The online headline on the New York Times’s interview with President Obama is: “Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban.” Reading that, I thought, “Uh-oh. He’s looking for a short-cut where none exists. Doesn’t he realize that before you can have successful negotiations you have to make more military progress so that the insurgents realize they can’t achieve their objectives at gunpoint?”
But looking at the actual transcript, I became less concerned. In the first place, the subject of negotiating with the Taliban wasn’t introduced by the president but by the Times reporters. Here is how Obama responded:
I don’t want to pre-judge the review that’s currently taking place. If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region. But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex. You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be a much more of a challenge.
That hardly sounds like a president hell-bent on negotiating with our enemies in Afghanistan. Rather it sounds as if he is acceding to General Petraeus’s nuanced understanding that there are some “reconcilable” insurgents who can be won over while others, the “irreconcilables,” have to be caught or killed. Both elements of our strategy will be much easier to execute with more forces on the ground, starting with the 17,000 reinforcements the president has already approved.
obama – and blair – will get their freeman…
…expect netanyahu to get a baker’s dozen of dvds…
Excellent article just posted:
Bret Stephens in the WSJ: Obama’s National Intelligence Crackpot
Bibi may have to make do with a key chain and a theme T-shirt from the discount table.
Bibi may pre-empt with half a jar of humus and a pack of Israeli cigarettes.
CKM — funny, I was thinking an Israeli rap CD. Pop Arab music is about the only thing more auditorily excruciating.
Hey, I like Middle Eastern pop music – in convenience store doses anyway.
But what I’m wondering – maybe the last thing I have to say on this off topic score – if the shabby treatment of Brown could start a trend in which the world’s diplomats, following our example, enter a new race to the bottom to come up with creatively insulting gifts. Eventually, giving a gift that wasn’t insulting might be interpreted as the worst insult of all, suggesting friendship too weak to sustain miserable gestures, perhaps implying a dangerous divergence of interests. I can just imagine the Grand Bargain with Iran sealed by a whoopee cushion and a palm buzzer from us, a tattered, stained, and strangely odiferous carpet from the Mullahs.
Just imagine Stewie from the Family Guy saying these words “I can just imagine the Grand Bargain with Iran sealed by a whoopee cushion and a palm buzzer from us, a tattered, stained, and strangely odiferous carpet from the Mullahs”. That’s straight out of cartoon talk.
Well, it won’t be over until we hand some lucky head of state a Chia Pet, and our Sam’s Club card. And that may not be all I have to say about it either, but it’s good enough for now.
Mr Seta, I apologize for sullying your blog with my “straight out of cartoon talk.” I regret having allowed myself to become overly amused by the spectacle of the administration you so strongly support humiliating itself and by extension every citizen of the United States.
I would also suggest, in the interest of serious discussion and in reply to a comment of yours on the previous Freeman thread, that you investigate whom in fact Freeman was representing, or who his paymaster was, when he made all of those obsequious statements about “Abdullah the Great” and the inoffensiveness of Saudi Arabian textbooks.
You can always count on Marty Peretz to lie through his teeth in support of the cause. All together now: “The ends justify the means when you’re engineering a new society.” The truth is a lie in the Obama era, and Peretz is just another one of his messengers..
The Navy’s brass has got some SERIOUSLY bad ideas.
It’s all that T.P. Barnett utter nonsense.
The Navy is all on board for yielding to Iran, and backing away from China.
Remember Admiral Fallon, ————————– and what about that twit Admiral Sestak from Pennsylvania, who is just as bad.
I fear for the Navy.
I’ve got a major sneaking suspicion that the Navy is NOT ready for prime time, sure they’re OK for launching some strikes on 2d world countries.
But were the big time to kick off in the Taiwan Straits, —————— I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that our Navy will get its head handed to them.
Nor do I believe that there are “many outraged Democrats” decrying the appointment of Freeman.
What I think is that there are a few Jewish politicians, backed up by some Jewish members of the media, {old and new} who are trying to gin up opposition, and who are bravely fighting the good fight, are woefully outnumbered, and are likely to be outlasted by the the new Urkel administration.
Peretz is likely trying to befog the issue, by introducing China into the mix. But nobody is buying.
What we’re all seeing is an example of the fading power of whatever “Jewish lobby” existed up on Capitol Hill.
Nobody is listening, and those opposed to Freeman don’t have the votes, and in a matter of a few more weeks, will have grown weary of the whole fracas.
I expect Freeman is going to go through. His appointment is meant as a signal to the house of Saud as well as Peking. And the Obama/Urkel administration very much wants that signal to be sent and to get through.
Which means Freeman stays.
But even Freeman were to be defeated, ————————————- so what. The reason I say “so what” is because whether he’s in or not, the Obama/Urkel administration is going to hew a PROFOUNDLY anti-Israeli line, and a profoundly pro-Arab-narrative line.
And that’s all there is to it.
Nor is this administration much up for taking on Peking, not in any real way. They’re not much interested in even uttering the occasional line about human rights.
Peking is forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to The United States, and the Urkel administration is COUNTING upon them continuing to do so EACH AND EVERY YEAR of his tenure.
We Conservatives LOST!
Those of us inclined towards Israel in the vast drama playing itself out in the Mideast LOST the election, and we LOST the election to the most radical candidate for the office in our lifetimes.
Those that fully subscribe to the Arab-narrative WON.
Those that favour T.P. Barnett’s view of statecraft WON.
Those that are eager to make their peace with Tehran WON.
Those eager to take a quiet, unassuming line vis-a-vis Peking WON.
Elections have consequences.
Israel is going under that bus, and there’s not a whole h*ll of a lot we can about it. And that’s a fact.
Nor do I believe there are “many outraged Democrats” decrying the appointment of Freeman.
What I think is that there are a few Jewish politicians, backed up by some Jewish members of the media, {old and new} who are trying to gin up opposition, and who are bravely fighting the good fight, are woefully outnumbered, and are likely to be outlasted by the the new Urkel administration.
Peretz is likely trying to befog the issue, by introducing China into the mix. But nobody is buying.
What we’re all seeing is as public an example as one can find of the rapidly fading sway of whatever “Jewish lobby” existed up on Capitol Hill.
Nobody is listening to the opposition to Freeman, and those opposed to Freeman don’t have the votes or the sway to make it a serious issue. In just a few more weeks, the opposition will be worn down, and ground unto dust.
His appointment is meant as a signal to the house of Saud as well as Peking. And the Obama/Urkel administration very much wants that signal to be sent.
Which means Freeman stays.
But even were he to be overthrown, ————————————- so what. The reason I say “so what” is because whether he’s in or not, the Obama/Urkel administration is going to hew a PROFOUNDLY anti-Israeli line, and a profoundly pro-Arab-narrative line.
And that’s all there is to it.
Nor is this administration much up for taking on Peking. They’re not much interested in even uttering the occasional line about human rights.
Peking is forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to The United States, and the Urkel administration is COUNTING upon them continuing to do so EACH AND EVERY YEAR of his tenure.
We Conservatives LOST!
Those of us inclined towards Israel in the vast drama playing itself out in the Mideast LOST the election, and we LOST the election to the most radical candidate for the office in our lifetimes.
Those that fully subscribe to the Arab-narrative WON.
Those that favour T.P. Barnett’s view of statecraft WON.
Those that are eager to make their peace with Tehran WON.
Those eager to take a quiet, unassuming line vis-a-vis Peking WON.
Elections have consequences.
Israel is going under that bus, and there’s not a whole h*ll of a lot we can do about it. And that’s a fact. And what’s more, we all know it.
Sorry to be grim, ———– but we’ve not the time to indulge in political fantasy. Freeman in or out, ——————– it doesn’t really matter, for this administration made up its mind about “the zionist entity” a long, long time ago.
Sorry for the “double tap” on that post.
“But were the big time to kick off in the Taiwan Straits, —————— I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that our Navy will get its head handed to them.”
Typically, the U.S. Navy always loses the first battle in any war, whether we are speaking of the destruction of the Asiatic Fleet in the East Indies, the shellacking of U.S. shipping off the East Coast in Feb-May 1942, or the embarrassing performance of the Submarine Force Pacific through the middle of 1943. All of it can be traced to the Navy’s historical tendency to promote in peacetime officers who are characterized more by their social skills and ability to keep their noses clean, than by their strategic insight, tactical skill or leadership ability. After a few debacles, the dead wood is cleaned out, real combat leaders (who in peacetime would languish in career backwaters) come to the fore, and the Navy kicks ass and takes names. Of course, the best of these combat leaders abhor the stifling atmosphere of the peacetime Navy and usually depart for civilian ranks once the conflict ends, so that the Navy can return to its normal routine of promoting socially and politically acceptable drones.
Yea Stuart, I know that.
But will our politics allow for the Navy to get itself up to speed.
In modern war, results within the first few weeks are apt to prove decisive.
Remember Yom Kippur, —————– that was a flat-out, no holds barred brawl. And I don’t think it lasted a month.
Would post-modern, American Idol America really gear up for the kind of effort you mentioned, against a nuclear armed China, all to restore the status quo pre-ante in th Taiwan Straits. Or would “calmer voices” be heard saying “it’s not worth the trouble” and we should “refer it to the Security Council.”
The political pressure to fold after an early mauling would be huge.
The America around us isn’t the America of 1941, nor ’42 or 43.
And our history of getting ripped apart by the Japanese Imperial Navy, in night surface actions, where their long-lance torpedoes figured prominently, in places like the waters around Savo Island, ——————- that’s not the kind of history we should desire to see repeated.
I’m getting REAL nervous about the Navy, and even more nervous about the Navy’s high command.
The Navy desperately needs their version of Fort Irwin, where lives aren’t on the line, ——————— but careers sure as h*ll are.