The main point of the Iraq Study Group report was bipartisan compromise. That means each member of this commission had their political affiliation chief in mind rather than any real solution. Don’t confuse non-partisan with bipartisan. Non-partisan means “who cares which party it benefits or who gets elected, let’s come up with a solution that’s best for the country.” That’s not what happened here.How could it when the committee was made up 100% of people who are talkers? Not one military person was on that committee. There was not one person on that committee who is of the “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset. So the only recommendation possible from this committee was some flavor of talk, appease, understand, negotiate, etc.

Imagine this. You’re on an airplane and happen to have a gun in your pocket. Forget about how you got it on that plane, you just have it. In the middle of the flight six terrorists stand up to announce a hijacking. You have six bullets and are a marksman with that pistol. Do you shoot six terrorists or do you ask them to talk and try to negotiate your way to a safe landing?

The Baker commission was made, 100%, of people who would keep that gun in their pocket while they tried to talk their way to safety. It was 100% pocket people. Not one shootist. The shootist would shoot the terrorists and then maybe talk to the other passengers on the plane, but that’s the extent of the shootist’s desire to talk. Talk after the danger is gone. Talk after the bad guys are dead. Maybe shoot five dead but only wound the sixth so you can talk to him about who sent them, who paid them, etc.

Picking the committee based on party affiliation (bipartisan means balanced by party) rather than on shootist/pocket balance made it rotten at its core. There was no balance between possible strategies. Just 100% talk. The shootist on the committee would have recommended more troops and more action like shooting bad guys like Al Sadr and securing the border so Iran and Syria couldn’t keep sending terrorists and weapons to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The pocket person would have recommended cut and run, and talk. The compromise would have been the shootist shooting the talker, so we could get on with winning in Iraq.

Because, understand, if you compromise between what is right and what is wrong, you still end up wrong.

Get it? The liberals are backwards, they’re wrong. Compromising with them, even if you’re right, means the end result is wrong. The conservative wants to cook the turkey in the oven, the liberal wants it cooked in the freezer. Compromising on the refrigerator means the turkey won’t get cooked.

This Baker Commission was made up of the “best and brightest.” But in what? In talking, negotiating, appeasing. What experience does Sandra O’Conner have in military operations? How many soldiers has she commanded? Maybe in regard to fighting an enemy who straps bombs onto retarded children and into cars, and who fires on us and kills us and kills innocent people, burns down mosques, murders public officials and aid workers, we might need an expert who knows something about killing or directing force at people to stop them before they kill us. A reasonable balance to a group that could come up with real recommendations would have been between shootists and talkers.

What we ended up with was a recommendation to talk, from a group of talkers. We ended up with, as Rush Limbaugh said, recommendations worthy of a 9th grade mid-term essay. Talk to Iraq, beg Iran and Syria to help us defeat them (they’re the main enemies in Iraq,) give up portions of Israel to appease mad Muslims, then tuck our tails and run out of Iraq. Hopefully there will be a follow up report that tells us what to do when the Muslims start attacking in American again like they did before the counter-offensive war on terror began. Maybe it will be a compromise between die by gun and die by bomb, recommending we die by the sword when the Muslims come to kill us.

Be Sociable, Share!