Jim Baker is no savior
With the fog of elections out of the way, the world is sighing with relief that the shortsighted cabal led by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld has met its Waterloo. But their successors are not necessarily wiser although they do favor different tactics to achieve key foreign policy goals.
European observers expect political deadlock and squabbling in both Congress and Senate. There is little reason to believe that the sun of bi-partisan decision-making has suddenly dawned on Washington. There has been too much vituperation, bitterness and mud slinging to give hope of an about face towards common sense free from ideological baggage.
All eyes are on Jim Baker but he is no savior. He differs from Cheney, Rumsfeld et al mainly as far as he advises direct negotiations with enemies, including Iran and North Korea. But his overall goals are similar. He, too, wants to bolster America as the world’s eternal military and economic Super Power. His tactics are different only in the sense that he arouses fear in foreign hearts in a less domineering way.
Baker is willing to use all means necessary to dissuade or stop any new country from acquiring nuclear weapons. Therefore, the confrontation with Iran and North Korea is unlikely to exhibit signs of compromise. The US may finally talk directly to those two countries but it could be just a dialogue of the deaf.
Politically, Baker is a proud Republican and a strategist who has always sought to keep Democrats in the back seat of US politics. Under his influence, the best expectation is that the White House will use nimbler footwork rather than the Karl Rovian sledgehammer to put Republicans into position for the 2008 Presidential elections.
In the interim, Republicans will try to demonstrate to voters that Democrats run a divisive Congress and Senate while Democrats may be tempted to prove that President Bush is a lame duck. On domestic issues, such as taxes, energy conservation and immigration, they may pick holes in anything the White House or the House Republicans offer.
If the Democrats cooperate on bipartisan successes, the credit will go to Bush for reaching out across the divide. That could reinforce Republican chances for retaining the Presidency in 2008.
On Iraq, the Democrats are no wiser than Bush. They use different words for the hackneyed policy of standing down American intervention as Iraqi forces stand up. But how to stand up Iraqi forces without bleeding more American youth and treasure?
However severe the US pressure to put its house in order, Iraq’s government is in no position to defeat militias because neither its police nor army has heavy weapons. The US is too distrustful of its loyalties to supply such weapons.
Therefore, no local battles can be won without the help of US troops, satellite-based intelligence and arms. That implies US military presence in Iraq for many more years. The Green Zone is being reinforced to house 8,000 people, like a fortified American life-style haven within a devastated city.
At this time, there are no feasible exit scenarios, however elegant the words used to disguise this from the American people. Pinning too much hope on Baker is imprudent. He is a tactician, not an Alexander or Hector.
A few days ago, Britain’s Tony Blair pointed out again that no safe exit is possible without bringing Syria and Iran into talks for a wider security deal with the US. And no lasting Middle East peace is possible without restarting discussion to settle the Palestinian question.
Democratic control of Congress and Senate has not brought the US closer to these directions.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “Jim Baker is no savior”
This is stunningly cynical and impatient. What is the purpose of writing it?
You may be right but, gee whiz, we JUST changed our government and now BOTH parties are competing to figure this all out.
It seems to me that often things get worse before they get better. Sometimes a paradigm has to splinter so that a new one can take its place.
I choose to be hopeful.
Is it just me or does there seem to be a full court press going on to discredit the ISG recommendations before they are even made public?
Discussion won’t do a thing to settle the Palestinian question until the Palestinians and all surrounding Arab or Muslim countries accept Israel’s right to exist exactly where it is.
I agree with you CS, it does seem that some are trying to discredit it.
As for this piece I find it kinda odd that the claim is made that Baker is no Alexander or Hector. I’m pretty glad he isn’t. Those were military men of an ancient age, despite their talent as warriors and generals. Even Alexander’s “policy of fusion” wouldn’t apply to the modern situation. As great as Alexander’s empire was with the different peoples that comprised it, it couldn’t last after his death as his policies were not sustainable by his sucessors.
Baker is a diplomat and only a diplomatic solution can lead to sucess in Iraq if any sucess is possible. A solution is needed that will outlast the immediate need and set up an enduring stability, or at the very least to minimize the instability with institutional reform. To achieve this we must be able to build a relationship among the various factions and this cannot be simply dictated and enforced by our military presence. That like Alexander’s rule would dissipate with our leaving. Solutions must be founded on diplomacy and compromise, though backed with a firm hand initially.
Even the most talented diplomat will be sorely tested by the Iraq situation, but at least the right set of tools are now being used to address the problem. Even with the tools , however, the doctor isn’t always able to save the patient who is on death’s dor, no matter how skilled he is. Still his chances are much better than a mechanics.
To me, tnis is just more proof that the ultimate goal of the ‘globalists’ is the crippling of American influence. They have no other agenda, except how to fit any and all international situations into that matrix.
Paul, it’s been nine whole days since we switched governments, they should have done something by now!
CS, agreed, I wonder if some details have slipped out or something.
oh Austin. where have you been? Bush has crippled American influence in 5 years. No one in history has so diminished the image of America, trust in our principles, respect for our products. It’s tragic, but look to your own house, dude.
And for those who don’t want to confront the ugly fact, Iraq is lost. Everyone is looking to the Dems, to ISG, to the generals, just anywhere for a glimmer of hope. Face it. No one has an answer, including anyone here. Even if we had unlimited money and troops to “spend” there just isn’t a decent solution. I’ve asked it before, what does ‘winning’ mean? Just a stable Iraq? That’s what it was under Saddam. Do we really want a stable Shiite country rather than a stable Sunni country? Is that what this was all for? In a fortress Bahgdad, just as in a fortress Kabul, there is only the thin vaneer of an appearance of stability. Outside the capital, the militias rule. That was not the case under Saddam. We blew it. We broke it and we can’t fix it.
James Baker is on the saudi payroll. That’s all you need to know to figure out what Mideast policies this pointless commission is going to recommend. More appeasement of terrorists and terrorist sponsoring regimes and throwing Israel to the wolves.
This author does appear to be jumping the gun both about Baker’s ISG, and the results of the Democratic takeover of Congress. While parts of the report have been leaked, it is unfair to judge it before it has been released in its entirety. When it is released, its merit may lie in a new willingness to negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq’s fate. Switching to a diplomatic route over a military one is a change of course, if the goal is to maintain the security of the region. It is way too soon to tell, so we all need to keep an open mind.
Ditto on the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have not even assumed their positions yet as Speaker and Majority Leader, and won’t do so until January. Yet, the writer has decided their anti-war platform has already doomed itself to failure. Even once they are, they can press for change, but the real change is still up to George Bush. The only way Congress could force a withdrawel is to refuse to fund it, and there is almost no possibility of that happening in the near future.
What is possible, is that we will get some more openness on the war and on how bad our options actually are. Hearings held by the House, may shed light on how we got ourselves into this mess, and that may prevent another president from such a costly mistake further down the road,
I totally blame the Congressional Democrats!
After all, they took power 9 days ago! Wait a second, why is Denny Hastert still Speaker?
OH!
Because Democrats don’t take power until January.
It would be nice if complaints about Democratic leadership occur after they’ve been in power for more than negative 60 days.
LOL Andrew. You’re right. WTF are they waiting for? A formal swearing in???