To combat female jihadists. Reports Crossroads Arabia,

They are playing a part in the overall efforts of the Saudi government to discourage youths from adopting extremist ideologies, nipping the problem in the bud rather than having to fight them in the streets. The article points to the way Al-Qaeda has paid attention to women in its own outreach programs and how female extremists are more difficult to pull away from their ideologies.

See what you think.

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been making noises about “Greater Venezuela,” meaning taking control of the south Caribbean islands of Dutch West Indies, lying near Venezuela’s coast.

What if the nutcase running Venezuela actually made a grab for the islands? Is it farfetched to anticipate? Venezuela’s economy is in the pits, wrecked by Chavez-flavored socialism. Hearken back to 1982, when Argentina was headed by a military junta, controlled by General Leopoldo Galtieri. Faced with economic crisis and growing opposition to the regime, Galtieri launched an invasion of the British territory of the Falkland Islands, about 400 km east of the country. Argentines have long considered the Falklands actually to be Argentine territory, las islas Malvinas, and Galtieri played on this sentiment in invading.

Could something like that be running through Chavez’s head? Like Britain of today, but unlike Britain of 1982, Holland has practically no power-projection capability. There is a modest Dutch military force stationed in the Dutch West Indies, but it would quickly be outmatched by Venezuela’s military.

In 1982, Britain sent a naval task force of two aircraft carriers, submarines and surface combatants to retake the Falklands. Other vessels brought Royal Marines and British Army troops. It was a bitter, hard-fought struggle and the British suffered significant losses, especially from Argie air power. However, the conscripts of the Argentine army in the Falklands were no match in the end for the Brits and the islands were returned to British control.

So what if Chavez moves against the DWI? Strategy Page analyzes the situation.

… the answer must be more gun control laws!

Only in Britain would you find this line of reasoning:

We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.

Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.

So what to do? The usually sensible Telegraph says the solution is to enable even more draconian police powers and stiffen sentences for gun offenses.

The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. …

In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.

NB: in Great Britain merely possessing a gun, other than a registered shotgun, is illegal. I didn’t say “carrying,” but possessing. As in your house, locked inside a safe. Rusted beyond use. Lacking ammunition. It’s still illegal and a British subject will go to prison for that.

The Dunblane reference, btw, is to a “multiple murder-suicide which occurred at the primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. It remains the deadliest attack on children in United Kingdom history. Sixteen children and one adult were killed, in addition to the attacker;” more at Wikipedia.

Crime in Britain has become so severe that in 2003 even the BBC explained, “Why Britain needs more guns.”

“You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Of the 13 percent of occupied-home burglaries in the US, most stem from the burglars’ mistaken belief that the home is empty. In Britain, they don’t care because it is actually illegal for residents to defend themselves with force against an intruder. Remember Tony Martin? He was convicted of murder and sent to prison because he shot and killed a home intruder after suffering numerous home invasions in which he had been attacked and injured. The result? Mark Steyn, as always, nails it:

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim.

The British used to be a free people, but no longer.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced some weeks ago that he would step down from the PM’s office in July. Now his own Labour party leaders are dropping thinly-veiled hints he should leave much sooner, before Easter. The Daily Mail reports how PM Blair’s administration has become mired in scandal to the point of near shutdown. In fact, police have even spent hours interviewing Mr. Blair himself.

Tony Blair’s premiership was on the verge of complete paralysis on Thursday night after it emerged that he was interviewed a second time in secret by police investigating the cash for honours scandal.

Detectives questioned the Prime Minister for nearly an hour in Downing Street over claims that key aides tried to cover-up the affair.

What is the “cash for honours” scandal? It is that wealthy people loaned money to Mr. Blair’s party for the 2005 election campaigns in exchange for being nominated for honors by the government, usually meaning a knighthood.

What intensifies the scandal at this moment is the fact that, having already been interviewed by police in December, the PM’s second interview was not announced to the public. Despite that Scotland Yard itself put the QT on the interview, for “operational reasons,” the public and media reaction has been very negative. That Mr. Blair’s official spokespersons were thereby forced to deny it only made matters worse, reported The Telegraph.

Downing Street was forced further on the defensive after it became clear that the press had been kept in the dark about Mr Blair’s second interview.

At daily press briefings over the past week, Tom Kelly, Mr Blair’s official spokesman, was repeatedly asked whether the Prime Minister had spoken to police or been approached for a further interview.

On each occasion he said he was not aware of any such development.

Members of Blair’s own party have gone on the record as saying that if Mr. Blair doesn’t quit the PM office very quickly, it will mean the end of the Labour party, says the Daily Mail.

With Downing Street looking increasingly like a crime scene and less like a seat of government, senior figures painted a devastating portrait of a discredited administration that is falling apart by the day. …

Sources in the Whips Office warned that a majority of Labour’s 352 MPs now want the Prime Minister to tear up his plans to quit this summer after a decade in office and go before Easter.

They claim Labour activists are deserting in droves, leaving the party facing meltdown in May’s council elections.

Last night left-wing Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “Many members of the Labour party are finding these episodes deeply embarrassing and very damaging. The sooner that Tony Blair sets a date for his departure, the better for all of us.”

Never before has a serving prime minister been interviewed by police in relation to a criminal investigation. It seems nearly certain now that one of the principal targets of the investigation is Lord Levy, one of Mr. Blair’s primary aides and his chief fund raiser (now nicknamed “Lord Cashpoint”). Nearly all political watchers in Britain agree that the scandal will overshadow the rest of Mr. Blair’s legacy for many years, preventing him from receiving “justified credit” for his administration’s many positive accomplishments, according to former Labour leader Lord Kinnock..

About that plot of Islamists in Britain to kidnap a couple of British Muslim soldiers and behead them (”Let this be a warning to you all. . . “) , it turns out that the two Muslim soldiers designated by the terrorists to be snatched were aware of the plot. And, better yet - and bully for them - they actually agreed to put themselves at risk to help authorities nab the terrorist wannabes.

The soldiers - who are not thought to have told their families that they were potential targets - were placed under unprecedented surveillance for weeks as officers waited for the terrorists to strike.

And as they tried to carry out their ordinary duties, the pair were aware that if the gang attempted to stage their abduction they could be attacked and bundled into a waiting vehicle at any time.

To prevent this, the security forces mounted a sophisticated surveillance operation.

In an operation reminiscent of a spy drama, their every move was monitored by a team of crack MI5 agents - linked to the soldiers by the latest in modern technology. ...

Incredibly, the two men carried on with their daily routines but were secretly shadowed around the clock by police and intelligence personnel, using high-technology tracking and bugging techniques. Surveillance teams kept a constant watch, looking for any sign of the plotters.

The two men were fitted with discreet tracking devices, with similar beacons attached to their cars, and armed response teams were on permanent standby to stage a rescue mission in case a kidnap plot was sprung. ...

The 330 Muslims serving in the UK military - including some 250 Army soldiers - have been ordered to take particular care over their own security.

An amazing story, and major kudos to the two soldiers who agreed to place themselves at lethal risk to defend their country. I hope this part of the story gets major publicity. If Western Muslims are sometimes criticized for passivity in the face of Islamist terrorism, then their courage against it should be widely acknowledged. I’ve done my part, anyway.

Anti-Judaism in Britain is at an all-time high:

A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.

The findings prompted the report’s authors to warn of a “wave of hatred” against Jews.

The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year.

Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005. …

• An Orthodox Jew punched in the face and almost pushed off a Tube platform by an Arab man who screamed: “Get back to Stamford Hill, I want to kill you all”

• A Jewish man walking to synagogue with his two young sons suffered a broken leg after being punched and kicked by a white man shouting “f***ing Jew”

• Seventy incidents of desecration and damage to synagogues, cemeteries, Jewish schools and private homes with attacks including swastikas daubed on walls

• Savage assault of a 12-year-old Jewish girl Jasmine Kranat, who was beaten unconscious on a north London bus by two teenage girls who asked her first if she was Jewish.

Here is the USA, the number of anti-Semitic incidents actually declined, though slightly, in 2006 from the year before. But 2004 saw the highest number of anti-Jewish incidents since 1994.

Pessimism abounds these days and if you are one who understands the gravity of the threat of our enemies in the War on Terror you have reason to be pessimistic Too many don’t even believe we are really in a war. Our leaders who know we are at war are taking a minimalist approach to the war. No one with access to a bully pulpit is effectively articulating what is at stake in the war. God bless President George W. Bush but even as he has had the courage to take the punches of the opposition he still has failed to communicate effectively with the nation and to commit fully to victory.

I am reminded of the 1970s - a time when not only many in America were rooting for communism but when many actually believed we had lost the moral high ground and that it would be democratic capitalism eventually left on the ash heap of history. Fortunately we found a leader who effectively reminded us of the goodness of our system and values and who had the courage to commit to victory. We are fortunate that he was able to lead us to victory by committing the necessary resources - and thereby prevented us from ever having to commit the ultimate resources of total war against communism.

We are there again. We are really nowhere new. Today many of our own doubt our nation’s moral standing, many are rooting against our victory, and many believe we have already lost. Once again we need a leader who reminds us of who we really are as a nation, who can communicate articulately what is at stake, who like Bush is willing to take the punches, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve victory before we find ourselves in the corner with only the resource of total war left to use. I am waiting for that leader to emerge to inspire us to believe what is good about us and to inspire us to victory.

So with all of that in mind, with our minimalist approach to terrorism (Islamic militancy, jihadism, your term of choice…) and the lack of national unity we are seeing in our government today, the following is the speech I’d like to hear and the plan I’d like to see:

There is great fear that exists in the world today.

Here at home in these United States many fear we are revisiting the unpleasant times of Vietnam - that we are being dragged into a quagmire in which we cannot win. But in fact we have more in common with the unpleasant times of the late 1930s that led to the abandonment of free nations - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and others to Nazi tyranny and millions of people abandoned to die horrifically in the Holocaust. Out of our fear of a despotic dictator not even 100 years ago we abandoned others, thinking we could buy our own national security. But in the process of that fearful appeasement and isolationism we were abandoning our own security, that is, until a man who had the courage to tell us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself led us out of fear. That man led us from the fear of economic collapse when he first came to office with those words and his words were every bit as applicable a few years later when he led us out of our fear of Nazism. Then a nation that was divided at that time - with 82% of Americans opposing potential war with the Nazis and thus unwilling to face the truth of the threat - finally united in a common cause for the survival of our freedom. Roosevelt refused to be led by that fear and instead led us out of fear as the institutions of America united behind him seeing the security of Americans at stake. Roosevelt saw the moral imperative of the victory of freedom over the evil of tyranny.

Today there is also fear abroad. But it is not us our enemies fear. What they do fear is what we stand for. Today medieval powerbrokers fear granting women rights. Today medieval powerbrokers fear educating their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear the economic independence of their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear liberty for their people. Today medieval powerbrokers fear allowing people to worship in different ways. It is not that these medieval powerbrokers do not understand our ways and the ways of freedom. They fully understand and they fully reject it because it threatens their medieval position of domination.

There is also another fear abroad. A fear of the people dominated by these overlords. They fear that we will abandon them to these medieval powerbrokers as we abandoned over 65,000 free people to be executed by communists in South Vietnam after 1975; as we abandoned over 250,000 South Vietnamese to communist reeducation camps, as we abandoned over two million Vietnamese who said “you will not abandon us and we will not abandon freedom” as they became the boat people of the 1970s. They fear abandonment as we abandoned Beirut in the early 1980s after we were attacked there; as we abandoned Afghanistan once we saw their purpose as served in the late 1980s; as we abandoned Somalis in Mogadishu and Shiites in Iraq in early 1990s. They fear they too will be abandoned as we abandoned so many in the West when we were willing to abandon Eastern Europe to communism until a man said to tear down the wall that represented the enemy’s fear of liberty.

Our allies fear we will abandon them and our enemies are counting on that. Today - sad to say, but this is the ugly truth - our allies and enemies alike wonder if we are gutless. They believe we lack will and perseverance.

So today to answer that question we have to face the facts of our sad actions - and inactions of our past - that the fearful policies of appeasement, isolationism and abandonment have never worked when we’ve tried it and are in fact immoral. Those policies empowered our enemies and cost more lives in the long run. The policies of Churchill, Roosevelt and Reagan are our model if we want security at home and abroad. We have to face the mistakes of our past when we acted fearfully but we can also look to our past for hope when we finally acted with courage and confidence.

We are not gutless. We know - the American people know - that when we abandon our friends that we are then abandoning our own security. After the 1930s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed the world from the Nazi yoke. During the 1980s we realized we needed willpower and perseverance and we freed millions from the shackles of communism. And we maintained our peace and security. As in the 1930s and 1980s, we today have the ability to summon the superior industry, technology, military doctrine, and moral superiority of liberty that no other nation on earth can do. So the question today is will we once again have the will and perseverance.

Let me tell you something. Way down deep Americans always have and Americans always will. Americans know that ours is a unique place in history that respects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We know we are the nation the world turns to when earthquakes and tsunamis occur. We know we are the nation even whose poor are the envy of third world nations. We know we are the nation who gives more in aid - both public and private - than any other nation on earth. We know we are the nation to whom the oppressed look for hope and help. We are the nation to whom the sick throughout the world look for cures. We are the nation where churches, synagogues, mosques, and secularists live side by side without constant fear of firebombings or death squads. Ours is a nation where a speech like this can be given without the fear of literally having ones tongue cut out. Americans know that is why today we simultaneously fight a battle with medieval powerbrokers who fear those principles while we also fight to control our borders as people from all over the world invade those borders not to suppress liberty but to find it. We know ours is a nation worth defending and of values worth promoting. We count on it and our friends and those who yearn for liberty count on us.

Americans deserve leaders who have as much guts as they have. Americans deserve leadership that is farsighted and not shortsighted, that can see past the next election, that can see the ramifications tomorrow of abandoning your friends today. Americans of tomorrow deserve leadership today that will not abandon them. My friends, if we do not have the will and perseverance demanded to protect and secure our liberty today then we had better hope our children have it because they will need every ounce of it. Roosevelt told us not to fear our own fear. Reagan told us we could have peace by standing strong and looking to the future with hope and confidence.

Today I present a five point plan that puts our fear behind us and that calls for national unity for the security of our values. We have been nickel-and-diming our security and future. In many cases we have refused to see the seriousness of our enemies. That is a policy of fear and the path to failure. Today we must:

One, keep our enemies out of America by defeating them abroad wherever they may be. This means in the Philippines, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa, and yes in Iraq. We must strike at terrorist cells and confront the nations that support them. In Iraq we must seal her borders and crush the militias with whatever it takes including the broad use of US military might. Telling the Iraqis they must fend for themselves is like telling an alcoholic to remain sober in a bar. These long suffering people are addicted to survival and if we do not assist them they will survive in whatever way they can. The patrons in their neighborhood fear liberty as the drunks in a bar fear the wagon. Our allies will only fight with us if they believe we will stick by them. Our friends who desire liberty need our help and it is the only way we will maintain our own liberty.

Two, we must unleash the free market which leads to freedom. We must do more in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere with a responsible and aggressive Marshall Plan. We must provide security so that these programs have the opportunity to take root. We must cut out bureaucracy and we must increase the presence of our civilian agencies in addition to our military in these regions.

Third, we must fight an aggressive economic and energy war against terrorist groups and the nations that support them - including especially Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Our energy and economic polices must not enable our enemies. In some cases this will cause short term losses for some American interests and hardships for our people but is crucial to causing the collapse of our enemies and our long term viability. We must isolate our enemies economically and become more self-sufficient ourselves.

Four, we must rebuild our military in a robust way. Transformation does not mean tiny. What is does mean is more flexibility, greater mobility, and soldier skills that relate to effectiveness in different cultures. But we need boots on ground to build relationships and trust and mutual security. Today our nation spends less of its GDP on national defense than at any time since Pearl Harbor. That is unconscionable in a day when we are actively at war. In a world in which our enemies seek our total destruction we can only achieve peace through strength. Strength is what they respect. And they must fear us. Diplomacy is preferred but it only works when it has teeth.

Finally, we must use our bully pulpit. We need to call upon the leaders of the world religions for regular and public summits between the leaders of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The religious leaders of the world need to come out of their ivory towers while their people are suffering. We must support groups who seek liberty throughout the world with moral, economic, and every level of support necessary. We must announce hope to all those who seek liberty across the airways of a Radio Free Liberty that gives hope to the oppressed throughout the world. We must speak directly to the peoples of the Middle East and across the world that we stand by them even as their own governments oppress them and impoverish them for the sake of their own personal power. We must kindle their hopes for when the time comes that they too may be free.

Essentially, we must make our enemies afraid and must give the people of the world hope. There was a day when so many feared Hitler, when so many later feared Brezhnev, and then Saddam. Today many fear Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez. But the day came when Hitler feared us, Andropov feared us and Saddam feared us while those they oppressed found their hope in us. If these tyrants of today are smart then Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and Chavez will fear us too while we bring hope to others and security to ourselves.

Our best days are ahead. The best days of all humanity are ahead. Do we have the will and perseverance to make those days happen or will we abandon our challenge and leave our children to do tomorrow what we refuse to do today? Will we leave them to carry out the last resort because we failed to carry out lesser but no less necessary measures today?

You know the answer and so do I. Let’s do what we have to do. Americans - have no fear. Friends - have no fear. And to our enemies - you have once again awakened a sleeping giant. Freedom and security are on the march once again. History has brought us here. Today the wolves have entered the sheepgate and they must be engaged. We are morally compelled to do so. Jefferson said the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. McArthur said there is no substitute for victory. Make no mistake. We will conquer our fear. Liberty will triumph over oppression. We will be secure. Yes, we do have the willpower and we will persevere.”

That’s a presidential speech I’d like to hear, and soon. Today, from what I can see, John McCain and Joe Lieberman may be the only people at the levels of high political leadership who get this to a great degree. Bush understands the threat but it seems only McCain and Lieberman understand that we must go all out. One of the problems is that ours is largely a nation that goes about its business as if there were no threat looming over us - at the recommendation of the Bush administration by the way. A mistake, a big mistake in a day when people must understand what is at stake. Ours is the only nation that can morally stand up to tyranny. However it happened - and whether you like it or not - history has brought us here. Others depend on us and believe it or not we depend on others if we are to maintain security and a viable economy such as the one we are accustomed to. It is a moral imperative that stand for and commit to liberty.

Someone needs to make that clear and to commit us to preserving just that.

I am, for the first time, deeply pessimistic about the future of this country.

In my studies of American history, I cannot identify another time when both political parties were of such small ideals, little intellect, less vision and greater selfish interest than both parties are now. The American people are more poorly served by our national political figures now than ever. We‛ve certainly had times when one party or the other was miserable, but fortunately there were some voices within them were heeded for renewal and during such times there was a reservoir of excellence in the other party. Today neither the Republicans or the Democrats have anything to commend them to the admiration of future historians and there exists no one in either party who can possibly lead them out of the swamp. McCain? Pelosi? Obama? Gingrich? It is to laugh. Then cry.

Tonight the president will announce the addition of 22,000 soldiers and Marines to the forces already in Iraq. From all accounts, the president will announce that he is implementing the Keane-Kagan plan. This will be too little, too late. Twenty-two thousand troops will make a short-term difference but it will not last. As Joe Katzman wrote, this will be “surging to lose.” Joe cites Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute,

“The controversy over what to do about Iraq has congealed into two camps: supporters of the President who lack a clear plan for achieving victory, and critics of the President who have a detailed plan for America’s defeat.”

See also Herschel Smith’s insights in “The Broader War: Redefining our Strategy for Iraq.”

We can still prevail in Iraq, but that would require our president to speak straight to us about what it will take and a Congress that turn its eyes away from “the children” (meaning more big spending programs and federal control of our daily lives) and toward building the military numerically and deciding that once again, partisanship stops at the ocean’s edge. But that won’t happen, see above.

I will try to post something about the president’s speech tonight, but I won’t be able to watch it because I’ll be leading my usual Wed. night Bible study. I also totally committed, time-wise, on Thursday, so at soonest it’ll be Friday.

I have not waded through all 90-plus pages of the Iraq Study Group’s report yet. I did see a lot of the ISG’s press conference yesterday, though not all of it. Fortunately, both the video and the transcript of the press conference are online (text, video) as is the full text of the report itself.

Quick link: Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay will be talking about Rummy, Gates and the Iraq Study Group on a live, online webcast today at 12 noon EST. Link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/strategypage.

I have to say that my first impression of the ISG, formed while listening to the press conference, was very close to that of Slate’s Shmuel Rosner:

More than anything else, these proposals are no more than a reiteration of the old James Baker formula for peace. A formula—just take a look at the region—that was not entirely successful in achieving its goals of peace and stability for Israel and its Arab neighbors. …

… the formula the committee outlines reads more like an ego trip than a serious, new proposal. “This approach worked effectively in the early 1990s,” the committee states. (Remember who was secretary of state in the early 1990s?) It also says, “The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991.” (And who was the chief facilitator of the Madrid summit?)

Here’s why. Consider this segment of the Q & A:

*Q* You’re certainly a group of distinguished elder statesman. But tell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said, given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb; none of you made it out of the Green Zone - why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he’s hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?

*MR. HAMILTON:* The members of the Iraq Study Group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don’t pretend now, we did not pretend at the start to have expertise. We’ve put in a very intensive period of time. We have some judgments about the way this country works and the way our government works, and some considerable experience within our group on the Middle East.

We recognize that our report is only one.

There will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and will be accepted or rejected on its own.

We tried to set forth here achievable goals. It’s a very easy thing to look at Iraq and sit down and set out a number of goals that really have no chance at all of being implemented. We took a very pragmatic approach because all of these people up here are pragmatic public officials. We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war and will at least be a beginning of a consensus here, because without that consensus in the country, we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.

*MR. BAKER:* Let me add to that that this report by these - this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that’s out there.

The smirky, dismissive way that Baker said that last sentence (I did watch this part on TV) was very revealing, IMO, of his own idea of his own importance and brilliance. What Baker was really saying was, basically, “Are you kidding? I’m James Flipping Baker! Of course what I have to say is more important that other senior officials! Did I mention that I’m James Flipping Baker?”

Another flaw, IMO, is that the ISG seems to have begun with the baseline that its report would have to be unanimous. Baker emphasized its unanimity many times during the press conference. Unanimity was apparerently sought to buttress the other all-important buzzword, “bipartisan.” So the ISG set out from the beginning, I think, to make sure that its report was a unanimous, bipartisan product. I am reminded of a quote of Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.: “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”

I think the country would have been better served had the ISG delivered a majority and minority report. In fact, there could have easily been three reports: a consensus section, upon which all members were in broad, fundamental agreement, and a majority section and a minority section. Certainly retired Supreme Court justice Sanda Day O’Connor would have been comfortable with that. The USSC rarely renders unanimous decisions and yet no one dismisses its judgments simply because they are not unanimous.

I think that one of the inherent flaws of the ISG’s recommendations is revealed in this interchange:

*Q* Barbara Slavin of USA Today. One of the aspects of your report is outreach to Iran and Syria. What indications do you have from the discussions that you had in preparing the report that these two countries are prepared to be at all helpful? And I notice that you’ve taken the nuclear issue out of the equation. You say that should not be discussed in connection with Iraq. Why would the Iranians agree to come to a table and talk about Iraq unless the nuclear question and other questions were addressed?

*MR. BAKER:* … we didn’t get the feeling that Iran is chomping at the bit to come to the table with us to talk about Iraq, and in fact, we say there we think they very well might not. But we also say we ought to put it to them, though, so that the world will see the rejectionist attitude that they are projecting by that action.

With respect to Syria … There must be 10 or 11 or 12 things we say there that Syria - that we will be asking of Syria. The suggestion that somehow we’re going to sacrifice the investigations of Pierre Gemayel and assassinations of Gemayel and Hariri or others is just ridiculous.

*MR. HAMILTON:* … We have no exaggerated expectations of what can happen. We recognize that it’s not likely to happen quickly. …

And that’s the problem: on the one hand, the ISG says the US is facing a real crisis in Iraq and that time is short to change direction. Then, on the other, the ISG offers recommendations that even it (unanimously) says is “not likely to happen quickly.” The ISG wants to start withdrawing US combat units from Iraq by 2008, but did it stop to think that it’s highly unlikely for any of its regional initiatives and conferences even to be scheduled by then? The wheels of the gods and diplomats grind exceedingly slow, something James Baker should have remembered. Syria and Iraq have no obvious incentive to engage with us at all, a fact that Messrs. Baker and Hamilton tacitly admitted. To imagine that Assad and Ahmandinejad will jump at the chance to assist the US in achieving its goals in Iraq is the triumph of hope over experience. If anything, they’ll see the report as a sign of the slackening of American will and pretend to engage while making sure that the “peace process” drags on interminably. (We do, after all, have a track record of being victiom of that tactic, just recall the Paris peace talks with Hanoi, in which the North Vietnamese delegation spent most of a year doing nothing but arguing about the shape and height of the negotiation table.)

Richard Sanchez detailed the Syria stickiness, quoting the relevant section of the ISG report:

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:
— Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
— Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
— A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
— Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.
— A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.
— A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.
— A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.
— Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.

How long could Syria take arguing excruciating details of each of the points of this recommendation? Literally years, if it wanted, and why wouldn’t want?

Israeli Prime Minyster Ehud Olmert has already rejected the heart of the internationalist approach of the report, and Olmert is no right-wing hawk.

Israel has rejected claims by a team of elder US statesmen that the Iraq crisis cannot be resolved unless the US also tackles the Arab-Israeli conflict.

PM Ehud Olmert, in his first reaction to the Iraq Study Group (ISG)report, said he had a “different view” and would not talk to Syria as the report recommends.

Conditions were not right for a resumption of negotiations, he said.

Further, Olmert was quick to assert that the Iraq conflict is unrelated to the Israel-Palestinian issue. It’s hard to disagree with Dr. Mitchell Bard’s observation:

The report asserts that the conflict is “inextricably linked” to the situation in Iraq. This is demonstrably false. If the conflict ended tomorrow or Israel disappeared, it would have no impact whatsoever on the situation in Iraq. The violence is based on internal political, social, economic and religious rivalries that are completely unrelated to Israel. The interjection of prescriptions for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict was apparently done to satisfy the authors’ desire to weigh in on issues that were beyond its mandate.

Bottom line: the ISG report offers some good ideas when it sticks to Iraq itself, especially the recommendation that American Military Training Teams serving with Iraqi army units be reinforced and broadened and when it opens the door to a near-term intensification of direct military by US forces against the insurgency. But it flops hard when it wanders afield, especially when it fails to recognize that Syria and Iran are vested in our failure in Iraq, not our success. The two nations are not potential partners, they are enemies.

Update: Robert Kaplan slices the ISG report up pretty thoroughly.