-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, November 29, 2010 - 12:17 PM
Share
As with earlier WikiLeaks "revelations," the latest batch of classified communications is bound to be something of a Rorschach test. With a wealth of cables from which to choose, readers will be inclined to see in them what they want to see. I've been reading some of the latest releases and I've read the New York Times accounts pretty carefully, but thus far, I haven't seen anything that fundamentally alters my views about U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I seen any other commentator who says that they've changed their mind about some important contemporary issue either. That said, here are a few tentative reactions.
First, everyone should remember that these documents are not revealed truth or literal transcripts of an event. Like most forms of diplomatic reportage, they are a version of events or a summary of impressions, as seen through the eyes of the person (in most cases mid-level officials) who are drafting the message. Even when one is just summarizing a meeting, whoever is drafting the cable gets to emphasize certain things and to omit or downplay others, and that includes the possibility that they misheard, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what was said. Context matters too: what foreign officials say will be shaped by what they are trying to accomplish and also what they think their American interlocutors want or need to hear, and it's hard to identify the full context from these releases alone.
Please note that I am not arguing that there isn't useful information here. My point is that we bear in mind that these cables are the products of individual human drafters who have their own agendas and frailties, and that the discussions they are summarizing do not occur in isolation. And although these documents clearly tell us something about a number of key policies, they are a very incomplete picture.
Second, as with previous WikiLeaks releases, we need to be very wary about our initial conclusions. Only a small number of cables have been released so far, and the media outlets that were given access to them (the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel) are picking and choosing from among the one's they've seen. Until we've had a chance to see the full set of releases, a degree of interpretive caution is in order.
Third, I am less troubled than some others about the possibility that these documents will expose gaps between what governments say they are doing and what they are actually doing. Some commentators worry, for example, that these documents have exposed the hypocrisy of the Yemeni government, which has been pretending that it wasn't allowing the United States to conduct drone strikes on its territory. Others probably fear that some particularly pungent comments about various world leaders might get exposed, and thereby creating undesirable frictions. There's also the concern that foreign representatives will be less candid in the future, for fear of being exposed by some subsequent leak.
But let's get serious for a second. I doubt there are any major world leaders who once believed that we held them in the highest regard, and who will now be crushed to learn that some of our officials had reservations about them. (I'm willing to bet that plenty of foreign cables say less-than-flattering things about U.S. officials too, and that those officials wouldn't be entirely shocked were those reports to go public). I give most leaders a bit more credit than that: most people know when there are significant differences between allies and even personal points of friction, even if they are papered over with appropriate diplomatic niceties. It's mildly embarrassing to have this out in public, but I'm not sure anybody is going to feel seriously betrayed or misled.
And as for the possibility that American diplomats will be exposed as less than 100 percent honest: at this stage in our history, is all that even remotely surprising? I mean, after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Iran/Contra, the cruise missile attack on Sudan, Colin Powell's cooked-up testimony to the Security Council in 2002, how many people are under that many illusions about the dark underbelly of U.S. foreign policy? And it's hardly headline news to learn that the United States has been obsessed with Iran's nuclear program, reflexively solicitous of Israel's concerns, worried about North Korea, or deeply concerned about al Qaeda. Some of the details in these cables are interesting, but none of the dispatches I've read or the news accounts I've seen suggest that a major rewriting of recent diplomacy is in order.
Fourth, the recurring theme that I keep seeing in these documents -- it's my own Rorschach, I guess -- is how everybody around the world wants Uncle Sucker to solve their problems. South Korea and the U.S. talk about what to do if North Korea collapses. Israeli officials keep demanding that we deal with Iran and preserve their "qualitative military edge." Some Arab leaders in the Persian Gulf want us to stop an Iranian bomb too, but they don't agree on the steps we should take to achieve that aim. And so on.
You'd expect these documents to contain a lot of this sort of special pleading, of course, because they are reports from American officials who have been meeting with various foreign counterparts and trying to figure out what they think or want. Nonetheless, it is still striking how many pies the United States has its fingers in, and how others keep expecting us to supply the ingredients, do most of the baking, and clean up the kitchen afterwards.
Fifth, the big story in the early releases -- at least as highlighted in the Times -- seems to be the combination of the clear U.S. obsession with Iran and the fact that some Arab leaders expressed great concern about the prospect of an Iranian bomb. It was as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow that hard-line advocates of doing whatever it takes to stop an Iranian bomb would immediately seize upon the initial releases to buttress their case, but the documents don't actually support that conclusion. As Andrew Sullivan points out, the same people who routinely dismiss Arab calls for a different U.S. policy on the Israel-Palestinian peace process are now suddenly convinced that these same Arab leaders are pillars of wisdom. In any case, it is hardly a revelation to learn that some Gulf rulers would a) prefer a non-nuclear Iran, and b) would prefer it if the United States did the heavy lifting and bore the onus of taking care of this problem. It would be astonishing if they thought any other way.
But the crucial question all along has been how to address that issue, and here these releases show some ambivalence. There is hardly a consistent chorus of voices telling the United States to go ahead and bomb the place. Some leaders seem inclined in that way; others much less so. I've heard other senior Arab and Muslim officials say that it would be a calamity if we did.
Lastly, the big question I keep pondering is this: would it be all that bad if diplomats understood that secret deals and two-faced diplomacy wasn't going to be that easy anymore, because the true facts might leak out sooner rather than in twenty or thirty years time? I can think of a few cases where secrecy has been useful (Kennedy's deal over the Jupiter missiles in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind), but in general I think human beings -- and this include foreign policy-makers -- are more inclined to do bad things when they think they can do so without being exposed. If you have to keep something secret, that's often a sign that you shouldn't be doing it at all.
And at the risk of seeming like a naïve Wilsonian (the cruelest thing you can call a realist like me!), the whole episode raises the larger issue of whether the citizens of a republic have the right to know exactly what representatives are doing and saying in their name, backed up by the money and military power that the citizens have paid for with their taxes. And I don't mean finding out thirty years later, but now. I'm sure that most diplomats would prefer to minimize democratic scrutiny of their activities, as it would surely be annoying if Congress or the media or (God forbid!) ordinary citizens were to peer over their shoulders while they are trying to line up foreign support. But given that I am less and less convinced that our elites know what they are doing, I'm also less inclined to want to let them operate outside public view.
But there is a real downside, which is why I retain some concerns about this latest batch of revelations. If diplomats start fearing that any conversation or cable might get leaked, they will either stop talking, stop taking notes, or stop sending message back to headquarters in any sort of republishable form. There's an old line from Chicago city politics: "Don't write if you can talk; don't talk if you can nod; don't nod if you can wink." Somehow, I'm not sure our diplomacy will be enhanced if our representatives are reduced to making facial gestures, and communicating back home only through secure telephones.
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:FENCE-SITTING, DIPLOMACY, FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, INTERNET, IRAN, MEDIA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
Strike One, Strike Two, Strike Three: The Realists are Out
No wonder Steve Walt attempts to downplay what the cables actually say; they refute almost entirely many of the things that he and his fellow realists have been peddling. For much of the past two years these "realists" have been trying to convince everyone within earshot that:
1) That most Sunni Arab nations were far from enthusiastic about an American attack on Iran
2) That most of the pressure for an attack on Iran was coming from Israel and from Israel's Jewish American supporters especially the neocons
3) That the only way to garner Sunni Arab support for a more muscular approach to Iran was to facilitate progress in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The cables show that every one of these arguments was wrong.
Walt's downplaying of the enthusiasm of Sunni Arab governments for an American attack on Iran is simply not supported by the facts. The cables show that the King of Saudi Arabia continually called for an American attack on Iran. They show that the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi suggested that American ground forces would be needed if an aerial campaign was insufficient to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. They show that the King of Bahrain argued forcefully for taking action to terminate Iran's nuclear programme, by "whatever means necessary." They show a senior Omani Minister telling the Americans that Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait probably all supported military action against Iran. They show the Egyptian President calling the Iranian President "a fanatic who doesn't think rationally." The evidence is overwhelming that leaders of the Sunni Arab governments at the highest level wanted the United States do whatever it took, including military action to cut Iran down to size.
Walt and Mearsheimer and even their less bigoted realist colleagues have been arguing for years that Israel and Israel's Jewish American supporters (what Walt ominously calls "The Lobby") have been the prime advocates for an American attack on Iran. The cables prove that the realists were wrong; the Sunni Arab nations were at least as vociferous in urging the United States to attack Iran as the Israelis (or their American supporters) were. This destroys a central feature of Walt's bigoted thesis that if an attack on Iran is launched, "the Lobby" is mostly to blame. Amazingly the Israelis and the Sunni Arab nations had almost exactly the same position about an American attack on Iran; they both supported it with equal vigor. This revelation must just be so disappointing to Professor Walt who has built his recent career on ridiculing Israel and its Jewish supporters. Here's a newsflash, Steve, if the Americans attack Iran, Sunni Arab insistence that an attack is justified will be as important as anything "The Lobby" has to say. And those neoconservatives that you love to hate; well it looks like many of them aren’t Jewish at all; in many cases they are Arab potentates.
Finally we've been told over and over again by realists (though in fairness, not necessarily Steve Walt) that progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track will facilitate Sunni Arab support for an assertive policy towards Iran. The problem is that the cables have proven that this thesis is wrong. The Sunni Arab governments already supported a muscular policy towards Iran in spite of, not because of, the talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israel-Palestine track was simply largely irrelevant to what the Sunni Arab nations thought about Iran. Of course this must be very uncomfortable for those like Steve Walt who are so obsessed with Israel that they think everything in the Middle East (if not everything in the world) revolves around what's happening between Israelis and Palestinians. In this case, we have documentary proof that Steve Walt's bizarre and unhealthy preoccupation with Israel says more about his bigotry than it does about what's happening in the Middle East.
Unfortunately for Steve Walt and his fellow travelers, it' strike one, strike two, strike three for the realists.
The cables prove how wrong they were. No wonder Steve Walt wants to pretend that they are unimportant
.
1) The Wikileaks documents only mention 4 Sunni Arab states, which doesn't contradict the suggestion that most Sunni Arab nations are far from enthusiastic about an American attack on Iran.
2) The documents do not challenge the claim that most of the pressure for an attack on Iran is coming from Israel. The fact that a few US supported despots in the ME pushed for an attack does not suggest that the pressure from the neocons was any less significant or influential.
3) It was Netenyahu that insisted on linking a more muscular approach to Iran to the IP conflict.
So you see WiGWAG, the cables does not show that any of these arguments was wrong, though it's clear that you are desperate to prove they are.
All the 243 cables bar one, are from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.
131 mention the keyword “Israel”
57 mention the keyword “Palestinian”
157 mention either “Israel” or “Palestinian”.
Who wrote these words?
"If the United States does launch an attack, it will be doing so in part on Israel’s behalf, and the lobby would bear significant responsibility for having pushed this dangerous policy.”
I won't be holding my breath for your attack on the "Sunni Arab Lobby" and its "significant responsibility" in the event of an attack on Iran.
Your Right EJ; Don't Hold Your Breath for Walt to Come Clean
Of course Walt reserves his vitriol for Israel and its American supporters.
There's no evidence that Walt has any problem at all with Arab influence; it's only the influence of Jewish Americans that he finds so off-putting.
What's the name of the "Sunni Arab Lobby" Ed?
Maybe when we have Congressmen and Senators pledging allegiance to this so called lobby and comparing their love for the Sunni Arab alliance during vice presidential debates, W & M might write a book about it.
"Move along, nothing to see here..."
I echo the above posters in noting the obvious - the Wikileaks' revelations are quite inconvenient for Steve's scholarship and agenda. Not a surprise to see him try to downplay them.
Particularly enjoyed Dr Walt's curious wiki omission of Hiz'B'Allah committing War Crimes with the old human shield weapon transporting ambulance trick.
"Particularly enjoyed Dr Walt's curious wiki omission of Hiz'B'Allah committing War Crimes with the old human shield weapon transporting ambulance trick."
You got so excited about that unsubstantiated allegation, that you got your theatre's of war confused.
Hezbollah have never been to Iraq and why would Iran have to sneak weapons via ambulances to Iraq?
"I echo the above posters in noting the obvious - the Wikileaks' revelations are quite inconvenient for Steve's scholarship and agenda."
Far from it. The above posters are arguing that because a few despotic tyrants in the ME want the US to attack Iran, it somehow mitigates the fact that Israel not only wants the same, but is in the driver's seat of US foreign policy.
All it proves is that Israel and these tyrannical regimes have a great deal in common.
NeoLeft,
The 2008 classified cable from Dubai, leaks an Iranian source admitting Iranian Red Crescent was used as a cover by members of the elite Revolutionary Guard to enter Lebanon during and after the 'Divine Victory' Rocket War.
"IRC shipments of medical supplies served also to facilitate weapons shipments"
For additional theatre discombobulation:
Hiz'B'Allah in Iraq -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/middleeast/26weapons.html
And HbA's overtly robustly girthy Body Part Collector General's pledge to interfere in Iraq:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/05/200861501351771513.html
Another LOL worthy moment of omission is Arab League fear of a new clear Mullahopolis with all hegemonic accouterments attached. A way more bigger concern than finding a cure for Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue, Little Satan's 'Apartments of War" or fakebelieve thirst for avenging Nakbah Time
"The 2008 classified cable from Dubai, leaks an Iranian source admitting Iranian Red Crescent was used as a cover by members of the elite Revolutionary Guard to enter Lebanon during and after the 'Divine Victory' Rocket War."
The cable is proof of nothing. Just because it's classified doesn't make it factual. Israel has been repeating this argument since 2006, but no Red Crescent vehicle has ever been found to be carrying such weapons.
Strike 1
Hiz'B'Allah in Iraq"
Yes, old news that's been long debunked. You need to get up to speed Courtney.
That YT article is dated February of 2007. In November of that year, it was reported that of all the weapons seized in Iraq, less than 1% were linked back to Iran.
Iran-made Weapons Less Than 1% Of All Iraq Caches Found
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1737543,00.html
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44720
Strike 2
"And HbA's overtly robustly girthy Body Part Collector General's pledge to interfere in Iraq:"
As it turns out, the Shiite groups in Iraq managed quite well without any help from Hezbollah. They not only won the civil war, but also won and maintain political power.
Strike 3 - you'd be out by now, but I'll give you one more chance
"Another LOL worthy moment of omission is Arab League fear of a new clear Mullahopolis with all hegemonic accouterments attached."
Correction. The fear is shared by the few puppet tyrants who rely on the US to keep them in power. As it turns out, the majority of the Arab population are not the least bit concerned about Iran. In fact, the majority support Iran having nukes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/6/poll-majority-of-arab-world-views-nuke-armed-iran-/
Strike 4 - not looking good Courtney. OK, one more chance
"A way more bigger concern than finding a cure for Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue, Little Satan's 'Apartments of War" or fakebelieve thirst for avenging Nakbah Time"
On the contrary. The cables reveal that even the puppet dictators believe that solving the I/P conflict is the central to countering terrorism in the region.
2. Dec. 31, 2007 meeting of Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Soliman with American congressmen and diplomats:
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the core issue; Soliman contended a peaceful resolution would be a "big blow" to terrorist organizations that use the conflict as a pretext."
Strike 5 - you blew it.
Thanks for playing Courtney.
What a hoot! Is that the m.o. NeoLeft? Dismiss substance that disses your precious intolerant rocket rich rejects on Great Satan's Official Terrorist List?
Maintaining a losing argument on HbA's behalf is sooo played in this regard.
WiKiLeaks has damaged those sad incorrect memes beyond repair.
I didn't merely dismiss it Courtney
I debunked it one Hasbara talking points at a time.
WiKiLeaks hasn't damaged anything. These are internal cables that in themselves are the opinions of Amrican diplomats recounting events as they see them. As Walt has pointed out, they are in themselves proof of nothing.
The right wing war party are simply hearing and reading what they want to hear ad read.
"1. They didn't alter any of his FP views."
Don Bacon, on this we totally agree. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine any scenario, no matter how unrealistic or fantastical, that would cause Steve Walt to alter his views. Steve's views and analysis are informed by his ideology. If something doesn't fit into his preconceived worldview he ignores or dismisses it.
The Jordanian Cables are Worth Reading
Most wiki headlines seem to suggest that Israel and the Arabs both want the US to attack Iran. After reading the Jordanian cables that clearly is not the case. The Jordanians view not only Iranian nuclear capacity as a threat to the regions stability but also the spread of Iranian radicalism.
An attack on Iran may have a short term success in delaying Iranian nuclear ambitions but it will do little to curtail Iran's growing influence in the region and may actually increase it. They suggest weakening Iran's sources of power and influence in the Arab street by pushing for Israeli Palestinian peace agreement and a more secure Iraq.
Their logic seems to make more sense than simply bombing Iran and hoping for the best possible outcomes...
My Saintly Professor (or should I say "Adeimantus"),
WikiLeaks what IL allows to be leaked to reshape Obama's Mid-East politics.
That's what I read from the leaks.
As you have suggested:
"readers will be inclined to see in them what they want to see".
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
170 years of "dark underbelly"
You write: ??I mean, after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Iran/Contra, the cruise missile attack on Sudan, Colin Powell's cooked-up testimony to the Security Council in 2002, how many people are under that many illusions about the dark underbelly of U.S. foreign policy?” This ??dark underbelly?? could seemingly be pushed back to at least as far as the United States war on Mexico in the 1840?s to include such things as the United States war on the Hawaiian Islands [if an invasion, removal of the lawful government from power, installation of a puppet regime and physical protection of that installed regime consisting of mostly foreign nationals whose only stated policy was ?political union? with the United States isn?t a “war” then what is?; the ??Maine?? incident that was used to inflame the United States into war in a way similar to 9/11; the betrayal of the Philippine Republic in 1898-1904; the 1953 Operation Ajax in Iran; the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état organized by the United States the democratic government in Guatemala; Honduras in 2008; and so on. I’m sure I’ve missed some.
Wikileaks cable reveals US-Israeli strategy for regime change
Which puts everything in perspective.
While a handful of tyrants in the ME (who's regimes rely on US support), might favor an attack on Iran, the US and Israel are actually doing their best to undermine the Iranian leadership and foment unrest in the country.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wikileaks-cable-reveals-israel-pushing-regime-change-iran/
In fact, another Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a bomb explosion this week. How many has that been?
The attacks has Israel written all over it.
The only crow the professor and others needs to eat
Is how the Stuxnet malware/virus really did pan out to be a deliberate act of cyberwarfare against the Iranian reactors and that it was successful according to Ahmadinejad. I'm not even going to bring the China/Google one in on this post.
From here on out, no more I think I am cool because I am a skeptic, garbage about how cyberwarfare is exaggerated and does not exist. Hackers are real, they cause damage, and Santa Claus is never real.
"...the whole episode raises the larger issue of whether the citizens of a republic have the right to know exactly what representatives are doing and saying in their name, backed up by the money and military power that the citizens have paid for with their taxes. And I don't mean finding out thirty years later, but now. I'm sure that most diplomats would prefer to minimize democratic scrutiny of their activities, as it would surely be annoying if Congress or the media or (God forbid!) ordinary citizens were to peer over their shoulders while they are trying to line up foreign support. But given that I am less and less convinced that our elites know what they are doing, I'm also less inclined to want to let them operate outside public view."
Here's an idea: How about Harvard releases all internal communications, whether emails, emails, meeting notes, deliberations etc,, to its student body? If, as Walt implies, U.S. citizens have the right to know what is being done with their taxes, then surely tuition-paying students, not to mention parents, have a right to know how their money is going In fact, how about sharing these with all taxpayers as they indirectly subsidize Harvard? Walt can lead by example and post emails and other communications detailing his salary negotiations with Harvard. After all, "If you have to keep something secret, that's often a sign that you shouldn't be doing it at all."
"Here's an idea: How about Harvard releases all internal communications, whether emails, emails, meeting notes, deliberations etc,, to its student body? If, as Walt implies, U.S. citizens have the right to know what is being done with their taxes, then surely tuition-paying students, not to mention parents, have a right to know how their money is going In fact, how about sharing these with all taxpayers as they indirectly subsidize Harvard? Walt can lead by example and post emails and other communications detailing his salary negotiations with Harvard. After all, "If you have to keep something secret, that's often a sign that you shouldn't be doing it at all." (JT1928)
And while Walt and Harvard are at it, maybe they can finally come clean and tell us whether the gift that paid for Professor Walt's Chair was paid for with appreciated Enron stock.
WIGWAG was hoping that by being the first out of the gate
He could dictate what we're all supposed to think about the Wikileaks dump based on his desperate and selective reasoning.
It hasn't worked, so he's resorted to throwing mud and blowing smoke.
My Sainlty Adeimantus,
I have a theory called SATFP which is used by this Blog and whatever is according to it - is good for the State. If you search the archive of this Blog for SATFP you will see what I mean.
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
WikiLeaks in the hands of pseudo-SPEEs
My Saintly Adeimantus,
don't get excited, everything is under control according to the SATFP, WikiLeaks is just another pawn to play its role to save the State. Whatever move they do the State wins in the long run. WikiLeaks has no constitution to practice what their operators will, but the State - it has a constitution to protect her monopoly of law making and implementing. Have you heard WikiLeaks make any law and put it to implementation? Their web-site doesn't even have a "status" similar to a corporate status. That means WikiLeaks is no-body, just another tool in the hands of some pseudo-bodies whic I call pseudo-SPEE (pesudo-socio-politico-economic-entity, like IL.
Regards,
Grand Sen~or.
How does it make sense - WikiLeaks...
My Saintly Adeimantus,
WikiLeaks activists like Julian Assange don't realize that anarchists lost the war against secularo-fascist State terminally by the end of the 19th Century. There is no lagally organized entity to challenge secularo-fascist State, non at all, but there are some pseudo-SPEEs like IL to be privilaged partners to the State. And pawns like WikiLeaks are used by those pseudo-SPEEs not to challenge the State as WikiLeaks activists imagine, but to be partners in the Monopoly of the State.
Therefore My Saintly Adeimantus, if you interpret the leaks accordingly then you mayl see that they make sense;->
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
Prof. Walt, sure you are right. Wonderful to read somebody who can see what is important here, and what is not.
The real enigma here is, how come the American taxpayers do not say NO! No more shipping of expensive war machinery for fun! (like the intended aircraft to bribe Bibi & Co for a possible 90-days freeze on settlement construction).
what makes you think that what is leaked is not leaked by "our e
My Saintly Adeimantus,
said: "But given that I am less and less convinced that our elites know what they are doing, I'm also less inclined to want to let them operate outside public view."
My Saintly Adeimantus, what makes you think that what is leaked is not leaked by "our elites"?
Regards,
Grand Sen~or.
My Saintly Professor of Foreign Policy Adeimantus,
complains:
"they are a very incomplete picture. "
well, My Saintly Adeimantus, you can always ask WikiLeaks to complete it. Why don't you subscribe to their web-site rather than wasting your precious time raading FP periodicals issued by you know whom;->
Regards,
Grand Sen~or.
My Saintly Adeimantus,
leaks:
" I've heard other senior Arab and Muslim officials say that it would be a calamity if we did."
My Saintly Adeimantus, isn't it picturesque WikiLeaks skips what you leak ? Why don't you join WikiLeaks to help them leak more;->
Regarda,
Grand Sen~or.
Lawrence Wilkerson confirms Walt's analysis
Lawrence Wilkerson was inteviewed by Keith Olbermen and he had this to say abiout the diplmatic cables:
"I used to read these cables all the time. These cables should never have been on the Supranet, most of them. It’s lamentable that these things leaked, but I don’t thin there’s been any major damage, partly because of the circumspection of the NYT, De Spiegel, Le Monde, the Guardian, and other new agencies to which the information was turned over. They’ve been circumspect and rather wise, the way they’ve redacted the information, so far at least.
But what we have to look at is what are these things intended for. Remember, the information being reported back to Washington in these cables, is not necessarily the truth. In fact, often times, it is designed to go through our diplomatic corps to get to Washington, if at all possible, to our highest leadership and to obfuscate and to lie, and to twist, and to turn and to make people believe things that aren’t necessarily the case. So when you’re interpreting these cables you have to remember they are anything in most cases but the complete truth. Even if they are, they are the truth as seen by the observer, and the observe is often fooled."
In this case, it is cleas that Israel's amen corner have indeed been fooled.
Boy, the anti-Israel crowd must be getting rather dizzy this week. Accustomed to spooling conspiracy theories out of inuendo and half truths, they must now deal with real first hand facts that prick quite a few holes in said theories.
Regardless of how you spin it, these leaks show definitively that Israel is NOT the only country in the world pushing the US to act on Iran, and that Iran's aggression is not simply an Israeli fabrication. Frankly, it doesn't even matter if wikileaks is a Mossad front, as people here insinuate, again with no actual evidence. No one is denying these dispatches are real. Sorry.
My Saintly Adeimantus,
said:
"Israel is NOT the only country in the world pushing the US to act on Iran, and that Iran's aggression is not simply an Israeli fabrication. "
exactly what WikiLeaks, what is allowed by IL to demonstrate the truth of your statement. You are absolutely right My Saintly Adeimantus. WikiLeaks did a good job to save the State. I think they should be awarded for that, rather than persecuted but some how cannot be caught.
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
Sorry to burst your bubble DAV305Z
The cables are not first hand facts, they are accounts of events as interpreted by a single source.
None of them have been vetted by intelligence resources or verified. As Larry Wilkerson stated during hsi appearance on Keith Olbernman's show, he's read hundreds of these and it is widely accepted that such Cables are knows to spin, lie and deceive to influence policy in Washington.
"Regardless of how you spin it, these leaks show definitively that Israel is NOT the only country in the world pushing the US to act on Iran, and that Iran's aggression is not simply an Israeli fabrication."
None of he cables mention anything about Iranian aggression and Israel remains the only state threatened to attack Iran, with or without US approval.
"Frankly, it doesn't even matter if wikileaks is a Mossad front, as people here insinuate, again with no actual evidence. No one is denying these dispatches are real. Sorry."
The dispatches are real in so far as they exist. What they contain could well be false.
My Saintly Adeimantus,
said:
"it would surely be annoying if Congress or the media or (God forbid!) ordinary citizens were to peer over their shoulders while they are trying to line up foreign support. "
My Saintly Professor leave alone tax-payers like Bill Gates, they don't even let you My Saintly Professor of FP to peer over their shoulders, those elite know what they are doing - trust them!
They ar Mullahs who do not fail, make no mistake according to the Constitution and the SATFP - TRUST ME!
Or better try to prove them wrong according to the Constitution and the SATFP.
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
All the critical hotair expended on Prof. Walt is based on how the NYT reported the story.
First, NYT did NOT get original access this time. They received access thru The Guardian.
Did anyone else watch the latest Charlie Rose (a substitute was sitting in) interview with the two NYT apparachniks? The two NYT writers (sorry, can't remember names, they all look alike) both stated that, before they wrote their stories, they sent the cables to be redacted by the State Dept. They also said that they did further redactions at the NYT, but some redactions the State Dept. proposed they did not do.
One of those was to redact what the Saudi Amb. to the US said. It was the Saudi Amb. to the US that said the Saudi king urged the US to "cut the head off the snake". Which sounds like third-hand hearsay to me.
The question is: Just what did the NYT redact? The NYT gave the reader a sanitized, NYT version of Wikileaks. And true to the traditions of Judith Miller, what do you think the NYT version would look like?
So, if the pro-the-bestial-regime-in-Israel gang is ready to take at face value what the Saudi king says, let's take at face value another Wikileaks cable which accuses the same Saudis of being the prime funders of "terorism"?
Kind of a split personality here, let's support the "terr'rists" and let's cut off the head of the snake?
Confusion. The State Dept. redacted the Saudi Ambassador's comments, but the NYT chose not to honor the State Dept's request and printed the Saudi Amb's comments.
My Saintly Adeimantus,
WikiLeaks into the hands of the Media, doesn't WikiLeak realize that the Media biols it down to save herself and the State. It seems WikiLeaks doesn't realize that the Media is one of the major shareholder in the Sate. Why would the Media undermine their own business?
I think WikiLeaks is already bankrupted.
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
WikiLeaks whistle blowing for hyaenas...
My Saintly Adeimantus,
WikiLeaks hand over fishes to the Media and the Media knows how to cook it and dress it with all sort of souces and a bit of MSG to serve it to the tax-payers (call them general public if you like). to save the State (salvare apparentias). And Mr WikiLeaks thinks that he is whistle blowing - yeah whistle blowing to save the State that he was intending to undermine;->
I means such a comedy which would turn Molière in his grave craving to make a play out of it;->
Thank you My Saintly WikiLeaks, you made the State stronger to keep commiting her monopolistic tyranny.
Such whistle blowing that only the hyaenas can hear it;->>
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
do I need to comment on this WikiLeaks leak?!
My Saintly Adeimantus,
listen to this:
"a British official said the United Kingdom "continues to feel 'deep frustration' with Karzai. But he added: "I remind people that we -- the international community -- selected him.""
do I need to comment on this?!
I don't think so...
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
sorry gorgot to give the link for the leak:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/afghanistan.wikileaks/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
I liked your point four, both for the content and the pleasing humility of the comment.
The presumption of the rest of the world that it is the US's right and ability to intervene in politics elsewhere on the planet.
It seemed though to conflict with your point five, which seemed to infer that the US should intervene in Israel/Palestine discussion.
In constructing a peace, there are constructions that are only possible by bi-lateral commitments (Israel to the PA - Hamas is out of the picture currently except relative to the ratification process of a PA negotiated agreement).
There are constructions that require a single or small group of third parties to facilitate and/or enforce. (US, other single states, Nato, regional treaty organizations)
And, there are constructions that require a large multi-lateral group of third parties to ratify and/or enforce. (UN, Arab League)
In a complex set of current divides to negotiate, it is NECESSARY to artfully construct a peace comprised of those three tiers of mediation and then enforcement.
It is unlikely that Israel and the PA alone can onstruct an agreement that will be drafted, and then ratified by knesset AND PA assembly AND by Israeli and Palestinian electorate - including Palestinian diaspora to get Hamas' endorsement at all.
With the commitment of US and other third party and international enforcement, it might be possible to get a draft and ratification, and if the multi-lateral commitments are followed through on, an actual peace.
On Goldberg, I think he has taken the math beyond truth. I am critical of your presentation on the Israel Lobby for the fuel that it has given to less than well-meaning ideologs in the left and right to distort reasonable democratic process.
But, I commend you on your continued stated hope for a two-state approach as optimizing consent of the governed. I believe that your intent was to help mutual good, and the manner the article and book rolled out included some communications that were within your control (and could have been conducted more kindly) and some that were outside of your control, that resulted in net a different tone than you intended.
WikiLeaks on War Path to save the State
My Saintly Adeimantus,
listen to this:
"In his editorial, Assange wrote that democracies require strong media to keep governments honest and that WikiLeaks helps fulfill that role. "WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption."
I think WikiLeaks next target is going to be the law institutions, I mean he is reformed Media and Corporations, what is left behind : Law. After that you will have a cryistal clean State, start making plans for Summer Holiday, although for some it is always Summer;->
With regards,
Grand Sen~or.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(43)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE