-
It is very hard to develop and carry out viable foreign policy unless you look at the world through the eyes of foreign countries and their leaders.
Just think of our most recent past. The US saw Iraq WMDs as a threat by Saddam to other countries, meanwhile he kept up the facade of having them as a means of hanging on to his power. The Administration kept arguing that if he had given them up he would certainly say so. Assumptions and presumptions are very dangerous.
Posted at January 22, 2007 5:04 PM in response to Why Are We So Lousy at Foreign Policy?
-
having the ideology of the movement first and limiting participants to those whose share that ideology
Daniel, I agree with the need for some overarching ideology but disagree with setting some condition for participation. The ideology is the attraction, exclusion is the wrong thing.
Posted at January 21, 2007 4:07 PM in response to Institutions Talk, Enthusiasm Walks
-
Here's the link to the Geo Packer article in question. I found it interesting and relevant to what is should be going on in Iraq. The main character in the article is now buried in the State Dept. and his boss just left State.
Some discussion of the Packer artile in cscs post on Foreign Policy Table.
Posted at January 14, 2007 10:04 AM in response to Note from Flynt Leverett: Most Important Parts of Bush Speech About Iran -- Not Iraq
-
Would the gear and personnel be useful if the goal was to be prepared for a move blocking some waterway by Iran or some terrorist group??
Posted at January 13, 2007 7:34 AM in response to Note from Flynt Leverett: Most Important Parts of Bush Speech About Iran -- Not Iraq
-
TJ -
Consider reading about the subject of who joins and why. What passes for conventional wisdom is less than wise.
This cscs Foreign Policy table thread deals with the subject and in particular a Geo. Packer article. cscs' blog has some additional highlights.
Posted at January 12, 2007 2:43 PM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms
-
Howard - a related but separate question for you or others who know the military.
Is it true that about command for Iran? I just saw a report dated Oct 2006:
command responsibility for Iran. This has been shifted from Central Command (which has its hands full with Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan) to Strategic Command located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The effect is that the US’ strategic global deterrence missile and bomber assets are now directly engaged in the Iran question, without the distractions of ongoing land operations in the region.
If so, how does this matter to this discussion in terms of US intention and military planning and operations coordination?
Posted at January 12, 2007 2:27 PM in response to Note from Flynt Leverett: Most Important Parts of Bush Speech About Iran -- Not Iraq
-
Libertine - fyi. The Red Sox have a new fan in Baghdad, the ambassador.
Personally he sounds interesting:
Crocker is also an unassuming diplomat in a profession known for its dapper suits and fancy dress.
He drove a pickup truck in Washington, and Crocker coined the term "no socks required" to describe attire at parties he and his wife host.
Posted at January 11, 2007 5:28 PM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms
-
Who's behind the Iran and Syria part of the speech, per Andrew Sullivan:
I have a feeling that this is less a Rove speech than a Cheney speech. I don't believe Cheney thinks this anemic gesture is a game-changer. Even he hasn't become that unhinged. So what else can it mean?
My gut tells me that this speech was, in fact, a serious military warning to Syria and Iran. This president may have in mind a future escalation far greater and more explosive than anything we're doing in Baghdad. The real reason we're not withdrawing is that we are keeping our options open for a wider war. And the president, as always, is not being honest about his real intentions.
Posted at January 11, 2007 2:00 PM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms
-
Analysis of Syria and Iran from Steve Clemons:
Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?
Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.
.... Some are suggesting that the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action.
....Bush may really have pushed the escalation pedal more than any of us realize.
Posted at January 11, 2007 1:51 PM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms
-
To envision the geography and demographics of Baghdad military operations check out the colored map in the linked Economist article. The map shows neighborhoods as mainly Sunni, mainly Shia, turning Sunni and turning Shia.
An interesting note about what has helped in the past and which is not true in Baghdad:
These tactics have had success in some areas, particularly rural towns where American forces can monitor access routes and where tribal chiefs know what is happening.
Posted at January 11, 2007 1:20 PM in response to Bush’s Iraq Speech: Analysis On Its Own Terms
