![]() |
|
Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
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. Last edited by tw; 08-15-2006 at 01:56 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|