Thursday, December 07, 2006

Frank Gaffney: “The Iraq Surrender Group” Report

Thank you, Frank Gaffney.

Here’s what he had to say about the Iraq “Study Group” on Larry Kudlow last night [No, we didn’t suddenly acquire a TV…I lifted this off Kudlow’s site].

Iraq Surrender Group
I think unfortunately it has the makings of a prescription for defeat. I call it the Iraq Surrender Group because I think what you see at the core, wrapped around language of defeatism, is a plan for trying to extricate the United States from Iraq with the help of Iran and Syria—as you say, our archenemies.

The likelihood that Iran, which has made it clear in the words of its president, that it seeks a world without America, that it seeks to wipe Israel off the map—that these guys, who have done as much as anybody to destabilize Iraq and to make it impossible, if they could, for us to have a secure, stable, functioning country there, let alone a democracy—are going to help us in any way is, I think, not only silly, but reckless. And that’s why I think it is going to lead to a strategic defeat for this country if these proposals were to be adopted.

It comes down to this: Punish your friends and reward your enemies. That’s exactly backwards. We should be making it clear that if you stand with the United States, if you stand for the things we do, you get our loyal and long-standing support. You’re not going to have us abandoning you.

And if you are our enemy, if you’re killing Americans in Iraq as the Iranians are, if you’re trying to take over Lebanon as the Iranians are, if you’re building nuclear weapons with a threat to destroy Israel as the Iranians are, and you say, as a stated policy of your president, that you want to bring about a world without America, that’s not something you’re going to be rewarded for.

Stability in Iraq is all well and good to talk about, but the Iranians want it on Iranian terms. And that means a loss for us, a loss for Israel, a loss for Iraqi people, for freedom in the world, and I think it is a terrible mistake.

As we know, all committees tend to lose IQ; and the more crowded with “experts” the group is, the larger the loss of intelligence. Unlike The Wisdom of Crowds, which is aggregated decision-making by people unconnected with one another, the “wisdom” of committees is, a priori, a contradiction in terms.
- - - - - - - - - -
This “group” has proved no different. The members are “realists” and since their tired solutions didn’t work the first time, they bound and determined to apply them with redoubled vigor this time around.

Anything that comes out of Washington is suspect - mined with hidden agendas and corrupt conclusions. This one was not only suspicious, it wasn’t even breathing. Under the aegis of The United States Institute for Peace, how could it be otherwise?

As long as no one tries to implement this dead-end thesis and as long as we can rein in the truly malignant MSM — which right now is in overdrive on the highway to defeat with the Iraq Study Group corpse in the back seat - we and the Iraqis may survive and surmount this assault.

That’s a big caveat, though, because our Iraq expedition has acquired two important similarities to Vietnam:

1. the politicians are making the military decisions,

2. and the MSM is skewing the reality on the ground in order to turn the American public.

Quagmire time, brought to you by the same players, one generation removed. Only this time the loss will be radioactive.


Anonymous said...

It's not just the war. The WSJ published a letter from Sen Rockefeller and Rep Snowe that was an open threat to Exxon. Right now the liberal/left axis considers itself in control. I think you will see them show their true colors. The question is, will the general populace accept or reject what they provide and propose?

Profitsbeard said...

As "a camel is a horse designed by a commmittee" this document reveals a grab-bag of irrelevancies, personal penchants of the members (what the hell does the 'Palestinian' "right of return" have to do with Iraq?), and a failure to grasp what war is, or requires.

You talk after your have crushed the enemy, not before.

As the Nazi Mr. Rudolf Hess learned when he landed in Scotland in 1941 with an offer for the Brits to "talk with the Nazis" (AKA accepting a facing-saving surrender plan).

He was imprisoned by Churchill's orders for the duration and later tried at Nuremberg, sentenced to life in jail, and died behind bars, by his own hand , decades later.

Talk with Iran?

How about: "Your nuclear program will be destroyed either by you or us. Choose. And have a Happy Hannukah, meanwhile."

(Is it just a co-incidence that the upcoming Muslim holiday of EID is an anagram for IED?)

Unknown said...

Yes it is, considering that it's transliterated from Arabic and is frequently spelled ID.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

I don't get it. Anti-Jihadists (like the users here and at LGF), of all people, should realize that you can't make democracy work in Iraq, or win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis and all those foreign Jihadists there. Why is everyone so hell-bent on staying there no matter what, and what's with all the constant references to WW2 (not in this particular post, but they've been an epidemic recently)? It shouldn't be difficult to grasp the fundamental differences between Nazi Germany and the Jihadists.

Can someone tell me what the US will gain by indefinitely losing money, equipment and human lives in Iraq? Will they finally accept democracy and the American Way if you kill enough terrorists?

jlesseig said...

"Can someone tell me what the US will gain by indefinitely losing money, equipment and human lives in Iraq?"


In my humble opinion, it is an Iraq not run by Iran and Syria. We leave, they move in.

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Would it really matter if Iran and Syria took over? Besides, the US can't stay there forever. Eventually they'll run out of resources or the war will become too unpopular.

cold pizza said...

First, supercop, would it really matter if the Khmer Rouge took over in Cambodia?

Now, what I tried to post yesterday...
From the Independent Suggestion Group located on the grounds of IIWIC (“if I were in charge”):
Problem: Sectarian violence.
Solution 1A: Partition the country. Iraq is an artificial country set up after the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Leave the Kurds alone. Set up an independent Kurdistan and to hell with the Turks. Provide military support to the Kurds to keep the Turks at bay.

Disarm the militias. Easier said than done—but it can be done. Set up a network of informants to keep an eye out for militias. Respond immediately with overwhelming force. Anyone caught bearing arms is immediately detained and turned over to the Kurds for incarceration (chain gangs rebuilding infrastructure). Amputate the trigger finger of all militia combatants. If someone is caught who is already missing a trigger finger, remove the next two fingers in line. Leave them enough fingers to grasp a cup of tea but not to steady and fire a gun. Third time, they lose three fingers on the left hand. Don’t kill ‘em, make examples out of ‘em. Be ruthless in the best Roman style. This isn’t about sensibilities or winning hearts and minds of people who hate us irrationally (as opposed to those who hate us rationally).

Post bounties for gunrunners. Immediately imprison anyone smuggling weapons. Cut off the right hand of smugglers. Mark them for life. Second offense, take out an eye and tongue. Make it harder for them to negotiate. I’m sure there are enough people who survived Saddam’s prisons who’d be willing to perform the necessary punishment.

Send out random surveillance teams with night vision equipment. Set up night cameras along potential IED streets. Have emergency response teams standing by to rush out and engage the sappers. Send out radio signals designed to mimic cell phone frequencies (there’s gotta be away) to trigger the IED mechanisms through EM means). Anyone planting IEDs is turned over to Kurds. Or someone who’s had an immediate family member killed by an IED. Get names of conspirators. Then remove BOTH hands. And the tongue. No telling others how to build a bomb.

Curfew. Only medical emergencies allowed out after hours. Pay bounties for curfew violators. Turn curfew violators over to Kurds for questioning.

Push for regime change in Syria and Iran. Push HARD. Use covert teams to damage infrastructure. Park a carrier group in the Persian Gulf within sight of Iran. Let everyone see. Fly air interdiction patrols along the Iraq/Iran border AND along the Iran/Afghanistan border. Test Persian airspace. Give the Iranians something to worry about. Flood the Iranian area with counterfeit Iranian currency and propaganda videos, music and television broadcasts. Destabilize the regime without directly harming the Iranian people.

Stop backing down. The governments of Iran and Syria are our enemies and have proven it time and time again. It’s only a matter of time before they try another attack on American soil. Unless we act decisively in the best Jeffersonian tradition.

I bet the wisdom of crowds can come up with some other suggestions or refinements. -cp

eatyourbeans said...

Would it matter? Can you spell OIL?

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

Awesome, cold pizza. Now tell me, how is your hypothetical Iraq different from Saddam's Iraq? Is chopping off hands and tongues a-okay when Americans do it?

eatyourbeans, I forgot about oil. So yeah, oil should be secured one way or another, but beyond that, I see little reason to hang around in Iraq.

cold pizza said...

American values have had 230 years to reach their current level. Atrocities that took place during the western expansion were brutal on both sides. Our "modern" sensibilities have no place in a knife fight--there is no move too dirty if can come out on top.

Leaving the perps alive is a vast improvement over Saddam's regime of torture, torture of innocent family members, rape rooms, meat hooks, acid and poison gas. And it's a hellova lot gentler than sharia law calls for. Leave 'em their lives.

If I had to butcher my dog because my family was starving, I would. Thank God I live in a country where the chances of that happening are miniscule--but it could happen in the face of a major national disaster and the collapse of the US infrastructure.

Amputation while under anesthesia would be humane, although the Arab world delights in bloody public punishment—who are WE to question THEIR values? It’s what works for them.

Anyone who thinks this is merely about oil is unfamiliar with American history. Yes, there's some Wilsonian desire to spread democracy coupled with Jacksonian retribution for 11 years of malfeasance on the part of the Iraqi regime.

So things don't go exactly as planned? So Iran, Syria and Jordan, Sudan, Yemen and the rest of the Arab world all provided jihadi's flocking to Iraq to take on the invading Americans? Fine. We've won every single engagement when fought so the jihadi's have turned to targeting normal Iraqis. If we pull out do you really think the killing would stop? Even with the killing, 150 per day scattered among 67 million Iraqis, still pales compared to the mass slaughter dying under Saddam's regime (remember those estimates of 20K dying each month due to sanctions while Saddam was getting rich off the UN, trading oil for money?).

We went in for the right reasons. Saddam was a threat. We could pull out, but that would not be the moral thing to do--we owe it to the Iraqis to help them out. It'll be up to the Iraqis to finally say "enough" to the terrorists living in their midst. Unless we take draconian measures--in the literal meaning of the word and based on it's namesake.

Feed the terrorists on their own blood until they get sick of it. If it comes down to the knife fight, stop standing on the sidelines trying to hold me back or tie my hands or handicap me in anyway. I'm not going to be thankful for it and I might even turn on you once I finish off the guy trying to kill us both--unless, of course, he manages to kill us both first. -cp

Jesus Christ Supercop said...

We went in for the right reasons. Saddam was a threat. We could pull out, but that would not be the moral thing to do--we owe it to the Iraqis to help them out.

Yeah, you've sure helped them out. Iraq is in fantastic shape, and just keeps getting better every day. They don't want democracy or American values, they've made it painfully obvious by now. I fail to understand why chopping off their hands and tongues would change their minds.