Sidebar and backgrounder...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Shades of
"The Third Man" - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and
"Young Frankenstein" - coming back to haunt us.
Young Frankenstein...a true classic!
While wandering around the internet I stumbled across The National Interest website (I make no claims about this website one way or the other - but find that some of the articles on Germany and Russia, in particular, intelligently provide some background and points/counterpoints to consider on our topic)
Ich Bin Ein Berliner?
by Donald K. Bandler and A. Wess Mitchel
Quote:
Even if the new administration makes progress on all of these fronts, it is unlikely to be able to restore U.S.-German cooperation to its previous levels anytime soon. For the first time in more than a generation, seismic geopolitical shifts—a restive Russia, a stalling EU and an over-stretched America—have begun to change, perhaps fundamentally, the way America’s German ally looks at itself and its role on the wider transatlantic stage. Eventually, President Obama should be prepared to confront these challenges head-on and engage Berlin in a comprehensive discussion about the fundamentals of the relationship. For now, it will be enough to get the two talking and acting constructively again
Unfortunately I can no longer provide a working link to the articles on Russia at this website which I was able to read yesterday; Dimitri K. Simes as well as Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes had articles available. Suffice to say they intelligently challenge my view of Russia.
Perle also knows little more than you or I about who did what
to who. Or why. I'm not a fan and never have been, he was not particularly effective as the ASecDef for International Security Policy in the Reagan Admin.
However, I do agree with him that staying to 'occupy' Iraq was not a good idea and I agree that the guy who messed it up -- Bremer -- was not one of Perle's in-crowd. As for Chalibi, more to him than that. He's a chameleon, no question but the CIA had and has their own agenda...
Cannot answer either question but I can say IMO
the overall -- as opposed to some teams, cells or branches -- object of Langley was to avoid commitment of the Armed Forces for several reasons, mostly to avoid the turmoil and resultant disruption of some of their long term plans and then current operations in the area.
They also, I believe, wanted badly to to discredit the Administration. I believe that was due to great internal upset over getting blamed for dropping the ball in the summer and fall of 2001 -- a legitimate gripe on their part, I think, because they did their thing in the lead up fairly well but because the whole community was bureaucratically hogtied, they got blamed for some stuff not their fault. Add pressure to change findings and they had a complaint or two. They're easily the best and dirtiest bureaucratic games player in Washington...
Did I ever tell you how much damage Jimmy Carter did... :wry:
I made the third post on the thread and have
made as many as anyone on it or nearly so and I don't really recall any useful discourse. :D