« CIA power play ousts DIA Chief | Main | "Kremlin regrets approval of punitive operation in southeast of Ukraine - Putin spokesman" »

02 May 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Madhu

They still think they can dictate outcomes and engineer societies. Why, I don't know, but they seem to think they can engineer their own perfect outcome. How to break that delusion I just don't know.

None of this makes any sense to me. It all seems insane.

oofda

Your last question is what many of us have been asking. What do these people think they are doing?

Eliot

I met Crocker once, and briefly at that, but I left feeling impressed. He has a very practical mind and he has a historians understanding of the region. Since his retirement he's spoken out repeatedly against our policy in Syria.

He also has a low opinion of political science.

Babak Makkinejad

Col. Lang:

You asked: "What the hell do the Washnigton/New York crowd think they are accomplishing in Syria?"

They are wounding Iran, helping Anne Franck etc.

kao_hsien_chih

No doubt helping Hans Frank, thinking he is related to Anne.

shanks

One strategic idea that I've been formulating in my rabid feverish mind, is that these states need to be in internal conflict so as to not antagonise or even be a modicum of hassle to Israel.

R2P, democracy aside, as long as Assad is preoccupied in dealing with internal strife, he's not going to have long term plans for Golan or mischief with Israel, is he?

FB Ali

It seems Mr Crocker has learned something after reflecting on the outcome of his efforts in Iraq presiding over the installation of the Maliki Shia government and the betrayal of the Sunnis who helped the US to extricate itself from Iraq.

However, the wisdom he now expresses is not very relevant. The US is not helping instal just Sunnis in Syria, but the same type of Sunnis who attacked the US and fought it to a draw in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The incomprehensibility of this policy makes one wonder about the people who make it. Either they belong to the category of persons who have great difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time. Or (more likely) they find it advantageous to have this threat remain alive. Certainly not to the benefit of the USA and its people but to themselves and the interests they represent.

Will

what are they trying to accomplish?
kill a secular state with a credible armed forces. In its place so chaos, so there will be nobody to make peace with and give back the annexed Golan heights. (Annexation is bad in Crimea but wunderbar on the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem ?)

Is there any difference in these people's minds such as Nuland, Feith, et al between the interests of a right wing settler Israel, and the interests of these United States?

So disappointed in Rand Paul lately. the defense of Israel act? " ya gotta be kidding.

walrus

@ Oofda

What do they think they are doing? Why following the philosphy of Leo Strauss of course!

They believe that they can create their own new reality and if they have to lie, murder and create misery to do it that is acceptable because the ends justify the means!

Fred

FB,

"... to the benefit of .... themselves and the interests they represent."

That sums it up nicely.

Imagine

One coherent explanation:
"'Greater Israel': The Zionist Plan for the Middle East: The Infamous 'Oded Yinon Plan'."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
...can't vouch for veracity but it hangs together.
I'm vaguely remembering a neocon consultant providing a similar blueprint document for Israel around 1996, something similar to PNAC?--saying the best way for Israel to move forward is to "balkanize" its opposition, tearing them apart into powerless, constantly warring smithereens.

GulfCoastPirate

Will wrote: 'So disappointed in Rand Paul lately. the defense of Israel act? " ya gotta be kidding.'

Tried to tell you folks he was a fraud.

steve

Several years prior to the current war, Syria had sought to peacefully normalize relations with both Israel and the US.

Rebuffed of course.

ToivoS

It is not just a Zionist plan, it was a plan first put into effect by the British when they controlled the Saudi peninsula. Have you ever wondered how the peninsula was divided into, what is it, ten different states. At the time, the Brits created a new country for every oil field.

This fragmentation of existing countries is going on today. Look at Sudan. It was outside forces that worked to split Darfur from the central government. That one seemed to fail. But they succeeded in South Sudan. Now there is a nice civil war going on there.

I don't have a clear sense of who is working to break up Sudan, but it is pretty clear that the US has had its hands in that process (and no, it is not just George Cloony, he someones useful idiot). Israel is probably a factor but a small one.

ToivoS

There seems to a consistent theme here: what in the hell is the US trying accomplish with its current foreign policy? I have been asking that question since we attacked Libya. It is difficult to answer. What strategic plan can one envision that explains: pivot to Asia (antagonize China), support the Kiev Maidan protests (antagonize Russian), topple Qadaffi in Libya, support jihadists fighting Assad in Syria (antagonize Russia, Iran and any rational person who see Al qaida as an enemy) and at the same time try to make peace with Iran (antagonize Israel and the entire American Lobby).

In short there is no rational plan. It just looks like an admin totally in over its head reeling from one circumstance to another trying to patch together some short term solutions to problems that will require long term (and rational) plans.

I can see why so many military leaders must be so frustrated with our current political leadership -- this is not just the most recent admin but has to include both the Clinton and Bush admins. The US military cannot solve these problems but it seems they are always being asked to take care of the latest crisis.

Babak Makkinejad

In the cause of wounding Iran and helping Israel, all is justified.

Note that this is also a Pan-European policy with Canada and Australia thrown in for good measure.

Dismayed

a hypothesis: It seems to me that we have no grand strategy, developed with an evidence-based assessment of U.S. national interests and orchestrated and implemented by a central authority capable of enforcing adherence to the program from the various bureaucracies. (What has the NSC done for anyone lately?) Instead, the factionalism that reigns supreme in the bureaucracies (inclusive of Congress) is exploited by the Israel Lobby and profit-driven contractors to push their own interests which rarely enhance American security or prosperity. Those benefiting from the current system will fight tooth and nail against any effort to impose discipline.

A baby steps towards correcting the problem might be to ban the issue of security clearance to anyone holding foreign citizenship, regardless of their U.S. status. Occupancy of a US national security billet isn't some civil right, and the taxpayers have a right to expect that those in them don't have loyalties to foreign countries. Does any other nation allow this foolish practice?

Ryan

Will,

I felt the same way about Rand until I read this:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/05/01/showdown-at-the-foreign-policy-corral/

See if this makes any sense to you. I believe Raimondo may be onto something here.

Ryan

"What the hell do the Washnigton/New York crowd think they are accomplishing in Syria?"

I take this question to be rhetorical.

All the answers provided above. My on view is they are like someone playing poker who believes if he plays one more hand he'll win back all he's lost. I admit that this is crude, but they are a crude bunch and I haven't seen anything that show deep thinking save one thing. They are good at political infighting in DC. When it comes to long range strategic thinking, not so good.

I have this view based on observations made over the last two decades. Neocons and R2P types are made up of two groups, the fanatics and the cynics. The fanatics really do believe the BS about "promoting democracy" (why curse anyone with that), "freedom on the march", ad nauseam. The cynics know better and are simply out for power. They really get off on lording over others.

It's funny from my point to hear them accuse Iran of being lead by non-rational actors. They should find a mirror the same size as their egos and take a good hard look.

Castellio

Israeli policy isn't only the balkanization of the region, but the degrading of the economic capabilities of her neighbours. This policy has Gaza as the most extreme example, but includes Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt.

The policy has been in effect, and has been effective, for a long time. There is nothing new in it. It is not irrational, but it is predicated on an on-going war footing and American military and financial power.

What is irrational is the American support for a policy that goes against its own interests.

turcopolier

Castellio

It's a thought. pl

Tyler

Our current policy is an unholy blend of what happens when you combine people with a truefaith in blank slate, and no concern beyond next week's news cycle.

Is this how Yeats felt when he wrote "the falcon cannot hear the falconer"?

Babak Makkinejad

Year after year and decade after decade US electorate confirms men and women with a very high - or as you say irrational support - for Israel.

This policy is clearly considered to be in the interests of the United States as determined by her citizens.

Likewise in Canada, in EU, and in Australia; democratic elections has consistently led to pro-Israel governments and legislatures over a period of decades.

I think it is quite evident that there are a billion people in the world that Love Israel and they are willing to help support and provide succor to her.

Ryan

Castellio,

I couldn't agree more. Warfare by other means.

YT

RE: thinking he is related to Anne.

Apparently, Narratives built along the lines of Myth are of a more persuading Nature than Reality...

"I believe that imagination is stronger than knowledge. That myth is more potent than history. That dreams are more powerful than facts. That hope always triumphs over experience."

Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad