Charlie Rose

ShalomFreedman  06/25/2009 04:58 AM Report

I waited for Charlie Rose to ask a question about Iran and he did. The three commended the Obama Administration approach of not taking the lead or being seen as on the side of the opposition. I would also have appreciated Charlie Rose asking the three experts to give their assessment of the overall U.S. struggle in Afghanistan- Pakistan- Iraq- Iran , what its aims are, its likely price, and where it should be directed. As it is there is a sense of each area being treated in its own seperate way. It was interesting also that Thomas Ricks is pessimistic about Iraq and claims the Surge, however successful tactically did not solve any major problem. He seems to feel a Civil War will come at some point. As for Afghanistan- Pakistan I wonder why none of the experts spoke about what is conceivably the most difficult and dangerous issue, the Pakistani nuclear capability. Does the United States have any control here at all?

I frankly wonder whether the United States military involvement in these areas makes much sense. Perhaps I am completely wrong about this but I am not sure a democratic Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq is attainable. And if it were, what price in American lives should be paid for it? It seems to me the first interest the United States has in these areas is to prevent Terror coming from them at heartland U.S.A. That seems to be being done. Perhaps it can be done at a greater distance.

In the meantime backward fanatic North Korea waves its nuclear weapon in the face of the United States- Iran goes on cheating everyone in the world in its push for nuclear weapons; the great American friend the Saudis remain as corrupt and non- democratic as always. And the United States major policy innovation is preventing a few Israelis from building homes in the place they were born and grew up in.

It just all does not make much sense to me.

It all just does not make much

tartufe  06/25/2009 12:49 AM Report

Top nine weapons companies:

"Lockheed Martin, www.lockheedmartin.com

Boeing, www.boeing.com

Northrop Grumman, www.northgrum.com

General Dynamics, www.generaldynamics.com

Halliburton, www.halliburton.com

Raytheon, www.raytheon.com

United Technologies, www.utc.com

Science Applications International Corporation, www.saic.com

Computer Sciences Corporation, www.csc.com"

Opportunistic jingos go long; fools go short.

tartufe  06/25/2009 12:01 AM Report

I'm obsessed, frustrated at the magnitude of the M-I oligarchy, their power and control. A cherry-picked example: (Obama et al are powerless against the lobby power and money behind this juggernaut - even if he were inclined.)

"President Bush will leave office boasting that the United States has the most powerful and professional military machine in the world. We have paid dearly for this machine in the past seven-plus years. The bill for all that might and muscle comes to more than $3.8 trillion since 2001 -- plus another $900 billion plus for actually flexing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

"And if the U.S. military machine is now both oversized and staggeringly expensive, it is also more prone to breakdown in a more dangerous and unstable world. So think of George W. Bush's legacy to us as a Pentagon bloated almost beyond recognition and crippled by its dependence on private military corporations.

"As for Bush's legacy to the Lockheed Martins, the KBRs and the Pentagon's whole "Top 100" crew, it's been money beyond measure, enough to leave them all hard at work on Military Industrial Complex 3.0. They naturally want to make sure that the money continues to pour into their ever upgrading war machine, no matter who takes over the White House in 2009."

Black Water type surrogates are not going to give up these three (Iraq, Af. Pak.) cash cows.

Charlie's select(ed) guests will do their appointed tasks to keep Martin-Marietta, Raytheon, the supporting mercenaries et al slobbering approvingly over their 401Ks.

tartufe  06/25/2009 12:01 AM Report

I'm obsessed, frustrated at the magnitude of the M-I oligarchy, their power and control. A cherry-picked example: (Obama et al are powerless against the lobby power and money behind this juggernaut - even if he were inclined.)

"President Bush will leave office boasting that the United States has the most powerful and professional military machine in the world. We have paid dearly for this machine in the past seven-plus years. The bill for all that might and muscle comes to more than $3.8 trillion since 2001 -- plus another $900 billion plus for actually flexing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

"And if the U.S. military machine is now both oversized and staggeringly expensive, it is also more prone to breakdown in a more dangerous and unstable world. So think of George W. Bush's legacy to us as a Pentagon bloated almost beyond recognition and crippled by its dependence on private military corporations.

"As for Bush's legacy to the Lockheed Martins, the KBRs and the Pentagon's whole "Top 100" crew, it's been money beyond measure, enough to leave them all hard at work on Military Industrial Complex 3.0. They naturally want to make sure that the money continues to pour into their ever upgrading war machine, no matter who takes over the White House in 2009."

Black Water type surrogates are not going to give up these three (Iraq, Af. Pak.) cash cows.

Charlie's select(ed) guests will do their appointed tasks to keep Martin-Marietta, Raytheon, the supporting mercenaries et al slobbering approvingly over their 401Ks.

tartufe  06/25/2009 12:01 AM Report

I'm obsessed, frustrated at the magnitude of the M-I oligarchy, their power and control. A cherry-picked example: (Obama et al are powerless against the lobby power and money behind this juggernaut - even if he were inclined.)

"President Bush will leave office boasting that the United States has the most powerful and professional military machine in the world. We have paid dearly for this machine in the past seven-plus years. The bill for all that might and muscle comes to more than $3.8 trillion since 2001 -- plus another $900 billion plus for actually flexing it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

"And if the U.S. military machine is now both oversized and staggeringly expensive, it is also more prone to breakdown in a more dangerous and unstable world. So think of George W. Bush's legacy to us as a Pentagon bloated almost beyond recognition and crippled by its dependence on private military corporations.

"As for Bush's legacy to the Lockheed Martins, the KBRs and the Pentagon's whole "Top 100" crew, it's been money beyond measure, enough to leave them all hard at work on Military Industrial Complex 3.0. They naturally want to make sure that the money continues to pour into their ever upgrading war machine, no matter who takes over the White House in 2009."

Black Water type surrogates are not going to give up these three (Iraq, Af. Pak.) cash cows.

Charlie's select(ed) guests will do their appointed tasks to keep Martin-Marietta, Raytheon, the supporting mercenaries et al slobbering approvingly over their 401Ks.

tartufe  06/24/2009 11:03 PM Report

Simple solutions often and usually are the most efficient and effective - long term - as in "Depart now!" from all three countries. Our presence losses hearts and minds. Our absence will at least decelerate that loss.

Rationalizing sustaining our conflicts always seem to demand paragraphs, books, volumes, and (round table?) justification. AND PEOPLE DIE! AND PROFITS FLY! And people die! And profits fly! And people die! And people die.....

REMant  06/24/2009 05:56 PM Report

militarily, obviously

REMant  06/24/2009 05:55 PM Report

Military, I think this thing will be "won" only if Pakistan gets its army off the India border and pushes the Taliban into Afghanistan where the US and the allies are waiting for them. The Triage thing is exactly what didn't work in Vietnam, and I'm sure would not work here, though I agree that search-and-destroy (the patrols and air power strategy) is not going to be terribly effective either. It might be interesting to hear what old Vietnam hands, such as Colin Powell, think about this. From what I see on the web this report has moldy Rand study fingerprints all over it. Then there is the acknowledged, but ignored, fact that the "enemy" in Afghanistan is not at all a unitary entity. McChrystal, who was only graduated from West Point after Vietnam was over, may be concerned about the indiscriminate use of air power, and other stand-off tactics, but he does appear to have the idea that the mission is to convert the populace, if not to Christianity, then the civil religious equivalent of it. I think he would have more success bombing them back to the stone age than doing that. I agree that a civil war is probable in Iraq. What worries most about all three countries (and Iran, too) is the amount of corruption, which works against any sort of economic change.

antonino227  06/24/2009 03:41 PM Report

The ramifications of a precipitous withdraw of Afghanistan may be more devastating than any other option. Although, I deeply sympathize with the prevailing view in this forum, I cannot help but think pragmatically about how to rectify this current situation. I think that everybody on this panel generally agrees that the United States needs to exit from Afghanistan; however, the decision of how best to leave the country without inflicting the most damage is subjective. Thomas Ricks said in a previous conversation that there is no best solution to ending the U.S. adventures in the Middle East; essentially, we must choose between the least of the worst alternatives. So, I think it would be conducive to the debate to consider developing a comprehensive strategy, rather than just narrowly thinking about single issues.

tartufe  06/24/2009 12:56 PM Report

It occurs to me that CR is a victim of the media Stockholm Syndrome. His guests are at least 9:1 fomenters of the accepted war-for-fun-and-profit orthodoxy. Albeit guised in rational analysis and "wisdom." His keepers have him well in tow. Bloomberg and the M-I oligarchs demand it.

tartufe  06/24/2009 12:29 PM Report

What a feckless, wearisome, predictable bunch of puerile pricks espousing the accepted orthodoxy, promoting sustaining the conflict at all costs. Lives and costs be damned. Cutting our losses and leaving now would promote all the missions discussed on this show.

Feckless foiling for the M-I oligarchy by these sickening opportunists is discouraging and sad. The CS use of drones will embed at least three generations of anti-Americanism in Af-Pak. We are using the same tactics as the inter-Islamic terrorists by firing drones into funeral processions. We’ve become like the enemy - a la a perverted Stockholm syndrome. Nothing’s sacred.

These jingoes didn’t pass up the opportunity to build the case for sustaining (returning full-tilt to) Iraq.

Unwittingly, they exposed the only logical solution for both Af-Pak and Iraq. The inevitable civil conflicts in both sites upon our departure (no matter when that is), makes a voila DUH conclusion: the SOONER the better.

As far as the war on terrorism (a tactic not a war) plotting sites are world-wide. Yemen, Somalia, Darfur, N. Korea, Iran yadda, yadda. It’s not geography it’s an idea. Our arrogance and disdainful disregard for human life spreads the idea like a Swine flu pandemic.

And these foils (fools) coughed their sputum all over the CR media as their keepers and self-interests dictate - be it books, articles appearances, and profiteering. AND PEOPLE DIE! And people die. And people die. And people die.....