Kissinger: No Hopes of Military Victory
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the BBC on Sunday November 19, that the United States should not expect a military victory in Iraq . Kissinger expressed that the United States ’ only chance of any victory would be implemented by diplomacy and communication with surrounding countries such as Iran (and potentially Syria). Sounds easy enough. I’m sure Ahmadinejad would welcome us with open arms to discussions about how he is going to become the main inheritor of our mess o' grandeur.
To tell you the truth, I think Mr. Kissinger is definitely on to something. Infact I'll go one step further to say "he's absolutely correct in his thinking." I do, however, find it a little ironic how he has decided to wait until the last minute to advise the United States on such diplomatic relations. Though, this is excusable, I guess. . . . This ‘waiting until the last minute to give sound advice’ seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout his practice, so I guess in this case it was expected. *cough* Vietnam *cough, cough*
Regardless! I concur with Mr. Kissinger’s apprehensive and warned advice to President Bush on the issues of Iraq . As we have already noted, noted, and noted again – the more military might we invest, the more rapidly the insurgency grows and festers. Obviously, after five years of fighting, one would think we should, oh, I dunno – invest in a different strategy? It only makes sense to kowtow to Ahmadinejad, amongst others in this situation (as sick that may make Bush and his cronies) for this strategy is one that, believe it or not – does make sense.
Think about it - we have already been completely abandoned by our other allies, why not make new ones? The strategic placement, the cultural understanding, the influence, and the acknowledgement of status that would go into diplomatically creating allied relations with Iran may not only help us get our troops out of Iraq faster, but also aid us in relations there in the future. Of course this means that Bush need avid and staunch guidance in how to properly communicate with Ahmadinejad, but I’m sure his Dad, Bush Sr. could help him out with that one.
The sad reality is that we have allowed ourselves to get into this embarrassing situation, but the good news, is – if managed properly, we can still get out of this mess with some credibility. By asking for help and support from those whom we could loosely consider enemies, we may have a chance at turning this situation around.
Yes, we are powerful. Yes, we are strong. Yes, we are united (barely). However, as a perfect example of what this war has made of us – we cannot ignore the fact that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, are not invincible.
"I'll take The fall of the Roman Empire for $1000, Alec"
To tell you the truth, I think Mr. Kissinger is definitely on to something. Infact I'll go one step further to say "he's absolutely correct in his thinking." I do, however, find it a little ironic how he has decided to wait until the last minute to advise the United States on such diplomatic relations. Though, this is excusable, I guess. . . . This ‘waiting until the last minute to give sound advice’ seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout his practice, so I guess in this case it was expected. *cough* Vietnam *cough, cough*
Regardless! I concur with Mr. Kissinger’s apprehensive and warned advice to President Bush on the issues of Iraq . As we have already noted, noted, and noted again – the more military might we invest, the more rapidly the insurgency grows and festers. Obviously, after five years of fighting, one would think we should, oh, I dunno – invest in a different strategy? It only makes sense to kowtow to Ahmadinejad, amongst others in this situation (as sick that may make Bush and his cronies) for this strategy is one that, believe it or not – does make sense.
Think about it - we have already been completely abandoned by our other allies, why not make new ones? The strategic placement, the cultural understanding, the influence, and the acknowledgement of status that would go into diplomatically creating allied relations with Iran may not only help us get our troops out of Iraq faster, but also aid us in relations there in the future. Of course this means that Bush need avid and staunch guidance in how to properly communicate with Ahmadinejad, but I’m sure his Dad, Bush Sr. could help him out with that one.
The sad reality is that we have allowed ourselves to get into this embarrassing situation, but the good news, is – if managed properly, we can still get out of this mess with some credibility. By asking for help and support from those whom we could loosely consider enemies, we may have a chance at turning this situation around.
Yes, we are powerful. Yes, we are strong. Yes, we are united (barely). However, as a perfect example of what this war has made of us – we cannot ignore the fact that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, are not invincible.
"I'll take The fall of the Roman Empire for $1000, Alec"
posted by Politic-Anna at Tuesday, November 21, 2006
5 Comments:
Thanks for this post. Well said. Maybe Kissinger did learn from past mistakes; Goldwater certainly did.
My only wish: That you'd post more often. It seems to me that yours is among the cleanest voices in the blogosphere and we need to hear from you more often.
Ok, I've got one for you.
Talabani is visiting the United States for a conference with W. One day the two of them are walking through the rose garden when Bush asks, "How is your family? Are they enjoying their stay in the United States?"
Talabani responds, "Oh, they love it here! My nephew especially is enamored of your culture. He's discovered your television show 'Star Trek' and now we can hardly get him away from the television!"
Bush says, "That program is very popular. It's loved by many people."
Talabani asks, "I wonder if you might tell me something about it. My nephew is confused and a little distressed. This morning he said to me, 'I don't understand something. On Star Trek there is the African, Uhura, the Scotsman, Scotty, the Russian, Chekov, and the Japanese man, Sulu. Why are there no Arabs on Star Trek?' "
Bush laughs and says, "That's because it takes place in the future."
You're joking ... yes?
Pete. What a wonderful comment. I will work on writing more. With comments like that, how could I not? Thank you for the kind words.
Joe. Nice work, Fish. One question: Are there any American cowboys on Startrek? I didn't think so. . . .
Pete. I don't know, pete. I usually just point and laugh at him ;)
Yeah, pointing and laughing works.
Post a Comment
<< Home