Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Baker-Hamilton Report--of 1943
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
How much of the Republican convention did you watch?




Imagine the progress Franklin D. Roosevelt might have made as commander-in-chief of American forces during the Second World War if only he could have had the benefit of advice from James Baker, Lee Hamilton and the other members of the Iraq Study Group. Today's column applies its lessons-indeed, whole sections of its text-to that earlier quagmire:

February 25, 1943
Washington, D.C.

Mr. President:

It is an honor and privilege to present you and the Congress with the attached 79 recommendations which are detailed in the following 50 pages. In addition you will find a 40-page preface summarizing the state of the current conflict, plus maps, lists of the experts whose advice contributed to our disinterested conclusions, and full biographies of the commissioners who participated in this bipartisan study. (Autographed photographs are available on request.)

After long and arduous study at a generally safe distance, and by matching the self-evident with the undeniable, offsetting every platitude with a generality, and scrupulously avoiding unhelpful and provocative concepts like honor and victory, we now have reached a carefully balanced bipartisan consensus sure to give no offense or risk dangerous specifics, to wit:

The situation worldwide is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome.

Despite the greatest mass mobilization in our country's history, the enemy remains on the offensive and is proceeding to expand its earlier gains. To quote one of the distinguished historians on our extensive panel of consultants: "So swift and far-reaching were the Axis victories during the first six months of 1942 that it seemed the United Nations had lost the warŠ." -Arthur S. Link, professor of history, Northwestern University, in his "American Epoch."

Within days of their disastrously effective attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese opened a successful offensive all across the Pacific, and as of this writing control Hong Kong, Malaya, the Philippines, and a number of lesser outposts. Guam, Wake Island and Singapore have been overrun. Most of Burma is lost, and India and Ceylon are threatened. The Japanese navy largely controls the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal. Except for a remnant that has made its way to Australia, the Allied fleet has been destroyed in the Java Sea campaign.

In view of Japanese dominance in the Pacific theater, it is time to open negotiations looking to a stable and enduring peace in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The results of Operation TORCH in North Africa have proved no less disheartening. Despite early progress, the outlook is bleak, as this week's news from Kasserine Pass illustrates.

With only some exceptions, our allies falter and retreat. In contrast to early and overly optimistic reports from the boisterous General Geo. S. Patton, enemy forces under the command of a seasoned and daring strategist, Field Marshal Erwin J.E. Rommel, aka The Desert Fox, continue to inflict heavy damage and threaten the progress of our arms.

Appeals to Wilsonian ideals like freedom and self-determination cannot compete with traditional European and Asiatic modes of thinking that emphasize nationalism and obedience to a strong leader. We have become involved in lands whose culture and languages are woefully beyond our understanding, and with which we have little if anything in common. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Einhverfr ... yes!
Thank you for acknowledging blunders made in invading Iraq in the first place. Your point that we might eventually have become involved in Iraq after a couple more decades (following the ultimate demise of Saddam) has a ring of truth to it, and I like thinking had that been the case, we would have done so with – as you say – “the backing of pretty much the entire international community”. We could easily have sought ought the gang of thugs and 5,000-odd folks associated with al-Qaida who planned the attack on WTC (and others) – with that very same international backing – had we not had our eyes set on some other, totally unrelated goal.

Staying in Iraq gives credence to that other goal! We must bring that objective to the surface, expose it as an expression of expansionist lust held by a small clique of ambitious individuals (individuals who took advantage of a crack in the American electoral process and pressed ahead as if they spoke for not just a majority – which they did not have – but for ALL Americans), and NOT as an expression of the will of the people of the United States of America.

We do not “run”, otherwise the outcomes you describe might conceivably come to pass. Instead, we turn control of “security” over to any international force still willing to take the job, and put our troops at their command. We pay for REAL reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure … not just cosmetic “no-bid” cost-overrun contracted “fixes” … and hire Iraqi contractors and laborers to do the work. We can be stern with those who will not come to the table, but we must recognize that we turned loose king-makers in waiting when we offed Saddam. I mean, there are individuals in Iraq with a military force half the size of our entire operation … and we do not need to stoop to the level of a third rate dictator and have al-Sadr assassinated.

Shays: Justification? Is it worth it?
All those things you say may be true. However, I was an opponent to going in and stand by the position that we never should have gotten involved (though eventually, I suggest we would have to, but then it would likely be with the backing of pretty much the entire international community after Iraq started to deal with the death of Saddam in a decade or 2).

It seems to me a virtually unassailable position that the Iraq war has undermined American national security, fueled extremism throughout the region, and caused Iraqi civilians to suffer far more than they did under Saddam.

However, the question we face today is a different one. So we stay or get out? As in the beginning, I think one has to look at the question of the balance of harm. At the moment, I do not think that the case can be made that the Iraqi people would be better off if we just run. We need a change of course (including perhaps stern warnings to those in the Iraqi government who are employing sectarian death squads), but if we run:

1) It will provide an intoxicating victory for the Salafist militants similar to what was seen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

2) It will leave Iraq as a failed state at war with itself where terrorists can train to their hearts' content (yes it is that way now, but unless we can be a part of the solution, we will continue to endanger ourselves).

BTW, anyone else catch the bit about a high-ranking Israeli government official calling our involvement in Iraq "unwinnable?"
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.