Comments on: Petraeus vs. Ross?

By: A C

A C — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:37:57 +0000

On reflection, I have to add I do not support any engagement of Iran to extend NATO or U.S military intervention in Afghanistan or neighboring regions. The potential for an escalation of the conflicts given the volatility of the region is too great.

If the U.S. does not engineer a conflict with Iran, Israel certainly will. ‘Operation Cast Lead’ may be merely the beginning of a much larger regional war.

I forgot to mention Joe (must re-arm Georgia) Biden in the above list.

By: A C

A C — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:18:03 +0000

Jim, I understand and support your rational and reasonable propositions however sadly, as you know, U.S. foreign policy is not being directed by reasonable people. The history of Richard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright, (Rambouillet accord architects- declaration of war disguised as a peace deal), the established neoconservative policy of unreasonable demands leading to an inevitable military confrontation (such as with Iraq in both wars and currently with demands towards North Korea) and the push to continue NATO and U.S. military expansionism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia……these show far from moderate approaches to foreign policy.

The appointment of Dennis Ross sends a clear statement. Negotiations are off the table. The approach with Iran will likely be another Rambouillet accord offer , if Israel doesn’t attack unilaterally first.

These people are in layman’s terms, drunk with power. They do not believe they need to negotiate. This dangerous level of arrogance has one possible outcome. Conflict.

The Bush Administration’s response to the South Ossetia conflict reflects this. Warships in Georgian ports, commitments to re-arm and strengthen Georgia’s military capacity and threats against the Russian government. That form of diplomacy has one type of reply.

Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Susan Rice ..what little chance there is for change.

By: John

John — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:05:38 +0000

Brilliant analysis, Mr. Lobe, especially regarding the supply route. Wouldn’t this be a better solution than via Uzbekistan? I mean, a monster is a monster is a monster.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:27:31 +0000

Would this be the same Iran that neocons like Bolton have just been chomping on the bit for several years to attack?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:48:37 +0000

The war in Afghanistan is lost.

By: John Lowell

John Lowell — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:38:24 +0000

These thoughts are wishful. Leaders in Pakistan are convinced that India has nefarious intentions in Afghanistan. Any effort by Petraus to heighten that fear by attempting to engage Iran in a cooperative effort there fails to appreciate an even darker possibility than the ones now facing the United States: That such an alignment would surround Pakistan on all sides and exacerbate the very fears causing their leadership to resist moving against the Taliban in the borderlands. The move would be conceived as hostile and it very well may be purposeful owing to Lobby concerns about the nuclear capabilities of the Pakistani government. Nothing the United States does in Afghanistan can improve the situation. The public marketing of his machinations in Iraq has simply fed Betrayus’s oversized ego. We’re now treated to the fantasies of “larger picture” thinking that so appealed to Hitler in the months following the fall of France, the period of the conversations with Molotov. The solution has nothing to do with involving Iran. The solution has to do with getting the hell out of there.

By: Obvious Guy Says

Obvious Guy Says — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:45:43 +0000

“Perhaps, if things really went well, Iran could even offer NATO a desperately needed new and inexpensive supply route for its troops in Afghanistan…”

Not to mention that Iran has a history of dealing with their unruly neighbours – especially the drug barons.