Special Report: And Curse Them That Curse Thee
Vol: 63 Issue: 7 Thursday, December 7, 2006
The co-chairs of the Iraq Survey Group have been all over the morning news shows, stumping for public support for their recommendations to the President.
Several things jumped out at me. The first is that James Baker and Lee Hamilton are evidently ashamed of the report’s conclusions. Or so it would seem, since Baker continues to adamantly deny that the report recommended cutting and running from Iraq.
The commission listed 79 carrot-and-stick recommendations and stressed that “military priorities must change” by switching U.S. troops from combat to embedding with Iraqi forces and training them.
“Without suggesting a timetable for withdrawal, or putting a number on the troops that could come home,” says the mainstream media, “the report said that by shifting to training Iraqis “all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq” by early 2008.”
But here is the kicker, quoting from Mr Baker on “Good Morning America” if the Iraqis fail, the U.S. should withdraw its support. If the “Iraqis” fail. . .
So, what constitutes an ‘Iraqi’ failure? Ummm, let’s look one more time and make sure we are understanding the Iraq Survey Group’s position now, before the spin doctors have time to reinvent it to mean something else.
It appears that an Iraqi failure is synonymous with the US failing to achieve its objectives in Iraq, in which case, the US can withdraw its forces by 2008 and blame the Iraqis for it.
And Baker says that is different than a US retreat from Iraq in the face of defeat according to a timetable . . . how, again? I’m not sure. And I read it twice.
Here are the key findings and recommendations of the ISG outlining how America lost the war against terror in Iraq, and how handle our retreat with feigned dignity.
1. Remove nearly all combat troops by first quarter of 2008.
Q. Isn’t that the same as setting a timetable for retreat?
2. Leave behind support troops to help Iraqis and rapid reaction force to go after al Qaeda.
Q. If that would work, why did we ever need the forces that are there now? It makes no sense, because it isn’t supposed to. The retreat is already factored in as a strategic next-step. All the rest is just window-dressing to make it look like we are leaving because the Iraqis couldn’t cut it, rather than because we couldn’t.
3. The U.S. must make clear to Iraqis it is pulling its troops out, especially if Iraq is not making progress.
Q, How does one make it ‘clear to the Iraqis’ that it is ‘pulling out if Iraq is not making progress’ — without telling al-Qaeda and the insurgency that if they continue to put pressure on Iraq to keep it from making progress, they will win?
Having recommended that if IRAQ can’t defeat the terrorists, the US will retreat, the ISG turned its attention away from Iraq and took on the thorny problem of peace in the Middle East.
The ISG report flatly states that the United States cannot achieve its goals unless it deals first with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
And, how, pray tell, does the ISG recommend solving that problem? The same way it ‘solved’ the Iraq problem. Withdraw support from our allies and embrace the enemy.
According to the ISG recommendations, the peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2. (Since this is a US effort, why name it after a Spanish city?)
The ISG recommends including Iran and Syria at the round table, ostensibly to discuss Iraq’s future while focusing on the Arab demands that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.
And just to make sure the conference will go smoothly, the ISG recommends that Israel NOT BE INVITED to discuss its own future.
As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure, an ISG official said. This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.
Officials quoted by Insight Magazine said the Baker proposal to exclude Israel from a Middle East peace conference garnered support in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 25.
They said Cheney spent most of his meetings listening to Saudi warnings that Israel, rather than Iran, is the leading cause of instability in the Middle East.
He [Cheney] didn’t even get the opportunity to seriously discuss the purpose of his visit that the Saudis help the Iraqi government and persuade the Sunnis to stop their attacks, another official familiar with Mr. Cheney s visit said. Instead, the Saudis kept saying that they wanted a U.S. initiative to stop the Israelis attack in Gaza and Cheney just agreed.
Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues.
Officials also said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.
Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis, the official said. The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.
However, reported Insight, Defense Department officials have warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at Israel’s expense.
The regional strategy is a euphemism for throwing Free Iraq to the wolves in its neighborhood: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, said the Center for Security Policy, regarded as being close to the Pentagon.
If the Baker regional strategy is adopted, we will prove to all the world that it is better to be America’s enemy than its friend. Jim Baker’s hostility towards the Jews is a matter of record and has endeared him to Israel’s foes in the region.
In a nutshell, the ISG recommendation is to sacrifice Israel to the Arabs as a way of getting them to help us with Iraq.
One of the earliest prophecies concerning Israel is found in Genesis 12-2-3 when God made His covenant with Abram.
In the first part, God promised; “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:”
Tiny as she is among the world’s nations, Israel is still one of the great nations of the world. Her economy is among the richest on earth. Her military is among the world’s most powerful.
No nation has given more to the world and received less in return. Although only a quarter of one percent of the world’s population , Jewish contributions to medicine, science, economics, peace and the arts make her, per capita, one of the greatest nations the world has ever known.
Of the 660 Nobel prizes from 1901-1990, 160 have been won by Jews. Jews have won more Nobel prizes than any other ethnicity. Statistically by population, based on the Nobel awards, Jews have been forty times the blessing to the world as other nations.
Jews discovered the polio vaccine, invented vitamins, a cure for syphillis, and gave the world antibiotics. On ANY list of the five greatest ANYthing; scientist, doctor, lawyer, financier, philanthropist, entertainer, political figure, business leader, inventor, philosopher or writer, one will find at least one Jew.
They dominate every industry, not, as the result of some nefarious “Jewish conspiracy” but in fulfillment of God’s promise that, in Abram’s children will all the nations of the world be blessed.
The other part of God’s covenant with Abram promised either blessings or cursings on other nations according to the way they either blessed or cursed Israel.
“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
The fruits of that promise are witnessed by a stroll through the Graveyard of Empires. The former empires of Babylon and Persia never lost their emnity for the Jew. Neither did the Arab empires that followed.
From Nebuchadnezzar to Saladin to Sueliman’s Ottoman Empire, the war against the Jew never abated. Today, most of those nations still live in the sixth century. The richest of them live in a desert.
The Spanish initially welcomed the Jew and Spain grew to be the largest empire on earth. In 1492, during the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish Jews were either expelled, forced to convert, or killed. Those who fled were welcomed by England.
In 1588, Elizabeth’s navy destroyed the Spanish Armada and the saying was born, “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” In 1923, the British double-crossed the Jews and re-wrote the Balfour Declaration. They occupied Palestine and restricted Jewish emigration.
By 1948, when the British, weary of years of fighting the Jewish insurgency, surrendered its mandate over Palestine, the British Empire was no more.
Since Israel’s re-birth in 1948, the United States has been her most loyal, (and in some cases, only) protector against the combined forces of the Arab world and the will of the openly anti-semitic United nations.
During that same period in history, the United States emerged from the Great Depression as the most powerful, most prosperous nation the world had ever seen.
Since 9/11, and particularly since the beginning of combat operations in the Middle East, the United States has quietly begun distancing itself from Israel in an effort to appease the Islamic world.
Although Israel hails him as a ‘great friend of the Israeli people’ George Bush has never set foot on Israeli soil in six years in office.
The Bush administration’s peace plans have grown increasingly favorable to the Arab side, to the point of endorsing the creation of an openly-terrorist Palestinian state on Israel’s shrinking and almost indefensible borders.
The further America moves away from Israel in its effort to appease the Islamic world, the more dangerous a world America finds herself in.
There are enemies on all sides and enemies within. The world’s undisputed and only superpower six years ago, the further we distance ourself from Israel, the weaker and more vulnerable we appear in the eyes of our enemies.
Every diplomatic move away from supporting Israel triggers a new Law of Unintended Consequences that makes our situation more precarious. And now we are entertaining ‘Madrid-2’ — a European-based plan to impose peace on Israel, whether Israel likes it or not.
Now, let’s review the Baker plan again:
We’ll invite Iran and Syria — but exclude Israel — to a conference to discuss ways to impose a peace plan on Israel that will win Arab support for America’s interests in Iraq. Iran and Syria are Israel’s two deadliest and most implacable enemies.
For that reason, Baker decided that excluding Israel represents, “a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure.”
(It reminds me of a wolf-pack justifying denying a vote on what’s for supper to the sheep.)
My objective here is not to advocate for a political solution. I am an observer. My mission is to observe and report and offer analysis of what it means for us as believers trying to understand the signs of the times.
And to demonstrate why what appears to be impending chaos to the world should be signs of hope for those who believe and love His soon appearing.
It is another evidence that we are not following “cunningly devised fables” but are instead eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of ancient prophecies that signal the impending return of Christ for His Church.
Prophecy: God promised He would bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.
Observation: History bears out the fact that God keeps His promises.
“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I WILL COME AGAIN AND RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YE MAY BE ALSO.” (John 14:1-3)
Analysis: Let not your heart be troubled. It means He will keep this promise, too.