Decision ‘08

Gingrich’s Eleven Tests For The Iraq Study Group

I’m going to focus on three, and leave it up to you to read the rest. The three I’m highlighting deal with the increasingly troubling idea that we will ask for Iran and Syria’s help in dealing with Iraq:

(8) Any proposal to ask Iran and Syria to help is a sign of defeat. Does the commission suggest this?

Iran and Syria are the wolves in the region. They are the primary troublemakers. You don’t invite wolves into the kitchen to help with dinner or you become dinner. The State Department Report on Terrorism in April 2006 said: “Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and guidance to terrorist organizations.” It went on to say, “Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism.” It noted that in Iraq the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (an arm of the Iranian dictatorship) “was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups which destabilize Iraq.” How can the Baker-Hamilton commission seriously suggest that two dictatorships described like this are going to be “helpers” in achieving American goals in the Middle East?

(9) Does the commission believe we can “do a deal” with Iran?

The clear effort by the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejad’s assertion that it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when the United States and Israel have both disappeared, should be adequate proof that the Iranian dictatorship is the active enemy of America. Couple that with the fact that the Iranians lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years while trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Either this is a dangerous regime we need to fundamentally change, or it is a reasonable regime with which we can deal. Presidential speeches and State Department documents clearly indicate it is a dangerous regime yet, there is a permanent Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by “doing a deal.” In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.

(10) Does the commission believe we are more clever than our enemies?

The al-Assad family has run Syria since 1971. Hafiz Assad arranged for his son Bashar to succeed him. This family and its Alawite supporters represent a small minority of the Syrian people, but they maintain a relentlessly tough internal dictatorship which keeps power in their hands. In some ways, there are parallels between Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Il–they both maintain family dictatorships with the support of a key system of internal controls. After 35 years of defying the United States, there is no reason to believe our diplomats are more clever than their ruthlessly survivor-oriented systems. Negotiating with them is an invitation to be taken to the cleaners and to extend the power and prestige and influence of our mortal enemies in the region. Recent talk of reaching out to Syria has been met by the assassination of a Lebanese minister and the intensifying of the Hezbollah blackmail tactics in Lebanon. Weakness from America leads to greater aggression from our enemies. The Baker-Hamilton commission should focus on how to contain or defeat Syria not on how to rely on them for help.

Like him or hate him, ~~Gingrinch~~ Gingrich is a man of substance. Too bad we have no current Republican congressional leaders with his intellect…

5 Responses to “Gingrich’s Eleven Tests For The Iraq Study Group”

1 Andy Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Newt’s right on all 11 counts
2 peter Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Is the spelling of his name in the last paragraph a typo — or a Freudian slip?
3 Mark Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Peter, that’s about the millionth time I’ve done that…thanks, I’ll change it…
4 Aaron Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
I remember my grandfather used to call him “Newt Grimmach.”

BTW, Mark, would you mind checking the link on that? Every time I’ve clicked it gives me a “Page Cannot Be Displayed” error and I can’t find the article on the Weekly Standard’s website.
5 Mark Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
How very odd! It’s been yanked from the Weekly Standard site!

It’s still available here, however…