Posted on 11/09/2006 10:05:36 AM PST by freedomdefender
Gary G. Sick, a prominent expert on Iran, worked with Robert M. Gates in the White House during the Ford and Carter administration. He says the nomination of Gates to replace Donald M. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense marks a “moment of real change” for the administration of George W. Bush.
SICK: There are at least a couple of areas where I think his input could be extremely important. As you’re probably aware, there has been a lot of talk about the United States launching an attack against Iran. Seymour Hersh [of the New Yorker] has been writing on the subject and Scott Ritter [a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq] has been saying that the war has already begun. There were rather hysterical reports in the last month or so [in TIME] about a U.S. naval task force that was arriving in the Persian Gulf, and that this was going to be the moment when a preemptive strike was launched. Of course, that didn’t happen but there is a kind of uneasiness about that possibility.
I would think that at a minimum the nomination of Gates as secretary of defense would push that even further back to the backburner than it is presently. I’ve never really thought this was going to happen, but actually I have been a minority in thinking that in some circles. But now with Gates coming in, it’s very difficult for me to imagine this guy, who is a consummate realist and pragmatist, launching a wild attack against Iran with the idea that somehow we’re going to solve all of our problems with Iran with a military strike. I just can’t see him doing that. The other side is that the Defense Department under Rumsfeld has been building up, just as it did before the Iraq war, its own intelligence service, which basically takes a jaundiced view of everything the CIA and other intelligence agencies do. That’s the organization that came to the conclusion Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction and they had close relationships with al-Qaeda and so forth.
That’s the shop it came out of. Someone named Adam Shulsky is heading it. The interesting thing is that shop is now being reconstituted in the Defense Department and I would be very surprised if Gates, with his really impeccable intelligence credentials, would go along with that kind of rogue intelligence operation. So I would suspect that if there were people who were trying to play the same game that was played before the Iraqi invasion, that is, cherry-pick the intelligence and decide what looks scariest and then get the highest authorities to use that as a justification for invading Iran, if that was what anybody had in mind I should think he would put a stop to that. I don’t think he’s going to be called up to decide whether we open diplomatic relations with Iran right away but at least he would have quite a bit to say about the military aspects of this.
Get ready for "The Invasion of the X41 Retreads."
"it’s very difficult for me to imagine this guy, who is a consummate realist and pragmatist, launching a wild attack against Iran with the idea that somehow we’re going to solve all of our problems with Iran with a military strike. I just can’t see him doing that."
Wow, the brilliant plan to punish the GOP and Conservatives in office is working like a dream!
His brother-in-law Paul P. Puke, stated that Gary didn't know what he was talking about and that he wasn't well.
If I were Gary Sick, I'd change my name, pronto.
Mr. Gates sounds like a real bureaucrat. Oh boy!
Aren't "realism" and "pragmatism" just code words for "inaction" and "don't-do-nothingism" ???
In fact, wasn't Sick involved in some wild accusations about the Reagan Administration colluding with Iran? The guy's not credible.
Get ready for 9/11 Part II. The left is finally getting their wish for a retreat in the WOT.
Anyone who talks about Hersch and Ritter as credible people loses all credibility with me. I sure hope this guy does not represent what Gates is all about.
"But now with Gates coming in, it’s very difficult for me to imagine this guy, who is a consummate realist and pragmatist, launching a wild attack against Iran with the idea that somehow we’re going to solve all of our problems with Iran with a military strike"
Wow. I didn't know all of Bush's "Axis of Evil" characters was all washed up and had surrendered. That's really good news. Saves money. Guess we'll have to campaign on the economy in 2008. Goody.
I stopped reading when I saw that the first two people this guy references are Hersh and Ritter.
I know Gates was on a committee saying we should engage in one on one talks with Iran. However, I'm inclined to believe he did so without the benefit of all the information at his disposal. When he's actually Sec Def, he's likely to realize we cannot have good faith negotiations with Ahmedinejad and his minions.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
A Pragmatists solution to an Idealogical War against Radical Islam? I don't think so...there would have to be compromise on the Terrorists side, and I don't believe that will happen..
Well, perhaps the Republicans should have acted more like conservatives instead of a bunch democrat-lite types.
Perhaps some leadership and vision from the top for political positions should have happened.
Perhaps when in the majority and with a perceived platform to act on, the Republicans should have followed that platform. Perhaps RINOS ought to change parties and perhaps all those that think anyone with an "R" after their name is to be trusted as a conservative should think again.
Just my opinion.
The Iraq War is not necessarily a conservative position. Not disrespecting our soldiers is a conservative poition, (liberals hate the military regardless of what it does or doesn't do) but the idea to invade Iraq isn't.
The October Surprise Conspiracy was an alleged plot that claimed representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign had conspired with Islamic Republic of Iran to delay the release of 66 Americans held hostage in Tehran until after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. In exchange for their cooperation, the United States would supply weapons to Iran as well as unfreeze Iran's monetary assets being held by the US government. Sick is perhaps best known for his role in promulgating, if not creating the theory.
Why would we fall for such obvious bias.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.