Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q

[warch]

Bashing Bush is soooo 2003.

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Both agree: Rumsfeld needs to go, now. Holbrook wants to devise a way out of Iraq civil war and regroup/strategize the enire region ASAP, Keep Afghanistan on the front burner, ramp up diplomacy, turn away from Rumsfeld's errors. Staying will do nothing but result in more US deaths and debt and is worse than the political embarassment of starting to pull out.
Kristol is not ready to give up and shift yet on Iraq, pushing for 30K more troops to stabilize Bagdad. Pulling out is a still worse outcome, embolding the enemy than staying.

http://www.charlierose.com/
they promise an online video soon.

[Elspode]

Rumsfeld *and* Bush will go when the last possible dollar has been bled from public coffers, and not before. Haliburton should declare itself to be either a religion or a government any day now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Nightline once did this stuff (Nightline now being too much like a Barbara Walter's interview).

Kristol has been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for well over a year now. Interesting reason why: Rumsfeld is too attached to a failed strategy. Rumsfeld (just like McNamara) is a marvelous thinker. But just like McNamara, he is not able to admit his massive failures. Kristol said that even George Jr is starting to realize this.

The strategic concept that Rumsfeld inherited was flawed - although Kristol will not openly admit this (nor outrightly deny it). Kristol says Rumsfeld's own tactical objectives and how he has engaged those objectives is also flawed - because of Rumsfeld.

Notice troop increases that Kristol calls for. 40,000 troops in Iraq. And yet Holbrook uses lessons of the Balkans to demonstrate how many troops were really needed: 500,000 to 600,000.

Both men agree that the US will never put sufficient troops into Iraq. And both men agree that the consequences of total withdrawal will be disastrous. However these are same reasons for not withdrawing from Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam, the status quo is a formula for defeat - Holbrook repeatedly used the word untenable. And just like in Vietnam, both men agreed (by their silence) that neither has a workable solution outside of more troops.

Holbrook made one other point that I have heard previously - that raised an ear. From two UNPO reports in July:

The dangerously neglected looming conflict in and around the northern Iraqi city [Kirkuk] is equal parts street brawl over oil riches; ethnic competition over identity between Kurdish, Turkoman, Arab and Assyrian-Chaldean communities; and titanic clash between two nations, Arab and Kurd.

Within a year, therefore, Kurds will face a basic choice: to press ahead with the constitutional mechanisms over everyone’s resistance and risk violent conflict, or take a step back and seek a negotiated solution.

Stepping back to a more strategic perspective, Holbrook noted that every capital from Cairo to New Delhi is only one bomb away from total war. This region has never been this unstable. Although every potential hotspot is equally dangerous, Holbrook noted the one location that has a connection to most potential disputes: Iran.

What is the greatest challenge to America? China. Why? Because of a severe decline of US presence and influence throughout the world. What Holbrook did not say, and yet what should be obvious: China is simply doing what America once did to become so powerful, influential, and so welcome everywhere in the world.

Kristol, a founding member of Project for New American Century that in part defines US policy in terms of securing oil sources at all cost, often surprises by being more pragmatic. Holbrook has always been one of the most interesting strategic thinkers I have even heard. Remember, Holbrook got Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. When Wesley Clark tried to continue that task, Clark could not do it. Holbrook had to be recalled from retirement.

I did not realize how much I missed Charlie Rose until his heart attack in Paris - especially with the pathetic staff that replaced Koppel. Only other place to get any such analysis is George Stephanopolis' round table or Russert interviews. The discussion with Holbrook, Kristol, etc are hard to find and essential to understanding the world.

I wish Gingrich had been there. Gingrich is better than Kristol at grasping pragmatic realities. Maybe Gringrich could have defined an exit strategy - or at least define a strategic objective for Iraq. As both Holbrook and Kristol noted by their silence (and they danced around this issue), we don't even have a strategic objective in Iraq which is a first step to defeat - another lesson from Vietnam and Somolia. Another reason why the US (Nato) was so successful in the Balkans.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Rumsfeld *and* Bush will go when the last possible dollar has been bled from public coffers,

Appreciate the relations of senior staff. Rumsfeld is and has long been a loyal ally to Cheney. This is really a Cheney White House. Rumsfeld will not go without Cheney's specific approval. And Rumsfeld has inherited a failed strategic objective because that objective is the Cheney doctrine. Cheney depends heavily on Rumsfeld. The two are very loyal allies. Notice how even Condi Rice is extremely careful to no cross swords with these two men.

[warch]

Holbrook stated that he believed there was no longer a possible military solution/strategy for Iraq. Kristol was the optimist, but you could see his sweat. We dont have the troops to pursue the current greatly expanded mission.

Shit. So which bad outcome is better? When do you lose a battle to win a war?

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

Holbrook stated that he believed there was no longer a possible military solution/strategy for Iraq. Kristol was the optimist, but you could see his sweat. We dont have the troops to pursue the current greatly expanded mission.

I was grasping to understand why each man thought we could not provide enough troops. I was struck - and I am not sure I got this right - that both agreed we neither have enough troops nor do we have the political will to put enough troops into Iraq. If I understood what they were saying, they both agreed fully on that point.

Shit. So which bad outcome is better? When do you lose a battle to win a war?

Welcome to the Vietnam conundrum. The one thing I remember about Vietnam was the despair even as "The Whole World is Watching" in Chicago and again at Kent State. We have not yet achieved that despair. As Holbrook continued to comment, ie Kirkuk, that despair may be approaching quickly. I think he exaggerated. But it is Holbrook which means we must pay attention.

It was one of the reasons why we so need someone like Clinton back in office. He saw that problem in Somalia and had the balls to avoid that quagmire before we got in too deep. Most people have little grasp of how Clinton so successfully avoided quagmire in both the Balkans and Somalia. Too many would not see how close we came (or could have come) to disaster in both situations. But what is most interesting - who was doing so much of the strategic thinking? Holbrook.

Holbrook was a master at using the carrot and stick - skillfully used military force as a negotiating tool. Did not use the military as a solution - but only one tool in getting Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. It was (only) part of that Bugs Bunny reference.

[tw]

Add to the despair, this from The Economist of 12 Aug 2006:

Mayhem in the south too
The noise of a mortar round, like an incoming train, startles a bunch of contractors and aid workers waiting for their helicopter flight out of the British diplomatic compound in Basra, sending them and your correspondent scrambling for cover. This - and the array of other projectiles that have whizzed over the riverside palace complex in the past few nights - is presumed to be the Mahdi Army's revenge for the arrest of their local commander by British soldiers a few days before.

It is very different from two years ago, when British diplomats would happily cool down on the banks of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, since walled off by the concrete barriers that are ubiquitous across Iraq. The Shia-populated southern provinces used to be relatively safe. Not now. The violence in Basra, the south's capital, still pales by comparison with many other parts of Iraq, especially the Sunni areas to the west of Baghdad and the sectarian tinderbox of Iraq's capital. Even at its worst, in mid-summer, the bloodshed in Basra, caused largely by Islamist Shia militias feuding among themselves, claimed about 20 lives a week, according to the police, and now probably accounts for half that figure

Instability and violence is only increasing everywhere - even in Basara. Even in the US, logical thought is being replaced by interpretation based upon feelings and facts generated from propaganda. Deja Vue Vietnam where we met the enemy and he is us.

[Hippikos]

Ueber-neocon Kristol from the Weakly Standard wants war with Iran, NOW!

He predicted that US troops would be welcomed by the Iraqi's with flowers and mirre.

Reagan had these neocons blabbering to him also, but he had the guts to negotiate with Gorbachov when the chance was there. If the world was according the neocons there would be still a Cold War around...

Kristol and his gang need to STFU, NOW!

[9th Engineer]

tw, refer back to my post on why I didn't answer your questions. Since then I have been doing more research both Hezbollah and Hamas but the differences were not of the sort that changed my opinions. Most of them involve what group of people they are trying to wipe off the face of the Earth and their area of operation. Both are extemely vocal in their wish to kill all Americans and this has only changed from time to time to keep the U.S. from halting aid. In fact, now more than ever I think that both groups need to be destroyed. Any group that states genocide as its reason for existance should be removed from power no matter where in the world they operate.

[warch]

Kristol and his gang need to STFU, NOW!

The neoconservative agenda needs to be challenged and called out. That was what was refreshing about the program. Even though I do not agree with Kristol, I do feel that both he, Holbrook and Rose are ultimately on my side. (I'm thinking he would frown on my being "honor killed" or acid doused for daring to contradict my husband or father's religion. ) I am more interested in challenging and changing his suggested tactics than shutting him out. (this desire also countering the neocon playbook)

We need to get a lot smarter about this.

[Hippikos]

The neocons have highjacked US foreign policy with all the consequences now being seen in the ME. Cheney, rumsfeld, Feith, Ledeen, Abram, Wolfowitz, Perl are calling the shots with their Pax Americana and turning the ME into a powder keg which will set the world on fire. They are on your side, but at what cost?

Read this Clean Break Document. Strategy for a Greater Israel. Look who wrote the document and all becomes clear.

[9th Engineer]

His vision at this point includes living in a room in the basement, eating his parents food, and playing video games for the rest of his life.

As hard is it might be you probably need to give him an ultimatum and a timeline for either moving into his own apartment or returning to school. The longer he sits around the harder it will be to change later on. I suffer from chronic depression myself and it's nearly impossible to make tough decisions it that state. By taking the burden on yourself and forcing him to confront himself you, in a sense, relieve him of the pressure holding him down and give him a better chance to take control of himself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Since then I have been doing more research both Hezbollah and Hamas but the differences were not of the sort that changed my opinions. Most of them involve what group of people they are trying to wipe off the face of the Earth and their area of operation. Both are extemely vocal in their wish to kill all Americans and this has only changed from time to time to keep the U.S. from halting aid.

You have been visiting too many extremist sources. Hamas, in particular, has long had a strong 'hands off Americans' policy. AIPAC will do everything possible to obfuscate that fact. But again, can you see through the fog of propaganda to find a structure?

The Middle East has long been a complicated morass of so many with different agendas. Whereas bin Laden was an American ally, he then became an American enemy sometime after an event that changed the world: 1 Aug 1990.

Appreciate, for example, why the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon did so much damage to American influence and respect in the Middle East. Appreciate why US Marines were attacked in their Beirut barracks. Why would those who talk to Americans then attack those same Americans (and why those Marines were not allowed to load their guns)? Again, nothing ‘black and white’ about it. And yet so many Americans will proclaim with hatred and a political agenda that *they* were always trying to kill Americans in Lebanon.

Who was spying for America in Iraq in the 1990s? Syria. Again, in a world of 'black and white', you might deny this reality. But again, the Middle East is fabulously complex. To simplify it for the cannon fodder, some (ie AIPAC) will proclaim repeatedly that Hezbollah and Hamas want to kill Americans. If they say it enough, it then is confused with facts. Instead, we cut through those lies and propaganda to find reality.

Same reason why Ho Chi Minh, a strong American ally, somehow became the hated enemy. Propaganda again hyping hate to the cannon fodder. Don't be cannon fodder. Keep digging; keep learning. You are now doing what is necessary for a minimal grasp of this fabulously complex region that we stuck our nose into. This quagmire has sucked us in by our nose because too many Americans blindly saw the world only in 'black and white' - exactly like Vietnam. Too many Americans are such cannon fodder as to say, “Rush says what has to be said”. An informed person knows otherwise – can separate propaganda from reality and from their real intentions.

For example, an informed person back in 2002 could obviously see that Saddam was never a threat to America. That Saddam had absolutely no interest in conflict with America. That Saddam had been doing everything possible to be an American ally – until completely blindsided by his Kuwait mistake. Meanwhile so many Americans knew otherwise; facts be damned.

The world did not change on 11 September. The world changed 1 Aug 1990. Understanding the complexity and a complete reversal even in American public attitudes is necessary to appreciate why that date is so important.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

The neoconservative agenda needs to be challenged and called out. That was what was refreshing about the program. Even though I do not agree with Kristol, I do feel that both he, Holbrook and Rose are ultimately on my side.

We need to get a lot smarter about this.

Kristol started with what looked like it would be a tirade against liberals, and then eventually backed into a centrist type discussion. Once the Bugs Bunny agenda had been settled, then Kristol returned to a type of Kristol who is more interesting - without his political agenda. Same type of Kristol was an early promoter for the removal of Rumsfeld - because he also provided reasons with his declaration.

Holbrook also made an interesting comment about being on such good terms with Gingrich and with Kristol's father. I don't think it was an idle comment which might be why Kristol started with a touch of venom. But again, the show was an hour. It takes that long to discuss any minor aspect of the Middle East - which is why short posts on this topic are so often nothing more than propaganda tirades. Which is why Nightline is now a flawed program.

[Hippikos]

That Saddam had been doing everything possible to be an American ally – until completely blindsided by his Kuwait mistake. Meanwhile so many Americans knew otherwise; facts be damned.

Which mistake most likely was emphasized by the fact that Saddam talked to the US Ambassador Glaspie a week before the Kuwait invasion and informed her about it. She clearly said that the Kuwait issue was not associated with America.

transcript:

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles).

As tw says, keep digging and you'll learn that nothing is as it seems...

Irving Kristol's motive in promoting a global American crusade is not to expand America's democratic ideology, since that is now officially defunct, but simply to expand America's power, along with his own power as the chief theorist and architect of this adventure. Indeed, now that they’ve given up even the pretense of the noble beliefs that they have loudly professed for the last several decades, what else is there?

The world did not change on 11 September.

It did for the neocons. Neoconservatism went into something of a slump after the demise of the U.S.S.R. because the U.S. had lost its ideological rival and main reason for international crusading; and that the September 11th attack, by forcing America back into the international arena in a more active and expansive role than ever, is the fulfilment of the neocons' deepest needs, particularly their need for power.