Steyn is in rare form this morning:

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.”

Why would anyone — even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the “Read my lips” pledge — why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq’s future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian “right of return”? And, incidentally, how did that phrase — “the right of return” — get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I’m not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker’s post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it’s striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.

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.

I can’t help but feel, that his indignation is righteous, and justified, if a little delayed.  Go and read the rest of it, it’s worth it.  If for no other reason, then to confirm what we’ve been writing here in BitsBlog, literally, for many moons.

I do have one disagreement…Steyn labels the ISG “Inane Strategy Guesswork”…I confess that I chuckle a little on reading that.  But it doesn’t fit.

Let’s be clear about this: This is not guesswork .  This document is directly in line with what our enemy wants.  It’s called “surrender”.  And I for one, cannot believe for a moment that the people who created it… no dummies, they…. did so blindly.  I have to believe this is a willing surrender.  It represents the worst possible thing that America could do it this point. Can I make this any clearer for you?

Tags: ,

One Response to “ISG= “Inane Strategy Guesswork”? No… It’s Worse”

  1. Jim Baker’s intent appears to be to piss
    off all our friends and kiss up to all of
    our enemies.  The ISG report was certainly
    not Baker’s finest hour.