« Der Spiegel's ex-editor-in-chief Stefan Aust Denies Anti-American Populism | Main | The US Election: What's Your Reaction? »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d83550b88869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Exclusive Interview with Brent Scowcroft: US Foreign Policy:

» The Future of US-EU Relations: from Pajamas Media
Blogger Ray D. @ Davids Medienkritik scores an interview with Brent Scowcroft.... [Read More]

» Lack of sufficient strength isn't solved by adding dead weight from Thought Mesh
Brent Scowcroft serves as an excellent bad example of how thoughtless sentiment doesn't work when designing foreign policy. [Read More]

Comments

@is the Bush administration to blame for anti-Americanism?

Well, I never thought much of Scowcroft when he was in power and with his answers to your questions, like the one above, I think even less of him.

"over-leaning sense of its own power but a disdain for Europe"... my guess is that he said 'over-weaning' since over-leaning is not English. In any cae, as anyone who has followed this blog should know by now, European Anti-Americanism predates the birth of this country. And Bush's disdain was well deserved.

"we can't even tame a little country like Iraq".... amazing nonsense from a military man. We won the war in a few days, what we are having trouble with is a guerilla war, the guerillas being aided by surrounding nations. Guerilla wars last decades---Spain versus Napoleon (the original guerillas), Filipinos versus Americans (circa 1900),Apaches versus U.S. cavalary, Ireland versus the Brits, IRA versus the Brits, Greek communists versus nationalist Greek government.....

He is following the complete defeatist Democratic Party line in this interview. The Democrats were 'copperhead; traitors during our civil war, cheering each of Lincoln's defeats, and these modern democrats are just as bad.

Speaking of American political figures, notice the incredible malicious glee with which SPON is kicking Wolfowitz while he's down. Latest headline - "Wolfowitz Fights his Downfall Amid Scorn and Scandal!" You may recall how they bent over backwards to insist that Saddam Hussein's right to a fair trial be protected to the fullest. In Wolfowitz' case they seem to have forgotten all about their pious phrase mongering about "innocent until proven guilty" in their rush to judgment. Naturally, they drag in Wieczorek-Zeul, high priestess of the German professionally pious, to "declare that Wolfowitz is an undesirable person." Once again we see SPON's signature lack of what H. L. Mencken used to refer to as a sense of common decency. The editors are incapable of perceiving others as human beings. They can see only ideological friends or foes.

The editors are incapable of perceiving others as human beings. They can see only ideological friends or foes.

Very true. That's a disease many on the left share (not only in Germany).

Dr. Sanity says it very well: They are the people who are determined to have George W. Bush impeached--or declared clinically mentally ill; they are determined to undermine American values; to portray Republicans and conservatives as absolute evil.

The ones who dare to think "differently" are, for many on the left pure evil. That is, if they are Westerners. If they are middle-Eastern, their evil is to be understood and directed in a positive direction. (Positive means towards Bush nowadays).

It's truly a disease and the psycho bloggers do a great job exposing it.

His uneasiness when being asked about Guantanamo is telling. He doesn't have the guts to say "yes, the US has gone too far" directly, but he said it indirectly.
At least he admits that unilateralism has failed. It's a good sign some people finally come to their senses.

Hate pedlar Pitzke expounds the party line for those who have been asleep for the last five years and are therefore taken aback by SPON's gleeful lynch mob howling during Wolfowitz' death spiral.

It was a joke that a type like Wolfowitz, an arrogant american-centric neocon and war fanatic, could become chief of the world bank, an institution whose goal is to help underdeveloped countries. That he got fired is another positive sign.

Well, Scowcroft has just lost my respect. So, what else is new for the 'New World Order?

The World Bank was set up after WWII when capital markets were very small and new, ex-colonial states could not get finance. So, the US stepped in to be the creditor of these new states and get them going. Today the world is awash with finance at any credit level.

The Bank has 10,000 highly paid employees, 8,000 of which live and work in Washington. Further, the bank has been criticized of having paternalistic loan practice of basically financing third world thugs who take the money and leave their population with crushing debt. Both parties seem to be happy with this. Wolfowitz has criticized and wants this stopped, to the acclaim of native liberals who recognize their own thieving governments. Meanwhile back in Washington, 7,998 Bank fat cats are worried about their cushy jobs.

Scrowcroft was always a bit of a nancy. A prissey. He doesn’t like messes, and isn’t one to be sent to make something new. He is an organizational man. A bureaucrat of the security industry. Scrowcroft is a fan of amoral real-politic and if Putin rolled over Europe tomorrow, Scrowcroft would be trying to find an accommodation.


As to American 'unilateralism', well that is factually not true or accurate, but more useful in telling where Scrowcroft is coming from. Iraq is factually something of a sideshow, and not deserving of massive weight and wealth of the US. I suppose you could call it an managed war, or an experimental war. Further, it will be a long process, much like the Indian wars in North American that went on for three hundred years. So be it. The world is getting smaller and I prefer that the dominate ethic be democratic liberalism, which has lots of mortal enemies, both historic and cultural.

All this talk about Wolfie makes me wonder what Herr Verheugen is doing these days.

I don't have speakers and I'm on dial-up (sob) so my remarks are based on what is posted here.

RAAAAYYYYY!!!!!

Kudos, dude. Kudos on getting the access and kudos on letting the man speak for himself. Kudos on knowing what questions to ask and letting the answers stand.

This is what journalism should be. The knack of knowing how to be there without being in the way.

Good job, Ray.

I'll rip him a new one in a day or two, but in the meantime, excellent, truly.


"He doesn’t like messes, and isn’t one to be sent to make something new. He is an organizational man. A bureaucrat of the security industry. Scrowcroft is a fan of amoral real-politic and if Putin rolled over Europe tomorrow, Scrowcroft would be trying to find an accommodation."

Yeah, I'm getting the same impression. Initially, after I've listened to the interview and realized that Scowcroft is an Air Force General (ret.), I was doing some research on his bio as I wanted to know what planes he flew and during what times. Turns out he graduated from pilot training in October 1948 and then immediately "served in a variety of operational and administrative positions from 1948 to 1953. In July 1953 he was assigned to the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy, where he was appointed assistant professor of Russian history. He remained there until August 1957 when he entered the Strategic Intelligence School in Washington, D.C.". Source: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7095

Uhm, what about Mig Alley, Korea? To me it seems pretty odd for a later Air Force General to have discontinued flying right after graduating from pilot training, in favor of an administrative job, unless you just barely got through training w/o killing yourself, have a medical condition, or really *love* bureaucracy. ;) 1948 was a kick ass time for military aviation, just ask Chuck Yeager. As to the "operational positions" part, maybe this includes some (albeit very short) flying service in a squadron? But I couldn't find anything more specific on the net and "a variety of operational[...]positions" seems to suggest against that, as you usually stick to one squadron for some time.
Now, it's none of my business why he did what, I just find it odd and it seems to support what Carl Spackler has said.

Oh and Ray - I agree with Pamela; I've almost forgotten what a quality interview is, since I haven't seen one in a long time. Good job.

After listening to this instructive interview twice, it is not quite easy to come up with conclusions. Probably I will have to walk through it for a third time (thanks God I had more luck with my purchase of an mp3 player than el-Masri).

This is a tired man whose thinking is anchored in the 20th century, interviewed by a forward-looking compatriot with a firm awareness that there is no way back there, and they both seem to be all but entirely sure where all this may be going, as well as exceptionally open about it. Both partners bring up a lot of interesting questions. I admire the underlying attitude that first of all the problems in the transatlantic relationship are there to be solved, regardless where the blame for the conditions of their possibility is to be put.

While unable to come to an instant conclusion, what I can do is try to shed some light on the issue from the European perspective. As a partner in the world, we are more comfortable with America than with anyone else. How would this culture develop if Russia was to provide for our security, or Persia, or whoever makes the next offer? Most Europeans never get to see their culture from the outside, and in the inside view the pacifism that turned out to be the only sustainable way of reinventing ourselves after the world wars is not perceived as the exceptionalism it is, but as the keynote of the current world.

International relations are the field of false promises, and being what it is Europe is susceptible to any promise of peace, be it true or false. As a culture, we are living in an anticipation of how the world should be, and while this is a construct that is detached from the ongoing conflicts that are plaguing the international system, it also is vital to our self-confidence. If Europe couldn´t keep it up, it would be falling to despair, this is why despair is so often projected as the motivation of the terrorists. If Europe entirely retreated into it, it would be falling to fraud, this is why fraud is so often projected as the motivation of the warriors.

As an European, the specific problem with watching my culture from the outside without giving up on it from the inside is that this is an activity which takes it all. Even only keeping track with the existential threats in the outside world while remaining in touch with the existing continuity of the inside narrative is a fulltime job, and an unpaid one. How could one make a living from performing a balancing act that none of these involved does fully understand? How could one find the time to balance the inside and outside views against each other while busy making a living from something else? It can temporarily be done on welfare, but that´s a ball and chain. There is no true way of life within the false one.

I think this is the key reason why so few Europeans ever go for the entire truth. The need to make money is best served by anything else than that. But then again, Western civilisation, even though nowadays mostly represented by cultures that became independent from us, as whole is a tree anchored in European soil, and the question whether it could survive without these roots may better not have to be answered by an unprecedented experiment. Still, as an European, if you invest your time and motivation into truly understanding the situation of your culture in the world, let off into contributing to move it on as it is, you will go broke. It does not sell. I know that, because I am.

(Hint: If you think such an effort may be worth some development aid, you can contact me via the owners of this blog.)

Isn't it Scowcroft's fault we're where we are today?

Something about his idea of GWI not letting us overthrow Saddam?

Which Western political advisor ever openly advocated disobedience against the Al Saud?

The comments above about Scowcroft being partly to blame for the situation we're in reminded me of the same thing in another area. For example, if the State Department isn't to blame for the nurturing of global anti-Americanism for the last 30 years, who is? The State Department is a wretched failure in its main job. They're no fools at the Foggy Bottom: they keep pooh-poohing anti-Americanism and making nothing of it. Otherwise we might realize that we need to rennovate it with a big shake up from top to bottom so that the arrogant do-nothing-or-the-sky-will-fall harpies will stop trying to control foreign policy themselves by obstructing all elected presidents, not just Reagan.

And who is more to blame for our current problems than Jimmy Carter? Another one who wants to lay the blame on Bush.

Disgusting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31