Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute has this piece in today’s Frontpagemagazine.com
In the article Mr. Rubin explores the significance of what the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s reccomendation to “abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor” would mean for U.S. foreign policy.
If the administration is seriously considering this proposed strategy, I believe that it will be disasterous for America and long term peace, security, and freedom in the Mid-East. It would be viewed by our enemies as appeasement pure and simple.
No doubt former secretary of state Baker is an seasoned diplomat. However, as Rubin points out, his record with regard to Med-East policy/negotiations should be appropriately considered. And his record is far from stellar.
In the Middle East, Baker’s legacy is twofold. As secretary of state, he presided over the 1989 Taif Accords, which ended Lebanon’s civil war. By blessing Syrian military occupation, he sacrificed Lebanese independence on the altar of short-term pragmatism. Many Iraqis–Sunni elites and former officers especially–fear Washington may repeat the episode in their country. They fear Baker’s cold realist calculations may surrender Iraq to Iranian suzerainty. While Americans may nonetheless welcome short-term calm, in terms of U.S. security, the Taif model failed: Damascus used its free hand to gut civil society and turn Lebanon into a safe haven for terror.
Part 2 of the Baker Legacy:
Iraqis remember him for his role in Operation Desert Storm. On February 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called upon Iraqis to “take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside.” Iraqis did rise up, but Baker counseled U.S. forces to stand aside as Saddam turned his helicopter gunships on the rebellious Kurds and Shiites. Had more commission members exited the Green Zone, they might have found that among the greatest impediments U.S. forces and diplomats face in Iraq is the experience of betrayal that Baker imprinted on their country. Washington’s adversaries have capitalized on this legacy. The foolishness of Iraqis’ trusting Washington has been a constant theme in Iranian propaganda. Should the Baker-Hamilton Commission also recommend abandoning democracy–which the Shiites understand as their right to power–and urge a political accord with Sunni insurgents, they would push 16 million Iraqi Shiites beyond possibility of accord and into the waiting embrace of an Iranian regime that, paid militias aside, most Iraqis resent.
I agree with Mr. Rubin’s analysis here. Bush needs to stick to his guns and not abandon the Bush Doctrine no matter how many trials and tribulations along the way. The Iraqis need to know that we will stand by there side until they can ably defend themselves. If they feel that we will abandon them as many liberals are calling for with “strategic redeployment” blood will run in the streets throughout Iraq.
While we certainly need to constantly fine-tune our tactics and strategy to ensure victory in Iraq and acknowledge that war in not a perfect science and that Democracy is “messy,” this is no time to go “wobbly” (in the immortal words of Lady Thatcher) Mr. President. I hope the president sticks to his guns and remembers his promise to the Iraqi people that America will never abandon the Iraqi people. Let’s be true to our word! Abandon the Baker-Hamilton strategy and reassert the Bush Doctrine. The world is watching.