- Description
A look at General David Petraeus and the mission in Afghanistan with Max Boot of The Council on Foreign Relations and Julian Barnes of "The Wall St. Journal"
- Keywords:
- Middle East
- Obama
- Iraq
- Afghanistan
- Petraeus
In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11151
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
salgadoce 08/05/2010 01:35 AM Report
If the Max Boots of the world are the ones giving advice to our generals with regards to the war, then it makes perfect and total sense that the US military and the State Department have made negligible progress in Afghanistan in the last 9 years.
According to Boot, we need only tweak the 'strategy' a little bit here and there; what the war in AfPak needs is a cosmetic make-over, says he.
I scoff in your general direction!
robdverity 08/04/2010 06:04 PM Report
Cogent RE. What can you expect from the WSJ? Read conjecture somewhere that Patraeus a la Ike could be Obama's opponent 2012. Why not? We get off on war, may as well have a General at the helm (oops, or do helms need Admirals?).
REMant 08/04/2010 01:49 PM Report
I don't know but that the Taliban, itself, doesn't offer "decent, accountable governance," however a lot of ppl think the Karzai govt doesn't, so perhaps we are fighting on the wrong side. Boot is obviously too young to have known anything of Vietnam. We did precisely those things there, and persuaded ourselves we were winning the "battle for hearts and minds". Zardari is in Paris and London right now saying that we are, instead, losing, and he and Karzai need still more support. I don't know that any war is thrust on anyone, and if anything they used the US as "a base to attack us." It is not clear the same would not happen again were we to make Afghanistan the 51st state. But it is clear ppl like him hope that after the election Obama will extend the campaign there, and they may be right. I wouldn't trust him, and history is clearly on my side. I don't know why it is that presidents think veteran's groups are good audiences for their war pronouncements. The groups, may, perhaps, support them, but as they represent only a handful of veterans, largely, in fact, because of this, it is misleading at best.