Thanks, Iraq Study Group, but No Thanks

We do not recommend division of Iraq ... Such a devolution could not be managed on an orderly basis; and because Iraq's major cities are peopled by a mixture of warring groups (it could create a) humanitarian disaster or broad-based civil war. -- Iraq Study Group report

This is a report that only a one-worlder could love. One-worlders are those people who wish there was only one world government, and that they were in charge of it. True Americans realize that the less government the better, and what little you allow there to be, it's best to keep it close to home. This is why the 10th amendment came about; the one that limits federal government to only one or two key functions, with the states, or the people, in charge of everything else.

As one who has suggested on a number of occasions that my state respectfully secede from the Union, I am watchful of the sort of creeping tyranny where some group in some faraway province exerts fascist strong-arming on me.

It's easy to recognize the one-worlders. They are all oveer the place, and masquerade sometimes as shining examples of "the American Way". The U.S. supreme court acts in a one world fashion whenever they overturn legally enacted state laws (such as those reestricting abortion), or references foreign law in their rulings on purely American matters. Dick Lugar is a one-worlder. He wants the United Nations to have more power and invariably votes that way, as do many other US senators. This is insidious, and one of the many modern things we must be vigilant about.

So now, they want Iraq to be held together like there is some mysterious synergy in that outcome. The natural inclination is for people to resist central governments. None of the Iraqis will be free unless they can self govern. There are no proposals on the table that allow this to happen. The political hacks who have screwed us up over here (and all but decimated states rights) want the same thing for Iraq.

The solution (as it was with the former Soviet Union) is to allow the Kurdistanis, The Sunnis, and the Shiites to have their own governments, their own territories, and inherit and deal with their own problems. Otherwise, the minority party will sling real bombs into eternity; thinking (and they may be right) that the government is the cause of their problems.

So, Baker and Hamilton grab a bunch of people together and come up with this nonsense. Here's where we went wrong on the whole Iraqi thing (and you've heard me say this before): The military portion of this job ended years ago. We have no hope of making a lasting contribution in the political phase. Our own model is no longer worth copying. Since about 150 years ago, we've been fighting for our freedom against our particular "democracy". It's time to let the Iraqis find their own democracy, in their own way.

Early assessment

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. -- Ronald Reagan

There are elements on this planet that are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of using them. They speak as openly as Adolph Hitler did about their desire to kill us and we should honor them by believing they're sincere. -- Newt Gingrich

For most of the years I have been watching politics (and it started with my reading of Robert J. Ringer's "Restoring the American Dream" in 1976), I have seen hopeful tendencies only twice. One was my slowly dawning realization of the beauty of Ronald Reagan and his policies. He used the twin weapons of commitment and communication. Every time he said "There they go again" I realized there was someone in charge who was on our side. When he said "Tear down this wall", you know he had 'that vision thing'.

When everything he called for came to pass without so much as one missile launched; you knew he not only had the right approach, he had the confidence of the world.

The second time I saw hope in action was Newt's 1994 "Contract with America" revolution. He had the Reagan-like commitment and the communication. As a history professor, he can cite chapter and verse where we went wrong. In case you don't know where that was, read the book.

The enemies of the people had no effect on Reagan, because Reagan was right for the time and for the state of the world. He, nor the people, would be swayed by the enemies of the people.

Gingrich has inherited that banner. He is quite probably the only one out there we can trust with the job. This is why you will see the enemies of the people pulling out all the stops early and often.

Those enemies miscalculated on Reagan. Tried to frame him as a shallow actor. The world saw him as a leader.

The enemies of the people will characterize Newt as a megalomaniacal hayseed. The people will see Gingrich as a leader.