Surrender Gran’pas

Mark Steyn gets the honor of having one of the best tags of 2006.  "Surrender Gran’pas"!

This is how he describes the Baker commission:

Well, the ISG — the Illustrious Seniors’ Group — has released its 79-point plan. How unprecedented is it? Well, it seems Iraq is to come under something called the "Iraq International Support Group." If only Neville Chamberlain had thought to propose a "support group" for Czechoslovakia, he might still be in office. Or guest-hosting for Oprah. But, alas, such flashes of originality are few and far between in what’s otherwise a testament to conventional wisdom. How conventional is the ISG’s conventional wisdom? Try page 49:

"RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria . . ."

Er, OK. I suppose that’s what you famously hardheaded "realists" mean by realism. But wait, we’re not done yet. For this "Support Group," we need the extra-large function room. Aside from Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait, the ISG — the Iraq Surrender Gran’pas — want also to invite:

". . . the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States . . ."

Er, OK. So it’s basically an Arab League meeting.

This is the plan that a commission formed with aging appeasers came up with.  They never left the green zone in Iraq but now believe they now how to fix everything.  How?  As Steyn says, by suing for peace:

So there you have it: an Iraq "Support Group" that brings together the Arab League, the European Union, Iran, Russia, China and the U.N. And with support like that who needs lack of support? It worked in Darfur, where the international community reached unanimous agreement on the urgent need to rent a zeppelin to fly over the beleaguered region trailing a big banner emblazoned "YOU’RE SCREWED." For Dar4.1, they can just divert it to Baghdad.

Oh, but lest you think there are no minimum admission criteria to James Baker’s "Support Group," relax, it’s a very restricted membership: Arabs, Persians, Chinese commies, French obstructionists, Russian assassination squads. But no Jews. Even though Israel is the only country to be required to make specific concessions — return the Golan Heights, etc. Indeed, insofar as this document has any novelty value, it’s in the Frankenstein-meets-the-Wolfman sense of a boffo convergence of hit franchises: a Vietnam bug-out, but with the Jews as the designated fall guys. Wow. That’s what Hollywood would call "high concept."

[…]If they’re lucky, this document will be tossed in the trash and these men and women will be the laughingstocks of posterity. But, if it’s not shredded and we embark down this path, then the Baker group will be emblematic of something far worse. The "Support Group" is a "peace conference," and Baker wants Washington to sue for terms. No wonder Syria is already demanding concessions from America. Which is the superpower and which is the third-rate basket-case state? From the Middle Eastern and European press coverage of the Baker group, it’s kinda hard to tell.

Sadly I do not believe we will be that lucky.  The MSM and the liberals are already making the rounds calling this a "necessary fix".  They will continue to harp this document as the holy grail until no one questions it anymore.  Just look at the 9/11 Commission report.  It became the de facto report on the attack, when in actuality nothing could be further from the truth.

In my opinion this could be one of the most dangerous documents to come around the bend in many decades.  Thankfully Bush shows no sign of capitulating to these Surrender Gran’pas just yet.  But think about it, how much do you want to wager that in the upcoming Presidential elections almost every candidate will spout this document, spout this surrender mentality.

I mean come on!  They want us to engage the very two nations that have created a majority of the chaos in Iraq.  Why?  Because they really do want a stable Iraq!  Does this make any sense at all?  They want the chaos, they created it. 

As usual, Steyn nails it:

James Baker has achieved the perfect reductio ad absurdum of diplomatic self-adulation: he’s less rational than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

An insane, cowardly document was created by these peace monkeys and as Talabani said, it’s an insult:

The Iraqi president said Sunday the bipartisan U.S. report calling for a new approach to the war offered dangerous recommendations that would undermine his country’s sovereignty and were "an insult to the people of Iraq."

President Jalal Talabani was the most senior government official to take a stand against the Iraq Study Group report, which has come under criticism from leaders of the governing Shiite and Kurdish parties.

He said the report "is not fair, is not just, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution."

Lets just hope it gets thrown into the trashbin of history.

Other’s Blogging:

• Ray Robison
• IraqPundit
• Polipundit
• My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
• Dinocrat
• Dr. Sanity
• Airborne Combat Engineer
• FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog
• Dawnsbloods Rants