In his article *“A fresh approach to looking at foreign threats”* Council 
on Foreign Relations member David Ignatius tells us the USA has a problem, 
Americans are getting fed up with endless war. CFR member Dave tells us how 
a group of bi-partisan commission members has traditionally been called 
together to solve foreign threats. As an example CFR member Dave lists the 
2006 Iraq Study Group whose members were *James Baker 
III*<http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=B>, 
Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Vernon Jordon. CFR member Dave tells 
us that these folk turned to Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent 
Scowcroft for advice. What CFR member Dave leaves out is that this 
bi-partisan group all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Also left 
out of the story is that ten years later CFR member Paul Wolfowitz tells us 
*how 
the US bungled 
Iraq*<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/18/10_years_on_paul_wolfowitz_admits_us_bungled_in_iraq_117492.html>.
 
CFR member Dave’s fresh approach is putting together a new younger 
bi-partisan to get American Citizens back on track and into supporting a 
“strong foreign policy”, a euphemism for more endless war. Left out of CFR 
member Dave’s fresh approach is that the members of his younger group are 
Council on Foreign Relations members or stooges closely tied to the CFR . 
*Eighteen 
National Security 
Advisors*<http://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/council-on-foreign-relations-membership-chart/>,
 
Eighteen Central Intelligence Agency Directors, *Twenty-Two Secretary of 
States* <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pepis/ANJJfnZaTo8> and 
Eighteen Department of Defense Directors are members of the Council on 
Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations run *Carlyle 
Group*<http://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/operation-this-is-a-hold-up-usa-the-cfrs-carlyle-group/>has
 cornered the defense industry and are closely tied to the Intelligence 
Community. The Carlyle Group owns the *Booze-Allen NSA spy 
nest*<http://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/it-is-time-to-sue-the-council-on-foreign-relations-and-the-nsa-for-violating-the-privacy-of-millions-of-citizens/>that
 Edward Snowden worked for. *Should 
one small group* <http://t.co/l9mCMzS> that profits from endless war be in 
charge of deciding the US foreign policy threat response? David Ignatius’ 
Fresh Approach to looking at foreign threats isn’t fresh at all, the 
Council on Foreign Relations has kept the USA involved in endless war for 
91 years. If we follow CFR member Dave’s advice the Council on Foreign 
Relations will keep the world at war for another 100 years. If you want 
some fresh advice for looking at foreign policy threats listen to *War Is a 
Racket*<file:///C:/Users/David/Documents/My%20Documents%20Compaq/cfr/David%20Ignatios%20-%20STINK/War%20is%20a%20Racket%20by%20Smedley%20Butler>by
 Two Time Medal of Honor Winner Major General Smedley Butler. 

 

The Ignatius article follows, modified so that Council on Foreign Relations 
members are easily identifiable.

*A fresh approach to looking at foreign threats 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-a-fresh-approach-to-looking-at-foreign-threats/2013/12/06/a54bce74-5ea6-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html><?????>*

*By David Ignatius 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-ignatius/2011/02/17/ABXXcOJ_page.html>, 
Published: December 6 E-mail the writer 
<davidignat...@washpost.com?subject=Reader%20feedback%20for%20'A%20fresh%20approach%20to%20looking%20at%20foreign%20threats'>
 
*

The chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees *stated last 
weekend*<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/01/terrorists-are-gaining-ground-intelligence-committee-heads-say/>that
 the world was getting more unsafe. A few days later, the Pew Research 
Center reported that 52 percent of Americans think the U.S. should “*mind 
its own business 
internationally*<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/29/americans-want-to-mind-their-own-business/>,”
 
the highest such total in the nearly 50-year history of that query. Taken 
together, these two items symbolize a serious emerging national problem.

The crackup ahead lies in the mismatch between the challenges facing 
America and the public’s willingness to support activist foreign policy to 
deal with them. Simply put: There is a splintering of the traditional 
consensus for global engagement at the very time that some big new problems 
are emerging. 

The traditional American response to such puzzles has been to form a 
bipartisan commission. A model is the pathbreaking 2006 *Iraq Study 
Group*<http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html>, 
co-chaired by <Council on Foreign Relations Member> James A. Baker III, a 
former secretary of state; and <Council on Foreign Relations Member> Rep. 
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. Giants serving 
with them included <Council on Foreign Relations Member> Sandra Day 
O’Connor, a retired Supreme Court justice; and <Council on Foreign 
Relations Member> Vernon Jordan, a banker, civil rights leader and 
counselor to presidents. For advice, they turned to such luminaries as 
<Council on Foreign Relations Member> Henry Kissinger, <Council on Foreign 
Relations Member> Zbigniew Brzezinski and<Council on Foreign Relations 
Member>  Brent Scowcroft, all brilliant former national security advisers. 

All are part of the traditional foreign policy establishment that still 
commands the high ground intellectually but does not reflect the restless, 
frustrated mood of the American public. The old consensus is broken and 
needs to be reinvented and refreshed.

What should a modern-day commission be worrying about? Rep. Mike Rogers and 
<Council on Foreign Relations Member>  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairs of 
the House and Senate intelligence committees, respectively, *said last 
Sunday*<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/01/terrorists-are-gaining-ground-intelligence-committee-heads-say/>on
 CNN that the world is not safer today than a few years ago. They were 
referring to the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Syria, Iraq, Libya and 
elsewhere. These are not two-bit al-Qaeda franchises anymore; the State 
Department received an intelligence report recently that 5,500 foreign 
fighters are operating with al-Qaeda’s affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq 
and Syria. How should the United States combat this threat? Sorry, no 
consensus on that. 

Al-Qaeda is even putting down roots in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, according 
to Gen. Mohammed Farid el-Tohamy, the head of the Egyptian intelligence 
service. How can the United States help Egypt, its most important ally in 
the Arab world, defeat Islamic terrorism at the same time as it moves to 
restore civilian government and a measure of democracy? No consensus on 
that one, either. 

And there’s the huge foreign-policy challenge of Iran’s nuclear program. 
*President 
Obama* <http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80686/> *has made a bold interim 
deal*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-in-geneva-raising-hopes-for-historic-nuclear-deal-with-iran/2013/11/23/53e7bfe6-5430-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html>with
 Iran. But to complete the agreement, and ensure that Iran’s nuclear 
program is truly peaceful, Obama will need strong support from Congress and 
the public. Right now, it’s hard to imagine that he will get it. The public 
doesn’t want war, but it doesn’t seem to like entangling diplomacy much, 
either. 

A modest proposal is that Obama should convene a younger group of American 
leaders: strategists, technologists, professors. It would be a learning 
exercise — to understand how the country should deal with the problems of 
the next 10 years without making the mistakes of the past 10. What has 
America learned from its struggles with Islamic extremism? What lessons do 
we take from our painful expeditionary wars? How can Americans too young to 
remember the *Iranian revolution of 
1979*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021102111.html>engage
 that country, but also set clear limits on its behavior? 

Happily, a new generation of thinkers could form the bipartisan group I’m 
imagining. If you don’t know their names yet, you should: *Marc 
Lynch*<http://elliott.gwu.edu/lynch>of George Washington University, known to 
his online fans as “Abu 
Aardvark”;<*Council on Foreign Relations 
Stooge*<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/author/marc-lynch>> 
*David Kilcullen* <http://caerusassociates.com/team/david-kilcullen/>, one 
of the architects of counterinsurgency success in Iraq and author of “*Out 
of the 
Mountains*<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199737509/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0199737509&linkCode=as2&tag=slatmaga-20>,”
 
an iconoclastic new book on future urban conflicts; <Council on Foreign 
Relations Member> *Michèle 
Flournoy*<http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=172>, 
a clear-eyed former undersecretary of defense; and <Council on Foreign 
Relations Member>  *Jared 
Cohen*<http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/jared-cohen/>and 
<*Council 
on Foreign Relations 
Stooge*<https://twitter.com/CFR_Comm/status/392386640934477825>> 
*Alec Ross* <http://alecross.com/>, two technological wizards who advised 
the State Department under <*Council on Foreign Relations 
Stooge*<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/31/clinton_says_farewell_at_cfr>>
 
Hillary Clinton and are now with Google and *Johns Hopkins 
University*<http://tomjefferson1976.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/nitzes-not-sees-exercises-in-controlled-insanity/>,
 
respectively. I’d add the administration’s own<Council on Foreign Relations 
member> *Salman 
Ahmed*<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60459/salman-ahmed/no-size-fits-all>,<*Council
 
on Foreign Relations 
stooge*<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/author/antony-j-blinken>> 
*Tony 
Blinken*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/antony-j-blinken/gIQAifsc9O_topic.html>,<*Council
 
on Foreign Relations 
Stooge*<http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/18/the-rhodes-doctrine/>> 
*Ben Rhodes* <http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/author/Ben%20Rhodes> , ; 
<Council on Foreign Relations Member> *Wendy 
Sherman*<http://www.state.gov/p/>and ; <*Council 
on Foreign Relations 
stooge*<http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/31/clinton_says_farewell_at_cfr>>
 
 *Jake 
Sullivan*<http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023831_2023829_2025209,00.html>.
 

What encourages me is that the same American public that wants the United 
States to mind its own business internationally also registers a two-thirds 
majority in favor of greater U.S. involvement in the global economy, *according 
to the Pew 
poll*<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/29/americans-want-to-mind-their-own-business/>.
 
Young respondents were even more internationalist on this issue than their 
elders. 

This is a connected generation that can address problems in new ways — but 
it needs to get started. 

*Read more from David Ignatius’s archive 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/david-ignatius/2011/02/17/ABXXcOJ_page.html>, 
follow him on Twitter <https://twitter.com/IgnatiusPost> or subscribe to 
his updates on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/david.ignatius>.* 

-- 
-- 
Please consider seriously the reason why these elite institutions are not 
discussed in the mainstream press despite the immense financial and political 
power they wield? 
There are sick and evil occultists running the Western World. They are power 
mad lunatics like something from a kids cartoon with their fingers on the 
nuclear button! Armageddon is closer than you thought. Only God can save our 
souls from their clutches, at least that's my considered opinion - Tony

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PEPIS" group. Please feel free to forward it to anyone who might be interested 
particularly your political representatives, journalists and spiritual 
leaders/dudes.

To post to this group, send email to pepis@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pepis-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pepis?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PEPIS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to pepis+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to