Is the War Party out to get Gen. Jones?

Steve Clemons and TNR are both reporting a move inside the Obama White House to get rid of National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones.  Clemons says the line being pushed is that the man is just plain lazy and a bad manager (which would explain his success in government), but that

what is clear is that Jones has enemies and that they are trying to undermine his place in the Obama orbit.

Their motives may not be earnest concern about the tempo or pace of Jones’ management style — but they very well could be his unwillingness to allow the liberal interventionists inside the Obama administration to have more than their fair share of power in the Obama decision-making process.

Jones has structured an all views on the table approach to decision making — quite evident when it comes to Middle East policy — and the hawkish/neocon-friendly/Likudist-hugging part of the Obama administration’s foreign policy operation may be engaged in a coup attempt against Jones.

I don’t know if he’ll survive this latest effort to oust him — but folks need to know that those “longer knives”, on the whole, do not have pure motives.

This is why America’s founders were so intent on maintaining a standing army, so that the generals would serve as a restraining influence on the warmongering civilian thinktanker-types, right?

10 thoughts on “Is the War Party out to get Gen. Jones?”

  1. “Back in 2008, when Jones served as then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s special adviser on Israeli-Palestinian security issues, he authored a report calling for the US to assess what Israel’s ‘real’ security interests in Judea and Samaria are and to limit US support to Israel to filling those necessarily minimal interests. Jones’s report, which rejected all Israeli claims in Judea and Samaria and underplayed the strategic significance of Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, was viewed as deeply hostile toward Israel, and the Olmert government prevailed on the Bush administration to set it aside.”
    Caroline Glick, JPost, Jun 12 2009

  2. . . .folks need to know that those “longer knives”, on the whole, do not have pure motives.

    “Night of the Longer Knives,” anyone?

  3. Copy of Comment to Washington Note:

    What is the point if they work until 11pm at night to work out the details of how to apply a complicated bandaids to a braintumour problem;

    when instead they can be clear, concise, accurate and go for the root of the problem?????

    The problem being nobody in the ‘left’ wants to address the ‘roots’ of the population colliding with scarce, finite and depleting resources problems, cause they ain’t about to tell their milions of poor, that if you breed less babies, then you will be LESS POOR…..

    Compare all this baloney vague abstract policy making to the frankness of 1974 National Security Memorandum 200:

    “… World population growth is widely recognized within the Government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures….”

    “.. it is of the utmost urgency that governments now recognize the facts and implications of population growth, determine the ultimate population sizes that make sense for their countries and start vigorous programs at once to achieve their desired goals.”

    “… population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources — in this rough order of importance — all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence… Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.”

    “…there is general agreement that up to the point when cost per acceptor rises rapidly, family planning expenditures are generally considered the best investment a country can make in its own future.”

    ~ National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth ~

    ———
    On another note… FYI:

    Act2 to: (I) Withdraw Nobel Peace Prize’s from Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for (a) Intellectual Dishonesty & Hypocrisy; (b) Moral, Political and Religious Prostitution; and (c) ‘TRC-RSA’ Fraud and Betrayal; and (II) Accept Nobel Peace Prize Nominations for Dr. Albert Bartlett; Dr. Garret James Harden, and Dr. M. King Hubbert, for Intellectually Honest and Politically Honourable Ecologically Sustainable, Human Rights, Peace and Social Justice Advocacy.

    Why, What Does That Imply? What Does that Mean? It means….

    Act4: ♥ Economic Relocalization of Local Communities for Self Sufficiency ♥

    Act4: ♥ Worldwide Peaceful Secessionary Movements Peaceful Political Secession!!! ♥

    Sign the HARTSSTARH Legal and Political Petition to the Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee

    1. It is not “the left” that is opposing family planning.

      The conservatives like women to have many children, and not join the workforce. The antiabortionist pressured the Bush administration to stop supporting family planning programs. The Pope don’t like condoms and other preventives. That the government should derermine population sizes and start vigorous programs to achieve this does not sound like something libertarians would even consider supporting.

      I don’t know if you regard conservatives, antiabortionists, the Pope, and libertarians as part of “the left”. But the countries with the most vigorous family planning policies and programs are communist ruled countries like China and Vietnam.

    2. Would you care to explain to me what this has to do with the topic at hand? Should a blogger post something about population or family planning, then post your rant. Otherwise, go somewhere else.

  4. Good Grief! What the hell does population control (i.e. war, disease and genocide?) have a damn thing to do with this article?

  5. Tchad Blanc interprétation du lookbook de are generally Rugby Ralph lauren Hommes 2012 Spg, l'interprétation du furthermore pur model relaxed américaine. Coupés de taille et d'autres détails deviennent souligne 2012Ralph printemps Lauren.

Comments are closed.