Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
03/19/2008
Les Gelb
A discussion about the war in Iraq with Les Gelb
Keywords:
A discussion about the war in Iraq on the five year anniversary of the invasion with Les Gelb, former correspondent for The New York Times and is currently President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relation.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
I don't think Les Gelb is angling for a job...he's too busy with grandsons and grand cats. Nice show on the 19th.
Charlie, your only frame of reference seems to be the New York Times. I can see you speed-reading the front page and formulating your questions for the guests. Do you have any original thoughts?
Brilliant show... just scintillating.
Gelb's comparison of Libya to Iran is a simplistic and mistaken one. His assumption that Iran is looking for some kind of economic deal with the U.S. is mistaken. Iran is an ideologically driven radical Muslim regime with a plan for world - conquest. Its attaining nuclear capability is a strategic goal it is not going to give up for some economic candy. It has China Russia and Europe as trade partners, and does not particularly need the United States.
Am I supposed to trust the CFR? Their goal:"national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." As an American citizen who believes in our country's sovereignty, I'm not sure I want a one-world rule. Back to Iraq: Get out now. Put the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds on notice that we are leaving. If they know we were serious about leaving, my opinion is they will split the artificial country that was created by the west called Iraq into three state/countries only staying together to share the oil revenues. But if they don't, so be it. It's their choice to come together and work together or start a civil war. Do you really believe the arabs in general would stop selling oil even during an Iraq civil war? I doubt that very much. CFR and the neocons, stop meddling in other nations' affairs. I thought the world would be a much better place after the fall of communism, but as long as we force our ideas on others, we ourselves will fall. Paulite
Geez Charlie can't you just let your guests that really have something to say, i.e. the Iraqi reporters, finish their sentences/thoughts. Finally some absolute truth about how the Iraqi's percieve us, as a contagion. No electricity/sanitation, etc. after 5 years, disgraceful. Most of the time you just repeat the same phrases as all the cable talking heads parrot. Give it a rest, stop the rudeness. lori
Your show on Wednesday March 16 was the best show Iâ??ve seen on the Iraq war. When will this country wake up and change our policy in this terrible mess.
The coulda, woulda, shoulda recriminations about Iraq at this point are futile jesters of jousting with windmills. The rehashing of past mistake has a purpose so that future mistakes won't happen, but we have exhausted that avenue of discussion. With Iraq what is now important is what we do today and what the direction will be in the future. Let the historians 50 years from today figure out the nuanced implications of GWs Iraq adventure.
Sorry Mr Gelb your angling for a National security job in a possible Democratic admin in 2009 was painful to watch. His comment that because the US had no strategic interest in Iraq, that our continued presence can't make it so, only looks at Iraq as if it were a stand alone problem. What Mr Gelb failed to state was the the US and world depend upon the source of energy that is produced in the region. As such the US and the world has a strategic interest in the stability of the region and Iraqs role in that picture. It may have been a failing of the Bush admin to get involved in Iraq in the fashion that it did however once you are stuck to a Tar Baby it is very difficult to get unstuck. Unfortunately anyone who steps into the Oval Office come January, 2009 will be faced the continuing problem of Iraq that just ain't gona go away. Also Mr Gelb mentions Iraq in the same breath as Vietnam. Again the world depends upon the energy supplied by the region and instability in Iraq threatens an uninterrupted supply of that energy, no such dependency existed upon rice from Vietnam.
Sorry Mr Gelb your angling for a National security job in a possible Democratic admin in 2009 was painful to watch. His comment that because the US had no strategic interest in Iraq, that our continued presence can't make it so, only looks at Iraq as if it were a stand alone problem. What Mr Gelb failed to state was the the US and world depend upon the source of energy that is produced in the region. As such the US and the world has a strategic interest in the stability of the region and Iraqs role in that picture. It may have been a failing of the Bush admin to get involved in Iraq in the fashion that it did however once you are stuck to a Tar Baby it is very difficult to get unstuck. Unfortunately anyone who steps into the Oval Office come January, 2009 will be faced the continuing problem of Iraq that just ain't gona go away. Also Mr Gelb mentions Iraq in the same breath as Vietnam. Again the world depends upon the energy supplied by the region and instability in Iraq threatens an uninterrupted supply of that energy, no such dependency existed upon rice from Vietnam.
Dagny Why are you still perpetuating the myth that something had to be done about Saddam at that time. Getting rid of Saddam wasn't the goal. Gaining control of his oil fields was. Saddam hadn't been developing WMDs, he hadn't been training terrorists, he wasn't carrying out ethnic cleansing or any wide spread violent suppression of his people and he wasn't invading any other countries. He quite simply was not a threat and nothing needed to be done about Saddam. That said, we could have worked with countries in the area to pressure him from the outside while opening channels on the inside to either get him to back down or undermine him but leave his government and military intact. In that way we could have prevented what has happened now.
Charlie, There is no shortage of guests who say that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Curiously, none of them ever says what they would have proposed to do about Saddam. Could you please ask them?
This Iraq anniversary show was the best. The situation there is so indicative of the mess America is in, from within her people and her government. And November won't really make any difference because they really don't run things, do they? "It IS the oil, stupid"...many of the Iraqis (and others)were fooled by our bait and switch policy (again). But I think we've finally bitten off more than we can chew this time; the idiots running the asylum have seen to that. PLEASE keep finding these smart people with common sense and the ability to not only state the problem, but come up with reasonable answers, and put them on the air. We are desperate for honest and sensible discussion and action...
RE Mant - I thought I was agreeing with you until this: "The attitude before our ill-starred invasion was that the oil was more important than anything else, and the rest had to be put up with. I'm afraid it was the correct policy." REALLY? We'll risk losing more oil hegemony than we will ever gain. Or perhaps I'm missreading it all.
There must be some substantive diff between Sunnis and Shiites, enough to make them loathe each other, and they are not equal in strength, so I think that no Federal govt could possibly endure anymore than ours did under similar circumstances. All the checks and balances made no diff in 1860. More likely civil war will break out when we leave and it will involve other nations on both sides. If that happens much of the world's oil will be lost for at least the duration, if not for much longer. The Russians, and even the Chinese, may well become involved as well. The only chance negotiations would have is if all those Arab nations agree to and guarantee a peace. Can you see the Saudis and Iranians doing that? If they don't we might as well drop atomic bombs on Mecca and Tehran, and Jerusalem, to boot. The attitude before our ill-starred invasion was that the oil was more important than anything else, and the rest had to be put up with. I'm afraid it was the correct policy. I think the idea that there are liberals, or even nationalists, just waiting for a chance to emerge from oppression in any of these nations was wrong five years ago, and no more right today. Were it not for the oil I'd be willing to let them all fight 'til doomsday.
Charlie, Richard, Ali ... We have heard from Richard Perle's inner circle of John Hopkins Iraqis that they regret the Neocon "push" to remake Iraq. Why hasn't the Charlie Rose show invited "Curveball" author and LA Times journalist Bob Drogin to comment on today's anniversary? If Colin Powell and the American people had listened to the C-span interview ... http://podcast.rbn.com/cspan/cspan/download/podaudio/qa111807.mp3 What do you think would have been the approach to Saddam in a post-9/11 America?