Charlie Rose

Greg Kramer  05/31/2008 04:42 AM Report

I'm glad to hear that Lute has been able to provide info regarding the strategy. I guess my question to him would be how does that strategy change with the knowledge that well over 97% of the world believe that the major impetus to US foreign (and domestic) policy, 9/11, was really orchestrated by the US govt ? What about the 99.75% of the world that believes the 9/11 wars are illegal & immoral and based on the administrations lies ? How does CENTCOMs disinformation specialists deal with such a staggering and growing perception ? Might I suggest the only answer lies in the removal/control/manipulation of the last true free media outlet ... the internet ? They could certainly save alot of taxpayer money not hiring trolls to spread web disinfo. Regardless, its my opinion that Lutes strategies ought to consider these hard facts.

Trevor Self  05/19/2007 04:33 AM Report

Regarding the previous post, I don't think he's an articulate spokesman for the strategy. The ability to compose cogent sentences is hardly sufficient for a clear depiction of our strategy. Note that he offered only the vaguest of descriptions of "victory." Additionally, defining the desired end state is far from mapping the course from here to there. That is a job for our political leadership, but Mr. Bush seems preoccupied with avoiding meddling. Who works for whom? For now, the plotted course seems little more than, "Once we've captured or killed (torture optional) all the bad guys, everything will be OK." Fourth graders could come up with a more articulate and effective strategy.

An example of a real strategy might be more along the lines of: 1) Recover and reinforce an Iraqi national identity (culture-building to undercut the divisive themes that feed sectarian violence), 2) facilitate a system of Iraqi free press (disinformation is a primary enemy), 3) nationalize efforts to reconstruct the Iraqi oil infrastructure (ala the TVA to create jobs & income), 4) lease (not permanently sell) oil production rights for near-term profitability & set minimum requirements for employment of locals, 5) create jobs with massive rebuilding campaigns that draw on international grants and loans and are awarded SOLELY to Iraqis, 6) build outward from safe zones instead of trying to protect the whole country at once (Didn't they ever play Risk?), etc.

Moreover, I think it's telling that the War Czar (from the word: Caesar, hmmm) is a general, especially considering that he, Dr. Rice, and the President have all said that the solution to this crisis will not be military. President Bush mentioned political, economic, and military elements of this war (notably excluding a cultural component), but this administration consistently puts forward military solutions. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths. If they were serious about statesmanship, they would appoint a statesman, but there is not a long history of a focus on competence or deliberation in this administration.

I wish Lt. Gen. Lute the best of luck; I think he'll need it.

Chuck Kengla  05/16/2007 11:39 PM Report

I reviewed these interviews in connection with MG Lute's appointment (now LTG Lute) as the "war czar". While he is an excellent and articulate spokesman for our strategy for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was a bit disappointed to see a certain lack of steel in his approach to the conflict. He's too nice - to be effective in his new job he's going to have to be willing to raise $%#@& with lots of very senior people. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect to see that hardness in a Charlie Rose interview; I can only hope he will be willing to use his new power in the councils of government.