The State Department is "institutionally disposed to settle problems through compromise, to settle rather than to fight," Mr. Perle said. This is dangerous because many enemies of America remain who are prepared to continue fighting when offered a settlement. "You cannot settle with Al Qaeda. You cannot settle with Islamist extremists. Those who suggest we can do great damage," he said."and also this:
"Mr. Perle said the current policy toward Iraq has no more than nine months to run: It either will have achieved success by then or will have to be abandoned. "That is why I find it strange that the Democrats should take short-term political advantage. They have only to wait," he said."ARTIFICAL TIMETABLES!
* Meanwhile, here's an old vid, 1986, of Perle disagreeing with scientists about soviet nuclear blasts:
"Richard Perle, as Assistant Secretary of Defense, was interviewed by KRON-TV in 1986. He was asked to defend his belief that the USSR had tested a nuclear weapon in defiance of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. When asked why he had ignored the opinions of government seismologists--all of whom rejected the possibility that the USSR was in violation of the treaty--he answered "I did not much care what their answer was.""
5 comments:
This came up,
"...The State Department is "institutionally disposed to settle problems through compromise, to settle rather than to fight," Mr. Perle said. This is dangerous because many enemies of America remain who are prepared to continue fighting when offered a settlement. "You cannot settle with Al Qaeda. You cannot settle with Islamist extremists. Those who suggest we can do great damage," he said."
I wonder whether this position is really all that new or innovative in American politics. When certain military figures wanted to attack the Russians after WW2, they did so despite the fact that the Soviet Union had fought on our side against Nazi Germany. I have supposed they did so because for some reason they thought the Soviet Union was an enemy of the United States despite whatever side they were on during the war.
We went to war against North Viet nam and the government of Ho Chi Minh despite his having spent a lot of time trying to obtain support from the United States.
The United States has been at war with Cuba for fifty years despite there never being any overt actions by the Cubans against American interests, except for the Mafia's investments in brothels and gambling casinos.
The idea that there are enemies of the United States who must be destroyed despite whatever they do to address common issues and resolve conflicts seems to me to be common.
So, what is Perle thinking? One thing he's thinking, apparently, is that you can't negotiate with these people. It doesn't work, and to think it might, according to Perle, makes one weak. Negotiating makes one think that our enemies will listen to reason, or will keep their promises, or have hearts. And, according to Perle, they most obviously can't be so trusted.
Where does he get this idea? Does he base this claim on evidence? Did he have a bad experience negotiating with the Iranians, for example, or Islamic "extremists?" Or, has he projected his own distrust of negotiations onto the country's opponents? Or, does he think he knows something about the world that we do not?
Maybe he understands something about us, that we don't? Maybe he sees that we have an interest in controlling things that most people in the world will try to oppose and reject as illegal or immoral? He sees, perhaps, where we do not, that we are thieves and murderers, thus explaining how people will be our enemies despite whatever they do to placate us.
I tend to think that, unfortunately, that is probably the case.
SteveA - a typically considered post, thanks.
So, what is Perle thinking? One thing he's thinking, apparently, is that you can't negotiate with these people.
by some quirk of coincidence, or something else, Perle is on the payroll of the MIC, and also always advocates for more war, or more fear of enemies.
chicken? or it the egg? After a while, it doesn't really matter - other than the curious fact that the people who serve, and profit from, the MIC repeatedly appear at the top end of govt - regardless of their previous, documented, security breaches. How does this happen?
why doesn't the opposite happen? ever.
Perle is slightly complex, but not incomprehensible. He gets along with people on the power of his sincere belief in what he thinks. His problem is that he suffers from an almost disabling defect in perception. People think it's cute that he genuinely sees Ronald Reagan as a model father figure; however, only a person who views life as a cartoon believes that is so.
Perle represent a point of view that says that you kill enemies not negotiate. To negotiate means that you change, you make a deal that it is more worth it to listen than to continue fighting. You have a set of rules, a world divided into good guys and bad guys and from there everything is simple--no need to think, to dig deep for meaning, to listen, to change, to grow, to expand your consciousness.
christopher - except that Perle has some weird 'good guy friends' - chechyan terrorists, amongst others.
Post a Comment