Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Aftermath

[Highluc]

I found this on the latest Yahoo news, I think those people in the text can be described as intelligent knowledgeable US Americans and therefore their opinion has to be taken into account. I added the source and writer for the sceptics. By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush (news - web sites) has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November. The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document. "It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers. Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia. Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq (news - web sites). Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said. It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign. A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released. But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government. One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president. The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq. "Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president's most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq. But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S. "We just felt things were so serious, that America's leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration's approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan. "A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration — by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," Harrop said. Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bush's father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views. "Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We've all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things." The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bush's effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region. "For 60 years we believed in quote-unquote stability at the price of liberty, and what we got is neither liberty nor stability," the strategist said. "So we are taking a fundamentally different approach toward the Middle East. That is a huge doctrinal shift, and the people who have given their lives, careers to building the previous foreign policy consensus, see this as a direct intellectual assault on what they have devoted their lives to. And it is. We think what a lot of people came up with was a failure — or at least, in the present world in which we live, it is no longer sustainable." Sponsors of the effort counter that several in the group have been involved in developing policy affecting almost all regions of the globe. The document will echo a statement released in April by a group of high-level former British diplomats condemning Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) for being too closely aligned to U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Those involved with the new group said their effort was already underway when the British statement was released. The signatories said Kerry's campaign played no role in the formation of their group. Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, said she suspected "some of them [in the Kerry campaign] may have been aware of it," but that "the campaign had no role" in organizing the group. Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, also said that the Kerry campaign had not been involved in devising the group's statement. The document does not explicitly endorse Kerry, according to those familiar with it. But some individual signers plan to back the Democrat, and others acknowledge that by calling for Bush's removal, the group effectively is urging Americans to elect Kerry. "The core of the message is that we are so deeply concerned about the current direction of American foreign policy … that we think it is essential for the future security of the United States that a new foreign policy team come in," said Oakley. Much of the debate over the document in the days ahead may pivot on the extent to which it is seen as a partisan document. A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "There's no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "This seems like a statement from 9/10 people [who don't see] the importance of 9/11 and the way that should have changed our thinking." Along with Hoar and McPeak, others who have signed it are identified with the Democratic Party. Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., though named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, supported Clinton in 1992. Crowe has endorsed Kerry. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner served as Carter's director of central intelligence and has also endorsed Kerry. Matlock said he was a registered Democrat during most of his foreign service career, though he voted for Reagan in 1984 and the elder Bush twice and now is registered as an independent. Several on the group's list were appointed to their most important posts under Reagan and the elder Bush. These include Matlock and Harrop, as well as Arthur A. Hartman, who served as Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1981 through 1987; H. Allen Holmes, an assistant secretary of state under Reagan; and Charles Freeman, ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the elder Bush. Many on the list have not been previously identified with any political cause or party. Several "are the kind who have never spoken out before," said James Daniel Phillips, former ambassador to Burundi and the Congo. Oakley, Harrop and Matlock said the effort began this year. Matlock said it was sparked by conversations among "colleagues who had served in senior positions around the same time, most of them for the Reagan administration and for the first Bush administration." Oakley said frustration over the Iraq war was "a large part" of the impetus for the statement, but the criticism of President Bush "goes much deeper." The group's complaint about Bush's approach largely tracks Kerry's contention that the administration has weakened American security by straining traditional alliances and shifting resources from the war against Al Qaeda to the invasion of Iraq. Oakley said the statement would argue that, "Unfortunately the tough stands [bush] has taken have made us less secure. He has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. And while we agree that we are in unprecedented times and we face challenges we didn't even know about before, these challenges require the cooperation of other countries. We cannot do it by ourselves." * (BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX) The signatories Although not explicitly endorsing Sen. John F. Kerry for president, 26 former diplomats and military officials, including many who served in Republican administrations, have signed a statement calling for the defeat of President Bush in November. Their names and some of the posts they have held are: Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs, 1989-1991. Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89. Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1996. William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990. Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79. Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992. William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991. Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981. Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94. H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89. Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84. Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985. Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95. Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83. Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), 1979-1981. Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94. George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91. David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77. Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99. James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990. John E. Reinhardt — ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75. Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83. Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for political affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83. Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites), 1977-1981. Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993. * Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

[j-turbo2002]

I have read this story before. In my opinion, we have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks here. To me, it sounds like we have a bunch of people who have an "ax to grind" with the Bush Administration just because they got left out of the equation of opinions on how things should be run.

I have heard all of this before. Everyone can always do it better.

Every Joe Blow has a better idea on how things should be, how they will turn out, and how they will be viewed.

It is very easy to criticize someone when you are not making the decisions.

What they have forgotten is that in the end of the day Bush's decisions are the only ones that matter.

Highluc:

Next time, add a few opinions and observations, and just post a link to the article. This is all that is necessary. Not the whole entire article itself.

You do not have to waste all this space with a bunch of text that someone can read somewhere else if they wish.

Also, next time, ask yourself the following question before you post a large story like that in this topic: Who is actually going to take the time and read all of this?

[Highluc]

Ad nauseum

[azraelle]

"For 60 years we believed in quote-unquote stability at the price of liberty, and what we got is neither liberty nor stability," the strategist said. "So we are taking a fundamentally different approach toward the Middle East. That is a huge doctrinal shift, and the people who have given their lives, careers to building the previous foreign policy consensus, see this as a direct intellectual assault on what they have devoted their lives to. And it is. We think what a lot of people came up with was a failure — or at least, in the present world in which we live, it is no longer sustainable."

This is the most lucid part of your post, Hiluc, and as far as I am concerend, the only part worth reading, though I admit that I did suffer myself to read the post in its entirety, unlike another, apparently.

[Firefox]

j-turbo! Those protesters -- they know so much that isn't so. Taking direction from someone that does their thinking for them. And, as for Firefox saying (paraphrasing) that appeasment would deminish terrorism, I wonder if he really believes that? (the UK's appeasing Hitler didn't stop WWII, did it?)

Hitler was not a terrorist though. He was leader of a large, powerful, right wing administration who had more weapons than they knew what to do with.

If you compare like with like then the solution is clear. Take a terrorist organisation such as the IRA then the answer is to negotiate politically. Talk leads to appeasement and the cessation of violence. The USA was instrumental in starting this process between the England the protagonists in Ireland. Also, it was instrumental in various Camp David summits and other peace initiatives. (Under previous more sensible/capable administrations than the present one) So, they should take a leaf out of their own book and learn how wars against terrorism are won.

Cruise missiles are very effective against military targets. They don't work against terrorists, because the terrorist has penetrated the very fabric of our communities.

[j-turbo2002]

Talk leads to appeasement and the cessation of violence

Boy, I am sure glad that this kind of ideology works.

The IRA is still alive and well and there is still hate and anamosity towards the Brits in Northern Ireland. The whole region is still a sleeping "time bomb".

The bloodbath between Israel and the Palestinians still continues to this day. During the Camp David accords, Yasser Arafat was offered nearly everything that he wanted and yet he rejected all of it.

Clinton was trained in Brittan. This is why he led one of the worst administrations in American History. He was a true "do nothing" President. His polocy of appeasement is the reason that we are in the mess that we are in today.

When are you people going to learn that you cannot "talk" to terrorists? They are not a noble enemy and should not be taken lightly.

These people are pure evil and as I have already mentioned, you cannot appease evil - you have to destroy it.

[Firefox]

To use your dental analogy, a terrorist is more like a cancer than a bad tooth. It's easy to pull a bad tooth because the problem is isolated, but with a cancer, it is mixed in with all the good cells. The reason certain terror causes proliferate themselves is that they have support from large enough sections of society. This provides them with financial aid as well as a means to hide themselves within everyday otherwise peaceful communities. That is why I believe your approach of merely "destroying evil" is too simplistic in itself to cure the cancer. You can cut out bits of the cancer where you can see it but to prevent its return you need to address the causes.

[j-turbo2002]

I agree with you yet, even though you properly address the causes, that does not necessarily mean that you are going to entirely solve the problem, rather, you might find a new one. And yes my "destroy evil" model is simplistic but as an engineer, I try to simplify the problem as much as possible - that is what I do. I for one know what happens when you take too many variables into account.

[chris100575]

I don't know what the answer to terrorism is. The whole point of terrorism is to strike fear into the people it's directed against, hence the name. This fear comes from the terrorists' anonynymity and the fact that they're hiding amoungst us and we don't know where they'll strike next. I can see the sense in taking military action against an army where your enemy wears a uniform, but how do you bomb a terrorist without killing innocent people? Chris

[genebujold]

Before I might comment on the ramblings of any particular group, please allow me to add the benefits of what little I know about both human psychology and history: 1. Dictatorial leaders always have, and always will, seek to better their regime at all expense, providing that expense doesn't materially effect the outcome of their regime. 2. Bleeding hearts have always had in hand a soltion for how to run things in such a way so as to avoid the atrocities they routinely encounter in worldwide politics. 3. Human nature has never allowed for a leader that meets both the requirements of bleeding hearts and concervatives. 4. The inevitable result is the current political party system in which some of the views of the populace are given full view for some of the time, and in which the views of the detractors are given full view the rest of the time. The botton line is that we're a representative democracy, and if the world is to evolve, they'll have to figure out how to manifest this system in such a way so as to give full voice to everyone's right's while maintining their civic responsibilities.