Bush and the Baker plan

flywallyfly

I think we can guess at how the Bushies feel about the report and its recommendations.....

Asked if Baker would help implement the report, a spokesman for Mr. Bush said, "Jim Baker can go back to his day job."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/05/eveningnews/main2232203.shtml

puremagic

My thoughts - No surprises with the Baker report simply because the things recommended could have and in most cases should have been on the table or implemented by now. I can't understand why this "outgoing" and "returning members" of Congress are acting so damn surprise, not to mention impressed. We could go back through the MT postings and find discussions prior to the Baker report on the pro and cons for

-- the need to withdraw in stages
-- the lack of training for Iraq's "police" forces
--the discrepancy in the number of Iraq deaths
--why no infrastructure has even begun in the rebuilding of Iraq (Haliburton's waste)
--the role of Iran in the Middle East
--the need for the rest of the Arab countries to step up to the plate

All this wasted time for just another piece of paper to give creditability and support to Bush and his corporate buddies' PLAN. The breakup of Iraq. It was always meant to be carved up into federalized zones.

An Iraqi police force can NOT defend a country, nor was it intended to do so. Thus, U.S. military presence would be in Iraq forever, much like the establishment of military bases in Japan, South Korea (stalemate) and Germany after their defeat.

The call for regional diplomacy is simply the need to have Iran and Syria at the table when the U.S. announces that it will split Iraq into 3 or 4 separate zones. When they announce the new military bases that will be built in southern and northern Iraq. But something drastic has to happen to ensure no opposition to the U.S. military presence in this region forever.

With Bush facing creditability issues both at home and aboard, someone else had to present the PLAN. The November 7, election provided the perfect opportunity to take Bush off the hook. Enter, the Baker report. This report has the same outcome, different messenger, the break up of Iraq into Zones and Bush gets his win. All the "I'll show Daddy and his buddies" is just one big act, yet it has forced the Democrats hands. They had no PLAN except to bring the troop home. The additional violence in Iraq has forced them to seriously consider the Baker report or present an alternative to the American public. It's not going to happen before 2008.

DCGARDEN

puremagic wrote:

My thoughts - No surprises with the Baker report simply because the things recommended could have and in most cases should have been on the table or implemented by now. I can't understand why this "outgoing" and "returning members" of Congress are acting so damn surprise, not to mention impressed. We could go back through the MT postings and find discussions prior to the Baker report on the pro and cons for

-- the need to withdraw in stages
-- the lack of training for Iraq's "police" forces
--the discrepancy in the number of Iraq deaths
--why no infrastructure has even begun in the rebuilding of Iraq (Haliburton's waste)
--the role of Iran in the Middle East
--the need for the rest of the Arab countries to step up to the plate

All this wasted time for just another piece of paper to give creditability and support to Bush and his corporate buddies' PLAN. The breakup of Iraq. It was always meant to be carved up into federalized zones.

An Iraqi police force can NOT defend a country, nor was it intended to do so. Thus, U.S. military presence would be in Iraq forever, much like the establishment of military bases in Japan, South Korea (stalemate) and Germany after their defeat.

The call for regional diplomacy is simply the need to have Iran and Syria at the table when the U.S. announces that it will split Iraq into 3 or 4 separate zones. When they announce the new military bases that will be built in southern and northern Iraq. But something drastic has to happen to ensure no opposition to the U.S. military presence in this region forever.

With Bush facing creditability issues both at home and aboard, someone else had to present the PLAN. The November 7, election provided the perfect opportunity to take Bush off the hook. Enter, the Baker report. This report has the same outcome, different messenger, the break up of Iraq into Zones and Bush gets his win. All the "I'll show Daddy and his buddies" is just one big act, yet it has forced the Democrats hands. They had no PLAN except to bring the troop home. The additional violence in Iraq has forced them to seriously consider the Baker report or present an alternative to the American public. It's not going to happen before 2008.

I agree with a lot of what is written above, but you've got to be kidding if you think they currently want the Iraqi police force fail, so we can protect the country bullshit. You understand History, but do not assume that it will repeat itself despite conditions. At this point in the game, alls Bush is looking for is to prevent a civil war. They want Iraq secured, no matter who is holding the rifle. Through all of the current disasters that have occured in this country, it only tarnishes the reputation further, and when weighing the two, they would choose reputation over future imperialistic plans of which they won't be a part of.

puremagic

DCGARDEN wrote:

I agree with a lot of what is written above, but you've got to be kidding if you think they currently want the Iraqi police force fail, so we can protect the country bullshit. You understand History, but do not assume that it will repeat itself despite conditions. At this point in the game, alls Bush is looking for is to prevent a civil war. They want Iraq secured, no matter who is holding the rifle. Through all of the current disasters that have occured in this country, it only tarnishes the reputation further, and when weighing the two, they would choose reputation over future imperialistic plans of which they won't be a part of.

It was designed to be a failure from the start. A police force can not and is not designed to stabilize a "country" on it's own without being seen as the first line cause of civil unrest.

A "police force" does not equal a "military" force. A police force equals, supposedly, a force to deal with "civilian" problems on a "limited" scale. A couple of examples,

1. Here in America if our police is overwhelmed by a "civilian" matter, say like riots. We call in the National Guard (military).

2. Here in America if we are attacked by a foreign entity, we call in our full armed forces (military).

Iraq is a country simultaneously engaged in a military war and civil war. You'd like me to believe that Bush and his administration believed from the onset that a newly formed "police" force of civilians could secure and stabilize the country's population.

a) a country where no physical end to the war was achieved after declaration of such in May of 2003,

-- a country that is currently occupied by foreign military and insurgent
personnel still engaged in an ongoing war effort.

b) a country that did not have the benefit of a reconstruction period, like Japan and Germany.

-- a country without basic infrastructures and an economy to take care of its people,

c) a county with a newly elected government that doesn't know the first thing about how democracy (politics) work.

--An elected president faced with and now being held accountable to stabilize this civil war situation with a "police" force.

Nope, no bullshit, it was designed to fail inorder to achieve the Bush/Baker Plan. The split up of Iraq into federalized zones. Eventually, there'll be an Iraqi police force able to handle local civilian matters just like we set up in the Philippines. Just like the Philippines, they'll have no jurisdiction over Western interests or people.