated with Iraqi refugees - some accounts say nearly a million each in Syria, Jordan, etc. The New York Times finally got around to doing a story on this - and you can be sure the Bush Administration is not pleased at the word "refugees" being associated with their grand Middle Eastern project.
Posted by: BJ | December 9, 2006 8:03 PM
....Everyone is so politically correct now-a-days when it comes to winning a war....study groups???
Just dust-off those beautiful silver/grey bombers,load them up with 2,000 pounders and take care of business.We all know who is feeding the terrorists in Iraq...let's go take care of business!Then we can have "study groups"on Iran and Syria and how fast they wave white flags.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 9, 2006 8:52 PM
"Just dust-off those beautiful silver/grey bombers,load them up with 2,000 pounders and take care of business".
....... Dropping more bombs on Viet Nam than were dropped by EVERY air force during the entire WWII didn't do the trick. N. Viet Nam didn't wave a white flag. Maybe you are not old enough to remember.
Posted by: Robert Carey | December 10, 2006 5:52 AM
We are going to talk circles around this thing forever. One thing we can do is stop calling this a war. It stopped being a war a long time ago. If we had "fought" WWII like this, we would have lost. Here we we are asking Maliki to pretty please stop the shiite death squads. Every civilian death produces hand wringing front page news. And the rest of us go about our business as usual. This is a huge mess but it certainly is no longer a "war".
Posted by: Fred Carani | December 10, 2006 7:02 AM
So the embassy in Iraq has "only" 33 Arabic speakers? and only 6 judged "fluent"? Historians grounded in the real world would know that the American embassy in Japan prior to World War II would have killed to have so many workers fluent in Japanese. The Interested Seniors Group report is short on historical perspective, as are many journalists and commentators.
Posted by: Bruce | December 10, 2006 11:47 AM
Bruce ❋
You're right. Too bad so many Japanese and Muslims were sent off to "camps" and prisons as I'm sure some of them would have been willing to help -- or did that conveniently slip your precious historical perspective?
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your own "way forward" out of the mess the Bush administration has created or are you still stuck in "stay the course" mode?
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | December 10, 2006 9:16 PM
Fred C.
Do you think we need a draft?
Posted by: c.morris | December 11, 2006 11:13 AM
To Bruce,
Good call Kenny.
They would have had plenty of workers fluent in Japanese at the embassy during WWII if the government hadn't rounded up all of the Japanese-American citizens and put them in internment camps.
Still one of the most shameful realities of American history. I guess you missed that part. And there'd be many many more fluent Arabic speakers in Iraq if the unchecked cronyism and appointing of people to important posts was subjected to ANY kind of oversight whatsoever.
But of course you'd disagree with that because your precious occupant Hero should be allowed to govern as he sees fit, is that it?
Posted by: Rob Norris | December 11, 2006 4:41 PM
"And there'd be many many more fluent Arabic speakers in Iraq if the unchecked cronyism and appointing of people to important posts was subjected to ANY kind of oversight whatsoever."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Dec 11, 2006 4:41:46 PM
There are plenty of Arabic speakers in Iraq, they're called Arabs....dumbass.
Posted by: Stan | December 12, 2006 1:05 AM
"This isn't a war you can "win" in any sense of the word. Sometimes, and this is directed at you Neanderthals, military might can't solve all problems."
ASL,
Right. If post WWII conflicts have proved anything, it is the obviously limited goals that can be achieved using massive conventional military power.
-------
Stan
Rob Norris meant on OUR side.
Posted by: c.morris | December 12, 2006 10:51 AM
How do you say, "We're sorry we screwed up your country" in Arabic?
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | December 12, 2006 10:05 PM
Talking our way out of what we were lied our way into? Hmmm.
Posted by: Karen Up North | December 16, 2006 3:19 AM
I should have also said that the lies were not on the part of the country that WE invaded.
TL, remember one small part of WWII - Japan hit us FIRST; Germany hit our allies FIRST. Iraq was an invasion by us FIRST. They didn't ask us in, nor did they attack us nor were they complicit in any way in 9/11.
So where does that leave your WWII "analogy"?
The same place it left the WMD's - nonexistent.
Posted by: Karen Up North | December 16, 2006 3:22 AM