Charlie Rose

taleiran  06/14/2011 01:51 AM Report

"Palestinians want dignity, and that's why Israeli military effort to stop the conflict doesn't work." So, withdrawing from Gaza and letting the Palestinians there to govern themselves should have solved the problem in Gaza and shown the way to the future peaceful co-existence. One could only wish Mr. Ignatius were correct in his views. I am afraid however that his reasoning about other conflicts is similarly superficial.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/09/2011 10:06 PM Report

Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and a great voice. Yes!

"The Special Forces will be "chopped" to the CIA." Chopped is an interesting verb here. More on that. I am having trouble finding a reason why you would chop them.

So under Title 10 we use Special Forces to fight wars and then under Title 50 Special Forces become spies?

"The essence of intelligence is about lies. If it were legal and above board you wouldn't need the CIA to do it." Yes, then "Spooks" is a good name for them and Amy Carter is right.

"The CIA is not there to run paramilitary ops; they are there to be spies and get secrets that save people's lives." Well then we need to change Title 50.

"We (the United States) are not world class liars." Really? From where I sit I feel a barrage of lies. Interesting he mentions the ISI--they really suck at it.

Yes, we do excel at technology in our spycraft and that is probably why bin Laden used couriers.

REMant  06/09/2011 11:44 AM Report

The Post is running a write-a-spy-novel with Ignatius contest, I see. However, I'm burned out on spy novels. I started trying to catch up on Le Carre, got only half way though The Mission Song and gave up on it. I don't really think the James Bond's of this world really accomplish very much anyway. At least not now when nothing is secret anymore.

But I certainly agree with him about the Near East. We simply don't understand the "shame culture." We ought to, because we've come up against it before, in Germany, Japan and Vietnam, with the Latin Americans, in the our own South, and among many of our African-American population, and with the Indians before that. But I'm sure we don't. They certainly don't at the Post. Shame is the wrong word tho and the language surrounding this is terribly confused. Such ppl are what our ancestors would have called jealous, that is, concerned with respect and disrespect. They can be as loving as they can be defensive, but they don't mess with other ppl unnecessarily. While they are concerned about losing face or honor, they don't respond to the kind of social pressure which WE call shaming, because they are not envious or concerned with status or affection, the way our liberal society is. Unlike either of these are those who adhere to ideas of justice, and feel neither disrespect, nor shame, but guilt. It seems to me tho that this position is usually an outgrowth of concern for respect, rather than of envy, and what we often call shame with regard to the Japanese and Germans, is actually a kind of guilt, what, I believe, the French call honnete. It was this, BTW, I surmise, which made the occupation of those places so different from other such situations.