Sam Stein

BIO

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

Brent Scowcroft Echoes Obama: We Need To Talk To Enemies

April 28, 2008 04:33 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Sam Stein

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and is a graduate of Dartmouth College. Sam can be reached at stein@huffingtonpost.com.


Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said on Monday that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.

"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by The Huffington Post whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk."

Scowcroft, a former Air Force general who is widely considered to be one of the preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States, was appearing at an event with Henry Kissinger at Georgetown University. His take on U.S. diplomatic outreach comes as Obama's position -- to meet with our enemies even without preconditions -- has gotten the Illinois Democrat routinely criticized as naive and inexperienced from his Democratic and Republican rivals. Scowcroft declined, when asked, to directly assess the foreign policy platform of any of the presidential candidates. But he briefly outlined what he thought was the best steps forward in Iraq.

"Our goal in Iraq is to leave an Iraq that produces more stability in the region and not chaos. And that's going to take time," he said. "[It will take troop presence] for a long time...I think gradually security is improving and as it improves we can reduce troop levels. But what we need to do is provide an environment in which their political evolution continues."

Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Scowcroft expressed public misgivings concerning the course of action. In 2002, he wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, "Don't Attack Saddam," and warned that action against Iraq, without a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism."

Scowcroft has since warned about the dangers of a precipitous troop withdrawal from the country. In May 2007, he was quoted in the Financial Times as saying: "If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution." In invading Iraq, "we created a revolution; a social and religious revolution," he said. The U.S. should "gradually withdraw from inter-sectarian warfare. Shia versus Sunni is not a problem we can solve."

Yet a New York Times story published earlier this month identified Scowcroft as part of a group of Republican advisers concerned that McCain "might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush's first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war."

"Scowcroft is said to have expressed reservations about Mr. McCain's call for creating a League of Democracies as a complement to the United Nations," the Times reported. "An associate of Mr. Scowcroft said he viewed it as an effort to diminish the United Nations -- a target of scorn among neoconservatives -- and inhibit engagement with enemies."


Comments
187
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

The late Israeli PM Yitzak Rabin said the same sentiments years ago:
"You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 05/01/2008

So Brent Scowcroft is supporting Obama?

Last month he gave $1500 to John McCain and $3000 to the Republican National Committee

Earlier in 2008, he was financially supporting Mitt Romney's run. And made a $5000 contribution to a Republican PAC. So what is it about Obama that Scowcroft agrees with? Sound like it's the idea that Obama will easier to beat in November that Scowcroft supports.

If the KoolAid drinkers want to check the facts, try http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Brent_Scowcroft.php

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 AM on 04/29/2008

Or he could recognize as much as he would prefer a conservative in the WH he understands that foreign policy is something that is really not overly tied to social or fiscal matters of liberal vs. conservative. The truth is that we have regularly been in diplomatic discussions with unfriendly nations from the beginning of this country, including the Republican icon Ronald Reagan. Pres. G.H. Bush has taken a very different tactic and we can see how that has played out.

Perhaps like most intelligent Americans they would rather have someone of their own party in office, but if that can't happen they want someone they can trust to at least get some stuff done they like.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 04/29/2008

The problem is that the fringe rightwing neocon thinking became conventional wisdom while the press cheered it for vicarious thrills over macho swaggering. Unfortunately this conventional wisdom, accepted by democrats along with republicans, is a total failure.
Yet, when someone speaks of a common sense and diplomatic and newer foreign policy they get dismissed because it doesn't play to the macho fantasy the press and the politicians love.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 04/29/2008

Not newer, older foreign policy. Not talking to your enemies is simply stupid. You can't work things out or come to some sort of detente (remember that?) without diplomacy, and you can't have diplomacy without discussion. Pretty much every president in the from the 19th and 20th centuries understood that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 04/29/2008

I'll chose talking with my enimies over fighting with my enimies anyday.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 04/29/2008

While I've sort of like Brent Scowcroft, Sam, having been on a team that a few years back won the coveted 'Scowcroft Award' for 'on-time and under-budget', I think it might have instead been better phrased that - 'NOBODY wants more of the preznutz style diplomacy', you know, ...through the 'sights' of C130 Gunship.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 04/29/2008

Scrowcroft says: "Getting out is not a solution." Then he says: The U.S. should "gradually withdraw from inter-sectarian warfare. Shia versus Sunni is not a problem we can solve." It sounds like two opposing conclusions to me.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 AM on 04/29/2008

Not really, you have to expand your thinking on the current conflict. Keeping some sort of training force and anti-terrorist force in country to keep working on protecting the nation from foreign Governmental and NGO influences makes sense. Policing a civil-war from a unitarian position is a lose-lose policy.

We could withdraw from such inter-sectarian conflicts and still protect the country from non-Iraqi forces.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 04/29/2008

Well, if an obvious throw away comment is equivalent to policy then only the exception would believe we should not talk to our enemies, an obvious truth for thousands of years. Even the amazing Barack Obama has stumbled upon the same idea himself, presumably during his just in time foreign policy training and after graduating from Harvard no less. Who could have thought that for peace you should talk with your enemies? I mean that is visionary.

Conflating a loose exception as an agreement on something immensely more substantial and detailed as policy is the relentlessly simplistic check the box policy positions of the Obama campaign.

No one has said we should not talk to our enemies, but it seems that everyone except for Obama knows how to go about it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 AM on 04/29/2008

"No one has said we should not talk to our enemies..."

...except all neocons and Hillary Clinton. They said it when they attacked Obama for suggesting it. They said it when they said (I'm paraphrasing) "We're good, they're bad. We're right, they're wrong. We should just kill them all and get over with it."

You obviously hate Obama so much that when you actually agree with one of his positions (which happens to NOT be the position of Clinton or McCain or most of the Republican Party) you erroneously attribute it to everyone else and claim it's something so obvious that no one would disagree. I hate to be the one to tell you, but apparently it DOES take someone as amazing as Obama to come up with it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 AM on 04/29/2008

Please do not try to rewrite history only to make your false attacks seem plausible. In fact, after Obama"s stupid and naive comments in an old debate, he moved his position closer to Clintons. Obama"s loose cannon rookie foreign policy was to meet without plans or agenda. Just to talk. Carters recent visit was propagandized just as Hillary predicted it would for anyone with Obamas cavalier position and attitude toward Foreign Policy.

The attack was valid and Obama is not amazing, just naive and dangerous. He was attacked for his content, not his vision. People do not hate him; they just think he is amazingly inexperienced and unprepared for the world we live in today. Just like Carter was in the 70"s. Carter is still making the same mistakes that we now know that Obama would.

Rookie mistake ridden Presidential policy - take two! The defense by Public Relations people and not serious policy experience simply prove the point.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 04/29/2008

Oh....my heads is exploding. Another Warpig.
Anyone who is well versed in military history, and familiar with supreme tacticians such as Von Clauswitz and Sun Tzu, knows that "just a talk" with your enemy can, at the very best, avert a cataclysmic battle...and at the very worst, help you assess each others true strengths and weaknesses, and create a more civil atmosphere on the battlefield (IE: WW1's famous Xmas day truce)and afterwards. Comparing an ex-President with a private agenda to a sitting President, and then using that to guage your truth-deficient candidate is silly and counter-productive. I've "talked" myself out of numerous ugly confrontations, both here and abroad, and it all starts with just a few simple words. Cavalier? Well, guess what? When you and your enemy both know that you're the biggest dog on the block, being cavalier is more of a deterent point than you would believe.
Your smear comment is as uninformed and jaded as a Karl Rove position paper, and sounds personal instead of rooted in neopolitical facts and realities. Obama has an amazing network of quality people around him, who I know would not let another "Emporer has no clothes" scenario take places, as it did with Bush, or would happen with HRC, by the very nature of the type of person she is. Sorry, but being First Lady doesn't quite take you out of the rookie bullpen in my book, friend.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 PM on 04/29/2008

Jeez, what an out of touch left wing fringe looney that General Scowkroft is, huh?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 AM on 04/29/2008

While I think that Mr. Skowcrofts assessment that we should continue to assist the Iraqis is right on, I respectfully disagree on the best method for pursueing that end.

We should stop fighting the Iraqis, and then we should be willing to help them. Currently our help is tied to the premise that everything will be done our way, by our people, while a Christian army attempts to subdue the land. This administration is unwilling and incapable of discussing anything with the Iraqis as equals.

While we have the military and economic might to pursue this war of occupation into the future for an unknown length of time, was it ever wise to try to force ourselves upon another people? How would we feel if someone invaded us and tried to order us to do what they wanted?

What we are doing in Iraq today with our occupation is illogical, counterproductive, and actually causing suffering among the people we say we want to help.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 AM on 04/29/2008

This is why Brezinski and other foreign policy "realists" support Obama.

The Clinton and McCain campaigns are full of chickenhawks.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 04/29/2008

THE HYPOCRACY IS STUNNING! Where is the front page coverage ( or any coverage?) of Reverend Wright's SUPER controversial appearances of the past 3 days? This website's ignoring this story PURPOSEFULLY is an important statement. It is also an in-your-face display of bias and double-standard that is shameful. Where it a former pastor of either McCain or Clinton, you'd be all over it. Shame.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 AM on 04/29/2008

Yoyo, your mind works like a yoyo and you always return to the place you began. How 'bout some originality?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:15 AM on 04/29/2008

You always know a blog entry is going to suck when the blogger can't even spell the key word in the blog entry.

Hillary's call for the "obliteration" is slightly more important and newsworthy than the blatherings of a Christian ego-maniac.

The only "double standard," yoyo, is your judgment.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 AM on 04/29/2008

yoyo, you certainly are one.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 AM on 04/29/2008

There was front page coverage and widespread coverage on Huffpo dumbass. Look around this site. Huffpo has been covering it fromThursday (clips of Moyers interview on Friday night) through today at the press conference.

What's shameful is it's not enough that Wright is plastered on almost every blog and tv network, that radio shows are talking about him constantly--but you want to lambast Huffpo for your ignorance.

PS..................the only people who think it is "SUPER" controversial are those individuals such as yourself who derive pleasure from someone else's misery. Yes, this could be a problem for Senator Obama, but it's not a new story, so the "SUPER" label is juvenile and lacks any sense of logic.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 AM on 04/29/2008

I think real issues like foreign policy are a tad more important than Wright. Grow up!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 04/29/2008

Calm down ... have a Coke and a smile.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 04/29/2008



Part 2

I don"t understand, Rush Limbaugh has said plenty of divisive as well as prejudice things and there is not much said in the media. He has asked people to tamper with the voting process, and I think that is very unpatriotic. He"s called for a riot at the convention, and again that is CRAZY and UNPATROTIC! But, if that was a Black man saying and doing this it would be talked about constantly. President Clinton said he hated Obama, and we don"t hear much about that, but it"s Obama they"re trying to throw under the bus, not Clinton and McCain.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 04/29/2008

mspost,

Think about it this way. All of these people that place Obama under double standards and throw him under the bus...they make him the Jesus-like, Lincolnesque,MLK,etc. figure that they so despise by persecuting him with all this nonense and ironically, these same people get angry when they perceive that Obama supporters treat him like Jesus, Lincoln,MLK..."this is a fairytale"; "they treat like him like he's Jesus".

If Clinton, Limbaugh and others stop putting him on a different standard than everyone else involved in this election, maybe they would not have to be so incensed about the Obama-Jesus-Lincoln-MLK connection; because it won't appear to be any connection, duh. Who knows, I would not be surprised they are all planning a murder...if you know what I mean

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 AM on 04/29/2008

Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingram, Coulter and the rest of the highly paid vile just grease the machine. Their low grade huckster style is unlike any hard working American that has to produce or they're out of a job. Yes, he can say virtually anything he wants as long as he doesn't step on the advertiser(who happen to be proud sponsors).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 AM on 04/29/2008

Isnt Operation Chaos a misuse of the FCC bandwidth?? Voting rights lawyers??? lets go..........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 AM on 04/29/2008

Part 1

The only problem about Rev. Wright is, Obama is the one running for President, not Rev. Wright. Obama is his own man, and Rev. Wright does not speak or think for him. I don't understand why every time something comes out of Rev. Wright"s mouth Obama has to distance himself from the Rev. He has strongly rejected this man's viewpoints. Rev Wright has also made it clear that Obama was not in church on most Sundays. At any rate, if we are guilty by association we need to look at Clinton and McCain's associates and analyze them as well.

I am tired of hearing about Rev. Wright! I want to hear about issues! If it's not Rev. Wright, the media and others will find something else that they hope might throw Obama off track. I am saddened how some folks are acting, how the true hatred is coming out. God bless America, because prejudice is really showing its ugly face. I pray that when my grandchildren grow up, our world will not be as prejudice as it is now.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 AM on 04/29/2008

Someone better cancel the Oprah show and shut down Harpo Productions. They are both obviously nothing more than fronts for Rev. Wright and his message of hate!!! /sarcasm

I love living in the world of Neo-McCarthyism!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 04/29/2008

Sadly, it happens all the time.

Unfortunately, Hillary has taken cheap, sleazy smears to a new low with her shaded race baiting.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 AM on 04/29/2008

There's a huge difference from Obama wanting to talk to enemies and Hillary wanting to nuke them!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 04/28/2008

Yeah, it takes more intelligence and energy to talk to someone.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 04/29/2008

if obama style diplomacy is anything like Rev. Wrights we might want to hold off on that. check out jon stewart on the rev. wright speeches.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 04/28/2008

Irrelevant.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 AM on 04/29/2008

Jon Stewart is a comedian -- maybe you ought to think for yourself.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 AM on 04/29/2008

Part 2

I don"t understand, Rush Limbaugh has said plenty of divisive as well as prejudice things and there is not much said in the media. He has asked people to tamper with the voting process, and I think that is very unpatriotic. He"s called for a riot at the convention, and again that is CRAZY and UNPATROTIC! But, if that was a Black man saying and doing this it would be talked about constantly. President Clinton said he hated Obama, and we don"t hear much about that, but it"s Obama they"re trying to throw under the bus, not Clinton and McCain.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 AM on 04/29/2008