| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Iraq-Jordan | |||||
| âUS should pull out of Iraq nowâ | |||||
| 2005-07-16 | |||||
| WASHINGTON - The United States should cut its losses, pull out of Iraq promptly and never again use its military might to build a nation according to its own values, former CIA chief John Deutch wrote on Friday in The New York Times. US military presence in Iraq is harming US interests in the Arab world, detracts attention from other âimportant security challenges ... North Korea, Iran and international terrorism,â and weakens the US military, said Deutch, who before heading the Central Intelligence Agency (1995-1996) was deputy defense secretary (1994-1995). âThose who argue that we should âstay the courseâ because an early withdrawal ... would hurt Americaâs global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our objectives in Iraq and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road,â he added.
| |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #30 Don't suger-coat it, Verlaine - give it to us straight! it would be in everyoneâs interest to allow Iraq to âevolve peacefully and without external intervention.â And this guy was CIA? It's in people of Iran's interest, maybe, for the Iraqis to succeed, but not the mullahs. No one with a central-control gov't - whether mullahs, like Iran, or just despots, like Syria - can afford to have a democracy with voters in the region. Sets a bad example, doncha know. And we should leave now, because we might not win? Glad his ilk were not at Iwo Jima, Bastone, or Chosin Reservior. I hope you can teach Chemistry better than statecraft. I'm sure you're popular, nevertheless, in Cambridge. Stay there, and shut up. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-16 08:12 |
| #29 I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some genetic deficiency involved, one that warps these peoples' ability to think rationally about agression and the proper responses to it Dave, it isn't genetics - it's ideology married to smugness. Ideology: the US as presently constituted is a Bad Thing. Smugness: they have the way to Fix Things and can do so without bad effects for themselves or The World. It's not complex at all: it's a frighteningly powerful stance to the degree they are allowed to get away with it. Remember: the wealthy 'progressives' like Soros and that crowd have a lot of their assets overseas. Unlike most ordinary Americans whose retirement or savings are located here: primarily their homes or a mutual fund, these guys can do very will if the US economy tanks or the country's borders collapse. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-16 16:05 |
| #28 Who is surprised by this from a Clintonian? Wonder how the the bad guys managed to plan all those attacks and never get picked up by the CIA? Becuase we were reactive and not proactive. We had tons of resources to throw at Islamic terrorism, but we didn't want to force our values or force them into something like Democracy. Thats because these asswipe clintonians don't believe in democracy. They still believe socialism will work with the right people in charge (them). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-07-16 15:57 |
| #27 "Lindh, a California native now in his early 20s, pleaded guilty in civilian court to supplying services to the Taliban government and carrying explosives for them. He received a 20-year prison sentence in 2002. He has since sought to have it reduced." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-06-americans-iraq_x.htm Reduced sentence? He should have never left that original prison alive. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-16 14:12 |
| #26 I do believe you, OS. Here for the rest of us is an account of the last minutes of Mike Spann, who gave his life shortly after attempting to interrogate the traitor scum "American Taliban": http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067386/ |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-16 14:06 |
| #25 Cap'n A: I scanned the report that you provided a link to. Deutch had problems handling classified DOE info back when he was working in that agency. One does not screw around with that kind of stuff. I can't believe they put a dolt like this in charge of anything, let alone something like the CIA. I doubt he was bright enough to spell CIA. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2005-07-16 13:02 |
| #24 You want to know why 9/11 happened? Look no further than people like "Laptop" Deutch (as he was dubbed by some), Tenet (buckpasser), FBI director Louis Freeh, and Janet Reno. The latter are quite possibly the worst Attorney General and FBI pair that have ever occupied those offices. People like Deutsch and his buddies were rampant in the agency in the mid and late 90's. They completely politicized the agency in many areas, warping the analysis areas, cutting back on HUMINT in favor of technically driven solutions that were not ready (cruise missle attack on an aspirin factory?), pulled the teeth on fieldcraft and ops - preferring instead to fling a few cruise missles on empty camps instead. Crap like that is why people like me were not working inside by the end of the 90's (you can only stand so much). Us cold war warriors, or "Cold War Relics" (as the Clintonites liked to jeer us) were not welcome in their politicized, "peace time" agency whose main mission seemed to be support of the State Department and thwarting the Department of Defense. Thats why someone like Porter Goss was needed to try to clean out the CIA - the remainders of the Clinton era, like Plame and Scheurer, were still doing things the old political way: rampant cronyism and advancing political causes (and later, apparently trying to hinder the current administration), all while ignoring the "mission first" attitude that used to be there. Director Goss is putting things on a "Mission First" basis again. And its great that some old faces are back at work teaching the next generation of agency people (big hiring surge since 9/11) how the world *really* is and what it means to put your country first, then placing things like the mission, then the agency in their proper order - and *no* politics at all in the mission stack, no glory, just get the job done quietly, and get home if you can. Its a tough business: when you are right, nobody hears about it, when you are wrong the nation suffers. If you are in ops, nobody ever hears about your successes, not even inside the building because of compartmentalization, and if you are wrong you can die horribly. Don't beleive me? Go look up Mike Spann, one of the few times a death has been made public. The CIA is truly the silent service, if people are doing their jobs right, starting at the top. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-07-16 12:46 |
| #23 Sure.....let's withdraw. But first, let's kill all the mooselimb cockroaches. Kill every last one of 'em. Then go home. Sounds good to me. |
| Posted by: Tom Dooley 2005-07-16 12:42 |
| #22 CIA report Report |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-16 11:38 |
| #20 "This piece of shit really doesn't get it." I gotta tell you, I'm really struggling with this. I've tried viewing people like Deutch as being motivated by evil intent-- that is, they're knowingly giving bad advice, because they secretly desire the bad consequences that would ensue from following it-- but that doesn't work in all cases. In this instance, I think the guy is actually sincere. Simple stupidity doesn't cut it as an explanation, either: for a person to believe this-- that timidity and cowardice constitute a winning strategy against murderous totalitarianism-- simply because they're "stupid", would mean they'd also be unable to tie their own shoelaces or feed themselves. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some genetic deficiency involved, one that warps these peoples' ability to think rationally about agression and the proper responses to it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-16 11:34 |
| #19 Lest we forget, Douche is the same guy who as CIA director preferred to do his classified work on his unsecured home computer. Hello ChiComs? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-16 11:25 |
| #18 So, what would Deutsch have done with the Germans in 1945? But then if Deutsch had been in the administrations in 1945, we'd probably be speaking German today. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-07-16 11:23 |
| #17 this is beyond the ass-covering lies that Halfbright and Clinton peddle. This piece of shit really doesn't get it. How frightening he was ever employed at the DOD and CIA, much less rose to his position. Peter Principle in F*&king spades.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-16 11:18 |
| #16 I prefer four man teams, myself. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-07-16 11:11 |
| #15 I was so floored by this that I had to check to be sure they have the correct John Deutch. They do: http://mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/biography.html |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-16 10:49 |
| #14 *with jaw dropped* I didn't have much of an opinion about cleaning house at the CIA. I do now. Anyone in the CIA (or the entire government for that matter) who is as stupid and clueless as John Deutch needs to go. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-16 10:44 |
| #13 *standing ovation* Excellent comments. The Camelot II and Great Malaise |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-16 10:13 |
| #12 Is this *really* the John Deutch that was running the CIA. His pitiful grasp of history - and by history I mean recent events like Somalia - is simply mind-boggling. No wonder things got so far out of control. Dave D pretty much sums it up. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-07-16 09:56 |
| #11 Deutch argued that a quick withdrawal now would avoid a lot of grief to come. Just like your quick withdrawal from Somalia did, eh? Bin Laden cited that cowardly act by Bill Clinton and his craven stooges as the single most important factor that convinced him that the West had gone irretrievably soft and was ripe for a coup de gras: the 9/11 attacks. A withdrawal from Iraq-- or even the mere announcement of a "timetable for withdrawal"-- would be Mogadishu writ large. It would convince the world's jihadis beyond any shadow of a doubt that Bin Laden was absolutely right: that while the U.S. has the most powerful, most capable, most lethal military force on the planet, the American people have no guts and they cannot stomach a long, hard fight. In Bin Laden's words, "keep bleeding them and eventually they will leave with their tails between their legs." A quick withdrawal from Iraq would utterly nullify everything we have done since 9/11. EVERYTHING. Every country on this planet, large or small, would treat us with complete contempt-- and we would richly deserve it. The forces of Islamic totalitarianism-- the Mad Mullahs in Iran, the oil ticks in Saudi Arabia, the Islamoloonies in Pakistan, fanatics of every description, everywhere around the globe-- would rejoice in the absolute, certain knowledge that their victory over the West is imminent. Bin Laden's 9/11 attacks would be viewed as an enormous strategic victory, even though they did trigger a temporary tactical setback. Hamas and Hizbollah would rejoice-- with much ululating and gun-sex-- and redouble their efforts to kill every Jew in Israel, convinced that we don't have the guts to keep them from doing it. And it wouldn't just be the Islamists, either: a quick withdrawal from Iraq would convince the Chinese that Mao was absolutely right in calling the U.S. a "paper tiger". Bye bye, Taiwan. Crazy Kim and the NKors would be ecstatic, too, at what they would see as proof positive that America is spineless. Time to nuke Seoul. And that's just our enemies. Our allies would conclude the same thing about America's resolve, with disastrous results; we'd be considered a sick, pathetic joke. I've been pretty much silent on the recent Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson/Karl Rove kerfuffle, partly because I view it as just one more in a long string of bogus, trumped-up, hyped-up, phony pseudo-scandals concocted by Democrats who are far more interested in battling a Republican president than they are in battling a totalitarian ideology that threatens our very existance. But I've also ignored it because, in my view, the REAL scandal is that for eight long, miserable years, idiots like John Deutch were in charge and were running America right into the ground. John Deutch and his fellow witless fools caused 9/11. And they should shut the hell up, before the rest of us become convinced that the only way to win this war is to round up these idiots and put them in internment camps so they don't do any more damage. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-16 09:27 |
| #10 Verlaine: How dim do you have to be to write that the Iraq take-down was and "intervention that has as its driving purpose the replacement of despotic regimes with systems of government more like our own." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? It's called strategic exploitation, ya numbskull. You leave a far less threatening system in place of the old one, reducing the need for additional interventions, you intimidate other adversaries and terror supporters and gain intel, and you strike a strategic blow against the spirit and momentum of the quasi-ideology that inspires the terrorists. The Clinton admin. (both terms) was staffed with the most incompetent national security managers we've had since WWII (barring perhaps the Carter years, though the problem there was more concentrated at the top). Didn't help that the boss was a follower, not a leader -- a poll-obsessed narcissistic retail political hack. You have to remember that the liberals who staffed the Clinton administration do not believe in deterrence. In their view, the reason that the Soviets never invaded the NATO countries was because they never wanted to, not because the American interventions in Korea and Vietnam (and a number of other places) had persuaded them that the American response would annihilate them. Their continuing kvetching about Iraq and demands for a pullout are an indication that they still don't believe in deterrence or in the danger of the kind of loss of deterrence that led to 9/11. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-07-16 08:53 |
| #9 Well said, Verlaine. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-16 08:33 |
| #8 Don't suger-coat it, Verlaine - give it to us straight! it would be in everyoneâs interest to allow Iraq to âevolve peacefully and without external intervention.â And this guy was CIA? It's in people of Iran's interest, maybe, for the Iraqis to succeed, but not the mullahs. No one with a central-control gov't - whether mullahs, like Iran, or just despots, like Syria - can afford to have a democracy with voters in the region. Sets a bad example, doncha know. And we should leave now, because we might not win? Glad his ilk were not at Iwo Jima, Bastone, or Chosin Reservior. I hope you can teach Chemistry better than statecraft. I'm sure you're popular, nevertheless, in Cambridge. Stay there, and shut up. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-16 08:12 |
| #7 It's amazing that the failed relics of the Clinton regime get so much ink. Deutch is almost as pathetic as Albright, Berger, Cohen, and Shalala. Say what you will about her, at least Shalala has a real job. |
| Posted by: Abu Shawn 2005-07-16 08:07 |
| #6 RVW nails it -- and the other comments are on target too. Nice annotations, Steve. Isn't it remarkable (OK, not remarkable, scary) how someone who's served at this level can't rise above a high school, cartoon version of events? We took down the Iraqi regime because it was an intolerable, uncontainable, unmanageable WMD proliferation and terror-support threat in the post-9/11 world -- whether they had a few hundred gallons of VX sitting around in April 2003, or not (they had a just-in-time configuration ready for implementation the instant sanctions finally, formally collapsed). How dim do you have to be to write that the Iraq take-down was and "intervention that has as its driving purpose the replacement of despotic regimes with systems of government more like our own." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?? It's called strategic exploitation, ya numbskull. You leave a far less threatening system in place of the old one, reducing the need for additional interventions, you intimidate other adversaries and terror supporters and gain intel, and you strike a strategic blow against the spirit and momentum of the quasi-ideology that inspires the terrorists. The Clinton admin. (both terms) was staffed with the most incompetent national security managers we've had since WWII (barring perhaps the Carter years, though the problem there was more concentrated at the top). Didn't help that the boss was a follower, not a leader -- a poll-obsessed narcissistic retail political hack. The delusional behavior of the NYT set continues to amaze. I thought no one could ever beat the publication of a pedantic policy lecture by Jimmy Carter on the very issue he personally helped f**k up -- North Korean nukes. But that was just the start. Richard Clarke lecturing Bush on terrorism strategy. Albright opening her mouth on anything. The complete disappearance of standards, self-respect, or accountability among policy types is something to behold. |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-07-16 07:00 |
| #5 Well this certainly explains how the CIA got into its current condition. Goss is still trying to purge it of this asshat's poison..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-07-16 05:19 |
| #4 Remember this is the NY Slimes that lets these has-been scumballs run co-ed pieces (Wilson, Richard Clarke, Douche, Mad Halfbright, etc.) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-16 03:02 |
| #3 It's amazing that the failed relics of the Clinton regime get so much ink. Deutch is almost as pathetic as Albright, Berger, Cohen, and Shalala. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-07-16 00:39 |
| #2 He should be in federal prison after getting caught with classified documents on his home PC. I do think it's helpful for somebody to just come out with this viewpoint rather than beat around the bush. The naivete shown by the comment that Iraq would be free of external interference if only the coalition would leave goes a long way towards explaining why Clinton's foreign policy was so weak. |
| Posted by: JAB 2005-07-16 00:34 |
| #1 His legacy? Somalia. Nuf said about Douche Deutsch. |
| Posted by: 98C7 2005-07-16 00:06 |