Posted on 11/08/2006 11:33:32 AM PST by freedomdefender
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran’s borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran’s nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.
Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.
This report focuses on developments inside Iran, tapping into the Task Force members’ extensive expertise on Iranian politics and society. It includes a comprehensive chronology of important dates in U.S.-Iranian history, economic and demographic facts about Iran, and reference materials on Iranian state institutions and governance.
Boy here is a great idea. Let take adivce from ZB, Jimmy Carter's boy. The same stoodge that helped created this whole mess in the Middle East by stabbing the Shah in the back
Just another enemy to appease.
MN Johnnie - what do we do? Seriously. What do we do now? If this is a sign that Gates is going to recommend "dialoguing" with the mullahs, is the Middle East going to become a total loss?
Smells like a pullout is coming before 2008.
New defense policy harbinger BTT
looks like Gates may have some policy difference with Rummy. But in the end, Bush sets policy.
"The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser,"
There's the money sentence right there. What does this clown know about successful relations with Iran? And who the Hell is the Council on Foreign Relations to give us advice, anyway? It's a home for failed diplomats.
this just somewhat confirms my concerns expressed on the other thread about Gates' nomination:
Two things bother me about this nomination:
1. He's a career CIA bureaucrat
2. (quoted from Wiki): "In 1996, his memoirs were published under the title From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War."
I have a deep suspicion of careerists in general: always looking for the massage, never ruffling feathers, the first principle is CYA at CIA. Of course, he could be an exception, but the civilian head of an agency with hundreds of billions of dollars to spend wisely or blow and the lives of Americans hanging in the balance is something I wouldn't gamble on. Right or Wrong, you know Rumsfeld didn't give a crap about all the bureaucratic CYA BS.
Regarding the book, let me say, I have not read it. It may have a good reason for the title which attributes victory in the cold war to 5 presidents. It sounds to me like a liberal way of diminishing Reagan's overwhelmingly important role in winning the cold war, while the other presidents, starting with Truman were placeholders at best.
I'm going to look for blurbs from the book and reviews and report back if there's anything worth mentioning.
Just what we need- advice from a couple of boobs.
But after yesterday and running on about 72 hours with almost no sleep, I don't know how much of that is reason and how much of that is wishful thinking. I got to get away from this for awhile. Well analysis closer plus anything else I can dig up later.
Oh, Jeez.
More Clintonism. Clintonism made a gesture, Iran didn't reciprocate.
They need us to be their enemy, bogeyman.
No sanctions, atomic bomb on the way. Then Saudi, etc. will nuclearize. Loose nukes galore.
"I do not know yet. I find it realy hard to believe even the Realists will cut and run on a war they are winning."
I've read some things the "Realist" school writes. Ironically they are less in touch with reality than their opponents.
Like Iran, seating the problem at our feet, a smooth blame-America-first attitude, denying Iran as an independent actor that sees advantage in hating the US.
This is mixing it up. Now we have military heading CIA and CIA heading to the Pentagon. Maybe they are still working on walls and silos.
It seems that Gates predicted many of the problems the US would encounter in Iraq back in the early 1990s when he was serving under Bush 41. Hopefully he has an effective way to deal with the current situation. Rumsfeld did a lot of good things, but Gates is the right person to deal with the current situation.
Really! So the President appointed a cabinet member who will gridlock his own policy going forward? That's an interesting tactic.
What I'm saying is, this is sending a signal that Bush's policy is changing. Why on earth would he appoint a new Secretary of Defense with a contradicting philosophy at this stage. The only power Bush has going forward is with a "yes" man at his side. Rumsfeld wasn't a "yes" man and wasn't interested in pulling out of Iraq. Therefore, it seems to me, that the choice of Bob Gates indicates that he is in tune with Gates' philosophy at this point, not the other way around.
The President sounds like he is listening to the true Conservatives and the liberals who voted for the MSM/DNC machine.
OBL is smiling.
Correct. Note also the bizarre and obnoxious statements made by Condi cozying up to Hamas.
Yet another small bit of evidence as to the "new direction" the Bush Administration will take in the war.
That Robert Gates would work with Brezenski (Carter's Foreign Policy 'Mastermind'), and the CFR to set the template is no surprise. Therefore, it should come as no surprise in the future when this new policy direction fails and the United States pays DEARLY.
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.