Comments on: Status Quo You Can Believe In http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/01/09/status-quo-you-can-believe-in/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=status-quo-you-can-believe-in @TAC Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:36:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MattSwartz http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/01/09/status-quo-you-can-believe-in/comment-page-1/#comment-3625 MattSwartz Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:04:30 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1428#comment-3625 <i>What are the odds things start blowing up in Iran within 6 months?</i> The odds of that are long. I can't imagine it happening at all. Iran would be nuts to respond to a more moderate US foreign policy by pushing, and Iran is not nuts. My big fear is that these insiders won't feel obligated to submit to much Congressional oversight, which means that the Bush-era problems will continue. What are the odds things start blowing up in Iran within 6 months?

The odds of that are long. I can’t imagine it happening at all. Iran would be nuts to respond to a more moderate US foreign policy by pushing, and Iran is not nuts.

My big fear is that these insiders won’t feel obligated to submit to much Congressional oversight, which means that the Bush-era problems will continue.

]]> By: Room 237 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/01/09/status-quo-you-can-believe-in/comment-page-1/#comment-3611 Room 237 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:31:36 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1428#comment-3611 What are the odds things start blowing up in Iran within 6 months? What are the odds things start blowing up in Iran within 6 months?

]]> By: Philip Giraldi http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/01/09/status-quo-you-can-believe-in/comment-page-1/#comment-3605 Philip Giraldi Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:12:06 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=1428#comment-3605 I too have been wondering about the appointment though I am much more concerned about the re-emergence of Holbrooke and Ross. I think it is neither particularly good nor particularly bad, bad because he will operate too much on consenus and good because he is not a true believer driven by an agenda. I read the interview with him that you cite and concluded that he really doesn't say anything except that he recognizes that the current counter-terrorism effort has not been successful and that we have to look at root causes - not a very remarkable insight, particularly as he doesn't explain very well how one might do that given prevailing views at state and defense. As you note, he appears to be realist-lite, which is certainly an improvement over the Bushies. People who know him tell me he is middle of the road politically, not very adventurous, and someone who is unlikely to go against conventional wisdom. He can be relied on to give advice that is sensible but is not intellectually curious and will not normally think outside the box. Re his ties to contractors, as an adviser to POTUS he is unlikely to be in a position to advance the interests of private companies. Global Strategies actually has a better reputation than most companies providing those types of services. On balance, a C+. Would have been better to come up with someone who would represent a real break with current policies, but that would be hoping for too much. I too have been wondering about the appointment though I am much more concerned about the re-emergence of Holbrooke and Ross. I think it is neither particularly good nor particularly bad, bad because he will operate too much on consenus and good because he is not a true believer driven by an agenda. I read the interview with him that you cite and concluded that he really doesn’t say anything except that he recognizes that the current counter-terrorism effort has not been successful and that we have to look at root causes – not a very remarkable insight, particularly as he doesn’t explain very well how one might do that given prevailing views at state and defense. As you note, he appears to be realist-lite, which is certainly an improvement over the Bushies. People who know him tell me he is middle of the road politically, not very adventurous, and someone who is unlikely to go against conventional wisdom. He can be relied on to give advice that is sensible but is not intellectually curious and will not normally think outside the box. Re his ties to contractors, as an adviser to POTUS he is unlikely to be in a position to advance the interests of private companies. Global Strategies actually has a better reputation than most companies providing those types of services. On balance, a C+. Would have been better to come up with someone who would represent a real break with current policies, but that would be hoping for too much.

]]>