This from CNN. Interesting to note that the "axis of evil" in his view seems to have dropped North Korea in favor of Syria.
Now "backing democratic movements" is one thing. "War" is something else altogether. Surely these yahoos aren't thinking of invading Iran? Seems impossible for practical reasons alone. But who the hell knows what hubris Bush and co. are capable of?
Ex-CIA director: U.S. faces 'World War IV'
From Charles Feldman and Stan Wilson
CNN
Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 5:02 PM EST (2202 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.
In the address to a group of college students, Woolsey described the Cold War as the third world war and said "This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us. Hopefully not the full four-plus decades of the Cold War."
Woolsey has been named in news reports as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq.
He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.
Woolsey told the audience of about 300, most of whom are students at the University of California at Los Angeles, that all three enemies have waged war against the United States for several years but the United States has just "finally noticed."
"As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous."
It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
"Our response should be, 'good!'" Woolsey said.
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."
Woolsey, who served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton, was taking part in a "teach-in" at UCLA, a series of such forums at universities across the nation.
A group calling itself "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism" sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA's campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night's event.
The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday's event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.
I agree that we are in a serious battle with fundamentalist Islam that could take generations to play out, but I wouldn't compare it to either of the World Wars or the Cold War (except that like the latter, this is an ideological conflict). Show me a massive army that we have to contend with, an entrenched and cohesive political force that threatens the West's very survival a la the Third Reich or the USSR. It isn't there. What we do have is terror networks that threaten our citizens, our cities, our economic system, and our way of life. But they can be fought. They are being fought. "WW IV?" No one is going to call it that.
I really don't agree that Woolsey is a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq, as "news reports" have claimed according to this article. I haven't seen any such reports and I've been paying attention. I'd be really surprised if Woolsey was on anyone's A-list. Unless it is for something innocuous like ambassador to Iraq.
It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
When did the US start backing 3rd-World democratic movements?
How exactly have Iran, Iraq and Syria been waging war against the US? I got the impression that it was the US and Britain that have been waging war with Iraq since 1991. Didn't the US support Saddam's war against Iran?
Odd that N. Korea wasn't mentioned, as they are the only ones who do seem like a truly threatening state. I'm not suggesting that the US attack N. Korea, but there is surely a potential conflict there that needs to be defused fast.
Originally posted by mke It will be America's backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
When did the US start backing 3rd-World democratic movements?
Haven't you been reading the newspapers? The US is backing 3rd-world democratic movements by invading Iraq!
Egypt and Iran aren't third-world countries anyway.
Originally posted by Tom Storer Monte, what do you think the administration hopes or plans to do with regard to Iran, Syria and North Korea?
Tom, speaking just from my own impressions, I imagine the plan for the short term is scrutiny. If we are talking Iran and Syria, scrutiny. Iran already has an encouraging pro-Western, pro-democratic movement and it'd be wise to just see how Iraq affects that. Syria is a bad apple of a country (caveat: my wife is of Christian Syrian background, her people had the sense to pick up and leave four generations ago). Damascus has been stoking flames in Lebanon and Arab Israel and Palestinian Jordon for a long while. I think they are on notice that the USA will boldly strike at terrorist threats anywhere.
N. Korea is another animal altogether. Yes, they sure have supported terrorism (blowing up airliners, bombings in India and Burma), but they are not part of a larger movement--i.e., they are not a world religion which can call up dozens or hundreds of willing jihadis for Kim Jong Il in several quarters of the globe. How you deal with that dumb fucker, I don't know. We enjoy a smorgasbord of worst case scenarios: One is a land war on the Korean peninsula with possible use of nuclear weapons, thousands of American casualties, maybe millions of local dead. Another is one nuclear potshot taken at an American city (and I'll believe a Korean missile can reach the USA when I see it), inexorably resulting in the quick nuclear annihilation of Pyongyang and much of North Korea. Still another scenario is potshots taken at Japan, or who knows? Okinawa. Taiwan. Australia.
Hopefully Kim Jong Il and terror governments everywhere learn the lesson of Iraq: the Americans are not a paper tiger, they still produce hundreds of thousands of young men who are eager and well-trained to go overseas and kill someone else's young men and they do it with irresistable force. That, after all, is the basis for respect between hostile nations. That is what gets you peace with evil regimes, not all the Security Council paper in the frigging world.
the lesson of Iraq: the Americans are not a paper tiger, they still produce hundreds of thousands of young men who are eager and well-trained to go overseas and kill someone else's young men and they do it with irresistable force. That, after all, is the basis for respect between hostile nations. That is what gets you peace with evil regimes
...of course there's the little nagging problem that the evil regime in Iraq was at peace with us -- until we invaded their country.
...of course there's the little nagging problem that the evil regime in Iraq was at peace with us -- until we invaded their country.
...and we had good relations with many other countries until the supreme court installed the current regime--correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we have ever been as universally disrespected and despised as we are now. And that has been accomplished--in a remarkably short time--through the actions of the same, morally bankrupt Bush regime.
There is certain irony in the fact that while Bush and his gang claim to have attacked/invaded Iraq in order to bring them democracy/freedom, they are unscrupulously eating away at our own. This is a regime without meaningful direction, without conscience, without sense.
Tom, here is Tony addressing the question about Iran and Syria. Tony the Lion-Hearted, not Tony the Tiger.
Blair Says U.S. Has No Plans to Attack Syria, Iran
Reuters
Friday, April 4, 2003; 11:11 AM
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday the United States had absolutely no plans to attack Syria and Iran, which have been warned by Washington over their alleged involvement in Iraq.
In an interview with the Arabic service of BBC World Service Radio, Blair also said it was every bit as important to make progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it was to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Last week, Washington accused Syria of allowing shipments of military equipment to cross the border into Iraq in defiance of a U.S. warning. It also said it was concerned by the presence inside Iraq of hundreds of Iraqi Shiite Muslim forces, trained and financed by the Iranians.
The warnings sparked fears the U.S.-led war in Iraq might spread to other countries in the Middle East, but Blair said those fears were unfounded.
"There is no question of 'who next?' We are in Iraq for a particular reason," Blair said. "This is not a war against Iraq, it is a war against Saddam.
"They (the Americans) have got absolutely no plans to attack those two countries. What they were saying is that it is important that neither country assist those forces loyal to Saddam."
He told people to stop "looking for conspiracy theories -- Iraq one day and a whole series of countries the next."
Asked if he had enough influence in Washington to curb any move to attack Syria and Iran, Blair -- Washington's closest ally in its self-declared war on terror -- repeated his assurance to the Arab world.
"I know of absolutely no plan to do that," he said.
"There are concerns about support for terrorism in certain of these countries, that is true. But I have always thought we can try and deal with these issues in a different way."
Blair has made strenuous efforts to develop ties with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, believing he is a crucial figure if the Middle East peace process is to be revived.
Blair has visited Damascus and hosted Assad in London in an attempt to build bridges while Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has visited Tehran three times.
The prime minister said the Iraqi war was inextricably linked with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I think what we need to do is look at this in two dimensions," he said. "The first is the issue of Iraq. ... The second dimension however is to bring greater stability to the Middle East.
"My own judgment is that the single most important thing we can do is to bring some hope to the situation between Israel and Palestine.
"I believe it is every bit as important that we make progress on that as we get rid of Saddam."
I've heard reports that Woosley has very strong support within the Pentagon (i.e. Rumsfeld) in becoming the viceroy (the only name I can think of) of Iraq.
That should really put the other countries in the Middle East at ease, an ex-CIA director running Iraq.
Monte, the Bush Doctrine expressed during the State of the Union awhile back, and public statements since, suggest that the war on terrorism is the new "Cold War". It certainly is as open ended as many of our other wars (Poverty, Drugs, etc).
Well, scratch the War on Poverty. That was halted due to lack of interest.
But Rumsfeld has already fired a shot across Syria and Iran's collective bough. I do find it unusual he's stopped complaining about the Russians and their night-vision goggles.
North Korea gets a free pass. They can fight back. You've got about 40,000 American troops based in S. Korea and reportedly Kim has rockets that can reach the US West Coast. I think the Administration will try diplomacy on that one although I get the feeling Rumsfeld thinks we can take them.
"I've heard reports that Woosley has very strong support within the Pentagon (i.e. Rumsfeld) in becoming the viceroy (the only name I can think of) of Iraq."
Love to hear where, Darryl.
Joe Conason is reporting this very thing on today's Salon. He must have read yesterday's CNN, too. C'mon. Joe Conason's reporting the story: it can't be true.
I will change my avatar to a smiling Jimmy Carter if James Woolsey has any major role in post-war Iraq. If he carries a diplomatic briefcase, that I could see.
Originally posted by Monte Smith Hopefully Kim Jong Il and terror governments everywhere learn the lesson of Iraq: the Americans are not a paper tiger, they still produce hundreds of thousands of young men who are eager and well-trained to go overseas and kill someone else's young men and they do it with irresistable force.
I'm wondering if we're not sending exactly the opposite message. So far despite all the statements to the contrary, our performance over there hasn't been overwhelmingly impressive, and given how much it's costing us, I wouldn't be surprised if some country initiates action daring us to do it again. Korea sure as hell isn't Iraq.
Linear Mode
