Quitting vs. winning

Baker-Hamilton-Chambelain-Daladier Commission Report was recently published, but I was in the process of setting up my blog at the new location, so I could not comment on it. Perhaps my view in regard to this report is obvious from the link I posted. James "F..k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker is true to himself. Somehow he ties surrender in Iraq to surrendering Israel. Truth be told, American surrender in Iraq is not going to be good for Israel, simply because defeat of Israel's main (and sometimes only) ally is not good for Israel. But these guys find it acceptable, in addition to surrender, to appease the modern Nazis at the expense of Israel. Back in 1938 the apeasers bargained away other country's territory and security without that country's participation. Nothing good came out of it. Nothing good will come out of any appeasement again.
On the other hand, here is an idea on how to win (via Old War Dogs):

Most of our readers know the story of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at Gettysburg. Ordered to hold Little Round Top at all costs, Chamberlain's 20th Maine fended off one attack after another. Finally, Chamberlain's men were nearly out of ammunition and it was clear they would not be able to withstand another assault. Prudence counseled retreat, but Chamberlain's orders forbade it. The Maine regiment could neither fall back nor stay where it was, so Chamberlain took the only course open to him: he told his men to fix bayonets and prepare to charge.

It strikes me that you, President Bush, are in a similar situation in Iraq. You know (if many liberals do not) that retreat is out of the question. Yet the status quo is untenable. Support for your administration's policy is evaporating. Iraq is being pacified too slowly if at all, and minor tinkering around the edges--a few more men, some more training of Iraqis--won't make much difference. You need a decisive stroke. You need to tip the table over. You need to attack.

Here is how you can do it. In late November, U.S. military sources revealed that they had found irrefutable evidence that Iran is arming the militias who are killing American soldiers:

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

So here is what you, President Bush, should do: take as a model the Cuban Missile Crisis. First John Kennedy, then Adlai Stevenson, laid before the world the evidence, in the form of aerial photographs, that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear arms in Cuba. The proof was taken as conclusive, and, consequently, the Kennedy administration's actions enjoyed universal support at home, and widespread support abroad.

Read the whole thing. Here is also the link to Old War Dogs post. While you are at it, don't miss this Michael Reagan's article.