Old CIA Memo

Foreign Policy: The FP Memo: The Endgame in Iraq

What happens when you take a 40-year-old CIA memo on losing a war and replace the word “Vietnam” with the word “Iraq”? The result is a set of conclusions that are just as true today.

MEMORANDUM:
TO: CIA Director Gen. Michael V. Hayden
FROM: Kurt Campbell and Shawn Brimley
RE: The Consequences of Losing in Iraq

American policymakers and intelligence analysts are currently struggling to consider the potential repercussions of failure in Iraq. Forty years ago, an earlier generation of U.S. policymakers were thinking about the implications of defeat in another conflict—Vietnam.

During the summer of 1967, then CIA Director Richard Helms asked for a quiet review of the global political and strategic consequences of an American failure in Vietnam. The result was a classified memorandum circulated on Sept. 11, 1967, “Implications of an Unfavorable Outcome in Vietnam,” which detailed a lengthy list of potential dark outcomes and worrisome prospects.

Excerpts from this document—with only minor edits—offer eerie parallels to the very different set of circumstances the United States faces today in Iraq. In considering the Iraq war’s endgame, the U.S. government would be wise to review its own notes.
____________________________

Click for the rest.

The Iraq situation has been plagued with overly optomistic estimates (from the current administration) from the get-go. The administration needs to get down to "brass tax". A re-evaluation of what "success" means is in order. At this point a "stablized Democracy that will stand as a beacon of freedom" in the middle east is a pipe dream. I would like to see the U.S. exit from Iraq with a much greater degree of intelligence and execution, then that with which we entered. It may be as simple as setting a few criteria with which the Iraqi must achieve....for example, No Al Queida (spelling sucks I know), No genocide against Sunni's and a political / diplomatic international contingent to negotiate a lasting peace. If that means dividing up the country, then so be it. At this point the only solution that stands a chance is a diplomatic one. Unfortunately for that to happen we may have to wait till Bush is out of office. Bush is like a Pitcher that has been on the mound too long and has given up 4 home runs in a row, time to call for relief. No matter what his intentions may have been, they were executed with the grace of bull in a china shop.

I think that holds true to all the candidates, including Paul.

Never say never. Even if i did prove it you still wouldn't believe it.

In your opinion he has principle's and cares. Support all you like, while he laughs all the way to the bank.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.


He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.


You prove otherwise, and I'll believe it. Of course, I am safe in my position, because you will not be able to.

Act more typical please. Make an accusation, and then tell someone else to prove it's wrong? LOL, burden of proof is on you, but hey, we all know you aren't up to it, and have written a check your mind can not cash, so don't feel to emo lil' buckaroo.