October 8, 2006
A GOOD GUY FOR BRUTAL HONESTY:
Baker panel may recommend federal Iraq (UPI, 10/08/06)
A commission chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker may recommend a federal Iraq divided among the country's three major groups."The Kurds already effectively have their own area," a source close to the group told the Times of London. "The federalization of Iraq is going to take place one way or another. The challenge for the Iraqis is how to work that through."
Mr. Baker is blunt enough to tell folks the obvious: there is no Iraq. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 8, 2006 12:43 PM
I originally thought Baker was a bad choice as consultant to the President, because he was one of those nasty immoral "realist".
However since he pushing my favorite theory, I guess he must be a genius and a really wise old pro.
Posted by: h-man at October 8, 2006 4:57 PMThere's nothing Realist about destabilizing countries.
Posted by: oj at October 8, 2006 5:18 PMSo if Iraq is partioned into 3 sections, 2 of which are relatively stable and the 3rd getting there, this will be a huge negative blow to Bush, right?
Posted by: AWW at October 8, 2006 7:43 PMSo if Iraq is partioned into 3 sections, 2 of which are relatively stable and the 3rd getting there, this will be a huge negative blow to Bush, right?
Posted by: AWW at October 8, 2006 7:43 PMBaker has a record as a so-called, self-proclaimed "realist," rather than as a realist.
A realist promotes stability when it is in our interest to promote stability and chaos when it is in out interest to promote chaos.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 8, 2006 8:00 PMI don't see Sunni's putting up with this. They have no oil, no land, and an ungovernable megopolis. It will be a wasteland modeled after the Palestine & Kosovo, where UN money and "protection" pay for radicalization and suicide bombers.
Something like this may have worked in 1991, but it will be 100s of time harder now.
Posted by: Bruno at October 8, 2006 8:50 PMWhy should Mookie care what the Sunni say?
Posted by: oj at October 8, 2006 10:22 PMNo, theyt always oppose instability, even when it's in our interest. They're generally foreign policy professionals and stability is easier toi understand than instability. It's just about making less work for themselves.
Posted by: oj at October 8, 2006 10:27 PMIt was Baker that opposed independence for the former Soviet Republics...Some realist
Posted by: Brian at October 9, 2006 6:49 AMYes, he preferred stability.
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2006 7:46 AMBrian: That's my point, the man is a so-called, self-proclaimed "realist," which is sort of like being a so-called, self-proclaimed "progressive."
Oj's comment about the foreign policy professionals sets it out about the so-called, self-proclaimed "realists." Alongside one of these time-servers, a real realist is positively Nietzechean, hurling the battle-cry into the storm of steel, rolling the dice and believing that he will win.
If we judge that the current phase of developemental cycles is favorable to our interests, the realistic thing to say is, "Bring 'em on!"
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 9, 2006 10:37 AMBrian: That's my point, the man is a so-called, self-proclaimed "realist," which is sort of like being a so-called, self-proclaimed "progressive."
Oj's comment about the foreign policy professionals sets it out about the so-called, self-proclaimed "realists." Alongside one of these time-servers, a real realist is positively Nietzechean, hurling the battle-cry into the storm of steel, rolling the dice and believing that he will win.
If we judge that the current phase of developemental cycles is favorable to our interests, the realistic thing to say is, "Bring 'em on!"
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 9, 2006 10:37 AMThe Realists are just a school of foreign policy experts--they are who they say they are.
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2006 1:47 PMOj, thou hast said it: self-proclaimed.
A pseudonym, sort of like calling oneself, "Napoleon Bonaparte."
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 9, 2006 2:09 PMBonapartists are Bonapartists.
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2006 2:11 PMThere's been an Iraq; or Greater Mesopotamia for five hundred years, Orrin. The Sunnis are powerful
because of their cross border tribal allegiances with Saudi Arabia, Syria, & Jordan.
The Shi'a and Kurds are allied with America. Who are you taking?
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2006 5:14 PM