"SHADOW GOVERNMENT IN WAITING" to propose 2012 withdrawal

[ProSense]

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2007&base_name=post_3976">SHADOW GOVERNMENT IN WAITING. The Bush administration had the American Enterprise Institute as its ideological brain trust and frequent employment agency. The next White House will likely have the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a new, bi-partisan, national security-oriented think tank at 13th and Pennsylvania Avenue. CNAS launches a roll-out June 27, featuring a new Iraq report that has already generated some interest around town. The paper, Phased Transition: a Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq, is expected to argue for reducing the US troop presence in Iraq by 100,000 to 60,000 by the end of 2008, and a total withdrawal by 2012. In the short term, the report also urges reorienting the US military mission in Iraq toward an enhanced advisory and training role, and focusing on a "bottom up" approach of reinforcing local security forces over the current top-down approach of propping up the Iraqi central government. "We would like this administration not to hand off a catastrophe," says CNAS' director of external affairs Price Floyd, a 17-year veteran of the State Department.

Led by two defense experts and veterans from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Kurt Campbell, and Michele Flournoy, and with a board that includes Bush's former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Clinton-era Defense Secretary Bill Perry and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, CNAS has attracted some of the rising stars -- both uniformed and civilian -- of the Pentagon intelligentsia. On the QT, we hear prez aspirant Hillary Clinton, former councilor to Secretary of State Rice Philip Zelikow, rumored future Dem administration national security advisor Jim Steinberg, and Senator Chuck Hagel are slated to address the CNAS kickoff at the Willard. But it will be the ability of the younger thinkers driving the enterprise to come up with new and transformative ideas for the next administration that is the real test of its clout.

Choice comment:

OMG proof positive that "moderate" think tanks are at least as stupid as the neo-cons.

From the Atlantic Online:

Center for a New American Security

16 Jun 2007 09:58 am

A new outfit composed, basically, of people from the old outfits. Laura Rozen calls it a "shadow government in waiting" and I think she's right -- these are, at a minimum, people who would very much like to have important jobs in a Democratic administration (I mean, they'd take jobs in a GOP administration, but it doesn't look like any of the GOP contenders want to even slightly moderate the level of insanity in current US foreign policy).

I'll note as a first impression that if President X has any sense at all, she won't put anyone even vaguely associated with this project in charge of naming anything -- what they've come up with here is just terrible.

Choice comment:

It looks like this group has come up with a blueprint for Iraq copped from Nixon's strategy for Vietnam.
Are these people braindead?

Yeah, it brings to mind "Peace with Honor."

Unbelievable!

[ck4829]

1. Center for a New American Security sounds like Project for the New American Century

And not just in name only.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Well--that comment takes the wind from MY sails.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

[IndianaGreen]

10. There is no difference between a neocon and a neolib

They are just different flavours of the same imperialist medicine.

[TwilightGardener]

3. See, I commented on this in GD yesterday--I do not find this threatening or ominous.

And I don't find anyone objectionable (except for Armitage) being involved in it--it sounds like a good antidote to AEI (neocon equivalent). It's trying to EVENTUALLY end the war, at least, and it's bipartisan. I don't think they're neocons, or a "shadow government"--where is there evidence of this being anything other than a typical foreign-policy think-tank, with a lot of distinguished/qualified people associated with it (like Hillary)?

[William769]

4. And you will comment on it tomorrow and the next day.

A certain someone around here does nothing but recycle.

[TwilightGardener]

5. LOL! I don't mind a thread duplicate if it's an important topic (NOT Paris Hilton or sippy cups)

that folks might have missed on a slow DU Saturday, and I do think this is important--it's sort of a preview as to who might be helping drive the bus on foreign policy in the next admin, and kind of revealing that Hillary is front-and-center on this.

[ProSense]

6. I think it's a great idea

if you're prepared for dragging out the war or never-ending war. The cavalier thinking (because all signs point to the contrary) that imagines U.S. presence in Iraq can be prolonged without triggering more violence is preposterous. Unless there is a withdrawal by the end of 2008, this strategy looks like a five-year plan that begins in 2009. Where are they going to keeps these troops in Iraq for five to seven years? In Kirkuk?

This is another idea, but it is a horrible one.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Agree or disagree with this group and its plan for Iraq, but I will bet

you any amount of money that their plan ends up being the closest to what eventually transpires, at least if we get a Dem President, and certainly if it's Hillary. It's got all the movers and shakers in foreign policy/military matters--sounds like it WILL have an influence. I am a moderate, myself, so I see this as realistic and not that awful of a scenario. I am not of the "Out of Iraq Now" caucus, however.

[avrdream]

12. Me too.

This plan seems fairly reasonable to me. I'm not sure about the number of troops being withdrawn at a time, though. I'd like it to be a faster withdrawal but understand where most of the Democratic nominees are coming from when they talk about a phased withdrawal. The persistence of troops beyond what is necessary bothers me.

[TwilightGardener]

13. The length of time of troops staying there bothers me, too, but I can

kind of see this group's point about having to avoid the "three no's", as they put it: No genocide, no Al Qaeda safe havens, no regional conflict breaking out because of instability in Iraq. All three ARE a big danger, no matter what we do. Thanks, Chimpy! Now other people get to clean up your mess!

[ProSense]

14. Have you seen these

movers and shakers. They got a plan too, and it has nothing to do with staying in Iraq for the next five to seven years.

There is also Congress and the American people. I can bet that the first really big disaster changes the dynamics.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Yes, saw that Kerry thread, too--note that some of the same people are involved in both.

I'm just saying that their Iraq plans and some of their other "projects" don't seem especially disturbing to me.

[ProSense]

16. That's fine!

I happen to think it's the wrong approach!

[ProSense]

17. Just one person, trying to have it both ways:

Armitage, guess he needs to feed his conscience.

[starroute]

22. I don't believe this "plan" for a moment

The real objective for these people is countering the influence of Russia and China in Central Asia and the Middle East. That's the sort of "geostrategic" thinking that CSIS is all about, and it's significant that Kurt Campbell started out as a Soviet expert, back 20 years ago when there still was a Soviet Union. Their goal is to project US power even more strongly in that region, and any conception they may have of being "out" of Iraq five years from now is surely dependent of being "in" even more strongly somewhere else.

Here's the Amazon page on a November 2001 book by Campbell and Flournoy:

http://www.amazon.com/Prevail-American-Strategy-Campaign-Terrorism/dp/0892064072/ref=sr_1_6/002-8498491-7121643?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182052586&sr=1-6

Despite the recent successes in Afghanistan and the courageous response to the September events, the fundamental conclusion of this work is that the years ahead will be among the most difficult in the long life of our nation. The authors present a comprehensive look at the areas in which new choices and hard decisions must be made--from strengthening law enforcement and intelligence to sustaining a sense of American purpose and devising tailored strategies for key regions of the world. The book's analysis was informed by the work of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Task Force on Terrorism, drawing on the full range of CSIS expertise in terrorism, national and international security, regional studies, and religion.

From the Back Cover . . .

"To Prevail is a great place to begin an understanding of the new world we face and America's role and responsibilities." (Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser and president, Forum for International Policy)

"Michèle Flournoy and Kurt Campbell are two extremely gifted thinkers and analysts who have given us a book that is important reading for anyone who wishes to fully appreciate the nuances and complexities of the post-September 11 world."(William Cohen, former secretary of defense and chairman and CEO, The Cohen Group)

Yeah, that's Brent Scowcroft of the American Turkish Council and William Cohen, one of the chief lobbyists for Turkey -- if the names don't instantly ring a bell, google for what Sibel Edmonds has to say about them. That in itself would be reason enough for me to be suspicious of the entire enterprise.

[KoKo]

23. Thanks Starroute....agree and your links are worth checking out. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, I figure the neocons were also out to contain Russian/Chinese/Indian

influence in the ME (thru gaining control of the Iraq/Iran governments, then the oil, then the distribution/price of oil). That's my theory, anyway. I can believe this group may have those ultimate aims as well, but at least hopefully not thru war. We'll have to see. It all depends, though, on what someone sees as good or bad. I see assertive but DIPLOMATIC policy as good, that doesn't just react but plans ahead to what's coming next. We are entering into tricky waters with Russia (nukes/missile defense shield and all that), and China will loom large. India too. I am nervous about a big oil/energy struggle against them in the future. I am nervous about us being on the losing end, and not having achieved adequate energy independence when these countries "awaken". So I can't say how I feel yet about your suspicions. I don't distrust Scowcroft, Cohen, or Albright right now.

[starroute]

25. Some people in India are very paranoid about the US

It's pretty well documented that Pakistan is a patron of the Islamic terrorist groups (and associated organized crime figures) that periodically attack India. What I've also seen suggested in Indian sources online is that if the US hasn't insisted that Pakistan stop protecting these groups, it's because of a desire to keep a rein on Indian influence by promoting Muslim-Hindu conflict.

I don't know if that's the case -- my own observation is that the US never cracks down on Pakistan for much of anything, and that it most likely has to do with the long-term Saudi relationships that Seymour Hersh has been documenting. But the idea does have a certain plausibility and would fit into what seems to be a broad-based US policy.

I notice, for example, that Moqtada al-Sadr is blaming the destruction of the Golden Mosque on the Americans and Israelis, saying no Sunni Muslim could have done it. Granted, that's the sort of thing al-Sadr would say -- but, as with the Indian suspicions, it could also be dead on.

And as for Madeleine Albright, as chairperson of the board of the National Democratic Institute -- which is one of those NED-funded "pro-democracy" NGO's the Russians are so nervous about -- she's definitely part of the high-level interventionist establishment. I think that establishment is very aware of the growing isolationist sentiment on both the left and the right and is preparing to push back against it with this new organization.

[sandyd921]

7. I prefer this shadow government:

http://www.progressivegovernment.org/

These are leaders with real ideas for solving the mess in Iraq and all of the other catastrophes created by RW insanity and maybe even initiating some positive change in areas like health care, education, transportation, energy, etc. (boy, wouldn't that be novel?). What we don't need now are more half-way, "moderate" solutions to the huge mess we have.

[ProSense]

8. Excellent group! Thanks! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

9. America will remain trapped in an Iraqi occupation much as Israel has remained trapped in theirs

Is this what we want for our troops and our people? Hell, no!

[IndyOp]

18. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be using their rhetoric soon enough...

Just my opinion. I'll be watching for it.

[illinoisprogressive]

19. oh joy. a new DLC style think tank. democratic neo cons

[glitch]

20. I liked the Old America. nt

[starroute]

21. Center for Strategic and International Studies is not reassuring

CSIS was founded by the late Ray Cline -- former OSS, former CIA deputy director, one of George H.W. Bush's most devout supporters. Donald Rumsfeld attented its first conference in 1964. Michael Ledeen was an associate from 1977 to 1986. Other names that show up in connection with it are Henry Kissinger, Richard Cheney, Arnaud de Borchgrave, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Kurt Campbell is a very close friend of Richard Armitage and a director of the Aspen Studies Group. His name also appears in my files as having been the target of a secret Taiwanese slush fund when he was a deputy assistant defense secretary during the Clinton administration.

In short, it's the same old bunch of elitists and geostrategists who think America should rule the world -- and the fact that it's bipartisan doesn't mean that it's on *our* side in any sense.

[ProSense]

26. New think tank details U.S. withdrawal from Iraq..."beginning in 2008 and ending in 2012"

New think tank details U.S. withdrawal from Iraq..."beginning in 2008 and ending in 2012"