Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1.    #1  
    Wonderful article.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f.../neocons200701

    Here are some juicy bits (all out of context .. for the context, read the article):

    Richard Perle:
    "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."
    "In the administration that I served," says Perle, who was an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan, there was a "one-sentence description of the decision-making process when consensus could not be reached among disputatious departments: 'The president makes the decision.'" Yet Bush "did not make decisions, in part because the machinery of government that he nominally ran was actually running him." That, I suggest, is a terrible indictment. Perle does not demur: "It is." Accepting that, he adds, is "painful,"

    David Frum:
    .. it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.
    "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that, although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

    Kenneth Adelman:
    I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.
    "The looting was the decisive moment," Adelman says. "The moment this administration was lost was when Donald Rumsfeld took to the podium and said, 'Stuff happens. This is what free people do.' It's not what free people do at all: it's what barbarians do. Rumsfeld said something about free people being free to make mistakes. But the Iraqis were making 'mistakes' by ruining their country while the U.S. Army stood there watching!"
    The looting, he adds, "totally discredited the idea of democracy, since this 'democracy' came in tandem with chaos." Worst of all, "it demolished the sense of the invincibility of American military power. That sense of invincibility is enormously valuable when you're trying to control a country. It means, 'You **** with this guy, you get your head blown off.' All that was destroyed when the looting began and was not stopped.
    "the most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and Jerry [Paul] Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here. These are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."
    "Rumsfeld has said that the war could never be lost in Iraq; it could only be lost in Washington. I don't think that's true at all. We're losing in Iraq."

    Danielle Pletka, a Middle East expert at the America Enterprise Institute:
    I think that even though the president remains rhetorically committed to the idea of what he calls his 'freedom agenda,' it's over," she says. "It turns out we stink at it. And we don't just stink at it in Iraq. We stink at it in Egypt. And in Lebanon. And in the Palestinian territories. And in Jordan. And in Yemen. And in Algeria. And everywhere else we try at it.

    James Woolsey:
    Since 2003, U.S. forces have "fought 'search-and-destroy' instead of 'clear-and-hold,'" he says, contrasting the ineffective strategy of hunting down insurgents to the proven one of taking territory and defending it. "There's never been a successful anti-insurgency campaign that operated according to search-and-destroy, because bad guys just come back in after you've passed through and kill the people that supported you," Woolsey explains. "How the U.S. government's post-fall-of-Baghdad planning could have ignored that history of Vietnam is stunning to me." But Rumsfeld and Bush were never willing to provide the high troop levels that Woolsey says are necessary for clear-and-hold.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Wonderful article.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f.../neocons200701


    Kenneth Adelman:
    I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.

    Dysfunctional. That pretty well sums up this administration, and everything it's done in its foreign policy for the last 6 years.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  3.    #3  
    It was very interesting to read how the neo-cons are COMPLETELY disowning the administration. They are vicious in their evaluation of the president.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    It was very interesting to read how the neo-cons are COMPLETELY disowning the administration. They are vicious in their evaluation of the president.
    A very interesting article, it should be an eye-opener for some of the supporters of Bush and his policies. Whatever side you are on, read the article.

    It is obvious by now that conducting the war in Iraq the way the Bush admin did was a sad mistake. However, leaving Iraq in the mess it is now may also be a mistake. The article quoted ends with: "All the neocons are adamant that, however hard it may be, stabilizing Iraq is the only option. The consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, they say, would be far worse. Listening to them make this argument, I cannot avoid drawing a deeply disturbing conclusion. One of the reasons we are in this mess is that the neocons' gleaming pre-war promises turned out to be wrong. The truly horrifying possibility is that, this time, they may be right."

    Unfortunately, I cannot see a way how Iraq can be stabilised at this point in time. Too much damage is already done, too many soldiers killed, too much money spent, no additional resources available.

    Will the Shiite-Sunni conflict in Iraq escalate into an international Shiite-Sunni war? The Saudis have already made clear that they will not tolerate the Shiites in Iraq taking power and that they will support the Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #5  
    An oversimplified but still interesting option would be to split the country of iraq into sections - sunni and shiite. period.

    we are never going to get both sides of agree or even agree to disagree without violence, so let's cut the cord and begin to build separate sovereign entities in which they are free to live however they choose.

    not easy, I know. how do we split the intermixed peoples without one side feeling as if they were forced off their homes or property?

    not at all easy. this is truly a mess..
    I gotta have more cowbell
  6.    #6  
    Read about the partition of British India into India and Pakistan to get an idea on how horrific this process can be.

    Estimates of the number of deaths vary from two hundred thousand to a million. Many scholars have settled upon the nice round figure of 1 million

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia...partition.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ion/html/1.stm
    Look at
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ion/html/7.stm
    Those are vultures on the rooftops.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A

Posting Permissions