Victory...Anyone?

The general verdict by respected conservatives on the Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) report is that it contains two fatal flaws that call into question its overall standing as a serious policy study. The first is that it naively presupposes that Iran and Syria would be honest deal-brokers, willing to meet the United States halfway with open dialogue and fair compromise. The second is that it completely ignores the root cause of Islamic terrorism, preferring to see this global scourge in the narrow template of traditional political and territorial disputes. Islamic terror networks are relentlessly seeking to extirpate Western civilization and to substitute in its place a Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, which is an extremely radical manifestation of the Sunni tradition. That there is a global jihad underway against the West can no longer be denied. This obvious fact slips beneath the radar of the heavily secularized analysts in the mainstream media who seem hopelessly bewitched by a moral relativism that fails to clearly distinguish right from wrong. As a result of the media’s reticence, many Americans are oblivious to the global objective of this fanatical sect and, subsequently, they fail to understand precisely what it is that we are fighting against in the war on terror. To buy the naïve action line often proffered by the media and other “experts” that the present conflict is born of, or is an extension of, the seemingly eternal border disputes raging between the Israelis and Palestinians would be woefully shortsighted. The overarching premise of the ISG’s flawed plan is the assumption that Iran and Syria will respond positively to the carrot and stick method of traditional diplomacy and reciprocal concessions and, further, that these nations are interested in a stable Iraq. This is a marvelous display of historical amnesia. When has traditional diplomacy ever worked with radical Islamic states or terror cells? Ask Israel about Hezbollah’s appreciation for compromise and reciprocity.

The august, blue ribbon ISG seems to present Iran and Syria as potential allies in the search for a solution regarding the crisis in Iraq. A more realistic assessment demonstrates that Iran and Syria are the fundamental problem, not the solution. From the get go, they have been partners in crime in their quest to inflict as many casualties on Iraqis and American soldiers, in the hope of precipitating our withdrawal. Andrew McCarthy explains the ISG’s delusion in his National Review piece: “Iran and Syria, the ISG suggests, could be persuaded to help us in Iraq because, notwithstanding that they have assiduously destabilized the situation for three years running, they are profoundly interesting in having a stable Iraq.” That a group of supposedly serious and erudite analysts would make such a diplomatic leap of faith by trusting Iran and Syria reveals the alarming extent to which many in the DC milieu are in the dark as to the historical track-record of such nations. The conflict in Lebanon last summer should have left no doubt that Syria is hell-bent on nefarious interventions to fuel terror organizations like Hezbollah in its bloody campaign against Israel. It is foolish to believe that Syria would be interested in collaborating with the United States on good faith with the shared goal of stabilizing Iraq. As long as the US military is present in Iraq, Syria will actively pursue sabotaging that country’s security. If the United States were to leave Iraq prematurely, Syria would certainly burrow more deeply still into the country and only then be interested in stabilizing it. Similarly, there can be no doubt that Iran is a principal agent for funneling the means of terror into Iraq and around the world. That Iran is lead by a maniacal president who is convinced that he will play a fundamental role in ushering in a new age of global Islamic dominion guarantees that Iran is hardly a stable or reliable partner for negotiation. Yet the ISG seems more than willing to approach Iran in good faith. National Review contributor Michael Ledeen makes a salient observation when he says that negotiating with Iran would “legitimate that increasingly dangerous regime and reward its violent and hostile actions against us and our allies. We should rather endeavor to discredit and undermine this regime.” Not a bad point. Iran is notorious for bolstering and influencing other radical Islamic groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Somalia. Hezbollah owes its very existence to Iran. This nation needs to be held accountable for its wicked meddling rather than be treated as an equal and given a place of privilege at the negotiating table.

To be fair, the ISG report does say that the US should convince these unlawful and dangerous nations to get their acts together. But outside of its chimerical hope of progress via dialogue and negotiation, it comes up woefully short in the specifics category as to precisely how this lofty goal should be accomplished. However, Ledeen sees a silver lining in the ISG report in that it forces Tehran, albeit obtusely, into the spotlight and under the international microscope. This newfound attention may subsequently encourage the US to amplify its calls for a regime change in that nation. As Ledeen puts it, “the president and the secretary of state should finally educate the American public about the real dimensions of the Iranian threat.”

Does the ISG report focus on victory or on the most efficacious way to bolt from Iraq? Do Americans want a clear, decisive and final victory over merciless fanatics who see us as their sworn adversary? In light of the critical events in Iraq, these seem to be the pivotal questions facing the nation. My concern is that the ISG report attempts to redefine our objectives in the war on terror by substituting our original goal (victory over the terrorists) with that of a reaching a national consensus (whatever that means) on how to most effectively scuttle from the scene while saving at least some face.