Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  06/19/2011 09:15 PM Report

Hey, John, .."Happy Father's Day!"

I see you've acknowledged the American baby: "..a team as decent as ourselves"

That's nicely written, ..that is exactly what we have been delivered!

Your "afterbirth", though, ..about socialism having retreated, ..and capitalism being a "contradiction" instead of a reality, ..well, ..I'll just keep my eyes on the prize:

We are a nation "..as decent as ourselves".

In a democracy, ..we have no one else to blame!

JohnGelles  06/18/2011 06:09 AM Report

Can we compare Admiral Mullen to General George Marshal?

Marshal's was the military voice that joined with the political trio of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill to defeat Germany and Japan -- at a time when victory in war was the only way out of the human debacle created when the powers of bombs, ideology and money combined with the accidents of history to threaten civilization with a reign of terror that might have lasted a century instead of just a decade.

Mullen's voice is not the voice of war -- because we are, relative to comparison with WWII, still at peace.

..... (The potential damage that a WW III would inflict is far greater now than then. But the powers of ideology and money have dwindled -- while the power of bombs has escalated a million-fold or more.)

The ideologies of socialism and fascism have retreated out of sight. But capitalism and its contradictions remain. Money runs out -- but the things that money buys do not run out. And the resulting unemployment and people in desperate need do not run out. We are left with some of the debacle we started with -- originally based on Malthusian recognition of overpopulation.

In all events, tonight, June 17, not 16, we heard the voice of Alan Greenspan, speaking gibberish, not Admiral Mullen's concern for the 1% who fight our wars with weapons that can nearly extinguish earth in an instant.

Puzzled we all are. Because President Obama is no FDR or TR. He is more like Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover than is good for us. We need to prevent money from running out. After all is nothing more than the arithmetic of supply and demand. They have not run out -- except their monetization -- which is critical.

Optimistic we all must be.

Thanks to Arapaport for those words and his comment. We are until we recruit a team as decent as ourselves, the world's defender of human rights (to which we must add great emphasis to economic rights). For such defense, money will be found -- and, as I've said, it's not even missing when we look to supply and suppliers, and match demand to their output.

Arapaport  06/16/2011 01:01 AM Report

Thank you Charlie for another great interview. I like Mr Mullen and thank him for his many years in service and representing our country.

A pro active approach of eliminating terror where ever it be is based on a cost effective strategy. Fighting on foreign lands and creating havoc there keeps terrorists on the move and insures terrorist hosting countries pay dearly. Instead of US insecurity, instability and financial unpredictability.

The problem with this approach is cost and objective. Can this government maintain a growing military budget and Can we win this war on Terror?

Even at a time of budget cuts and decreasing American support due to difficult economy I dont think the issue will be budget. My main concern is objective, is it possible to eliminate terror?

All indications show there is real, sincere and great hatred between many in Muslim/Arab countries and US/Western countries. Many Muslims/Arabs are great and work with US and believe in the US cause but they are not powerful enough to discharge teachers, Imams and Sheiks that openly call to destroy America. Instead, our Arab friends find ways to accommodate these extremists in government, law, education and military.

To win this war we need our Arab/Muslim partners to face the Muslim Jihadists ideology of terror head on. Leaders must condemn acts of violence and outcast hard line Islamic teachings and teachers. They need to teach how to build not destroy, think and investigate not believe.

I dont see us getting this critically needed approach from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen not to mention countries we may need to face in the future due to this strategy.

I am puzzled and worried yet still optimistic.

We need an A team panel to tackle this issue

robdverity  06/15/2011 06:06 PM Report

On the real issue of the times - Pals n Israel - he offered nothing. The cesspool of potential geopolitical probs. well in excess of Af-Pak. Alas, less MI profit?

robdverity  06/15/2011 04:53 PM Report

Great personality psych tabs. All in all tho Mullens was a ho-hum when measured by anything unexpected. Party jingoism as required of his position.

His assertion that if we left Af-Pak, we would have to go back within ten years was revealing. Like all jingos, he can't let a good war go wanting. There's prob. more real terrorists in Yemen, Somalia et al than Af-Pak, but our ego is secure (so far) as we have not stumbled into their waiting quagmire YET (but be patient, give us time - a la Libya).

As said prev. - you don't have to have your head in your butt, but it seems to help. (Prob. a MI complex prerequisite.)

tabs  06/15/2011 03:11 PM Report

One can readily see why Admiral Mullen climbed trough the ranks of the DOD to the pinnacle of command. Admiral Mullen combines a personable affability with an almost unflappable intellectual rationality that betrays little if any emotion in his decision making. Only several times did the Admiral betray emotion in his discourse and that was discerned by the delivery speed of his words. Further the good Admiral can mix his content up with that personal affability to seamlessly apply the "snow job" when the occasion calls for it. On the whole the admiral was in command of the entire interview only once betraying that command when he chastised Mr Rose as a child would another when lording it over him his superior knowledge of a situation.

tabs  06/15/2011 02:09 PM Report

Admiral Mullen might do better in the prediction department if he thought of conflicts between nation states as being a disagreement between 2 people. Then one can calculate the motivation, length and means that the parties will resort to.

The conflict between India and Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous in the world. The determining factor is whether the Islamists can take over the government of Pakistan. The Islamists are not basing their decisions on rationality but a theological ideology and as such any argument can escalate out of fear of the other quite quickly. Thus the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the two becomes quite high if the Islamists prevail in Pakistan.

Some might argue that N Koreas is the hottest spot on earth. One should remember exatly who North Korea is dependent upon for its survival (food and energy) and most importantly does one think the second largest economy in the world is going to let a puny client state who happens to be their neighbor get in the way of its goals much less upset them?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/15/2011 12:36 PM Report

Charlie, sure was a hard edit on the "Shadow Internet" question.

Here is the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12internet.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Sounds like we are the Bad-ss Cyber Warriors not China.

REMant  06/15/2011 11:02 AM Report

Adm Mullen seems to be on the other side of the democracy question from the Ms's Rice's, Clinton, et al, altho he may not be opposed to counterinsurgency and invading countries like Iraq and Iran, and I suppose he was appointed for orthodox counterterrorism and general neoconservative views, tho at this juncture it seems a useful counter. But I really fail to see such dire consequences arising from a cyberattack without any follow-up, much in fact, as with Pearl Harbor, itself, and such a move would be as silly as it would have been 70 years ago.

Wars, in the last analysis are conflicts of philosophy and religion, not territory and resources, which gives as much hope for their resolution, as despondency over their increasing lethality. While I am not much on ideas of progress, it does seem the world is slowly growing up all by itself and needs no more help from this country or NATO, than it did from the Germans and Japanese several decades ago.

The problem the "defense" establishment has is that it is part of a new "military-financial" establishment, and as a result it finds itself still at odds with the promotion of peace, because it is the American "police" power that attracts money to this country, not industry, and it is still to its advantage therefore to promote big budgets, which conflict with the requirement for more productive investment. The US probably has as big a problem with a standing army financially as North Korea or any other country.