Link
Posted by G, Z, or B at 4:59 PM 0 comments"........ the likely leaders of an argument for a middle ground between a huge influx of soldiers and a narrow focus aimed at killing terrorists from Al Qaeda, according to several administration officials.
That swing vote would put them at odds with the bare-bones approach still being pushed by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as the most aggressive military buildup recommended by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal....
In fact, given that the president puts particular stock in Mr. Gates's view on military matters, the alliance between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates, two moderate pragmatists, may be the deciding factor in a remarkably public debate that will determine the future course of the war........... the defense secretary later said to aides that he regarded Mrs. Clinton as very tough. But their relationship had already warmed up by the time of the Obama administration's first debate over sending troops to Afghanistan.
At a White House meeting in mid-March, in which the counterinsurgency policy was initially presented, Mr. Biden famously began to stake out his position that a larger military presence in Afghanistan could breed resentment among Afghans and would be politically untenable at home. Mrs. Clinton, who weighed in next, disagreed, according to people who took part in the session. She threw her support behind the counterinsurgency policy and more troops, saying she believed the American people could be won over. Mr. Gates, immediately following her, also endorsed it, though he granted Mr. Biden's point that there were risks of a backlash among the Afghan people.........
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates are also in tune on Iran, sometimes to an uncanny degree. On Sept. 27, they appeared on rival Sunday morning talk shows, both warning Tehran that if it did not negotiate over its nuclear program, it would face harsh sanctions. In their hard line toward Iran, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gates differed from senior National Security Council officials, who were initially more optimistic about the prospects for engagement, according to a senior official...."
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said after talks with Russia's foreign minister on Tuesday that neither country is seeking to impose sanctions against Iran under the current circumstances.
Clinton said sanctions over Iran’s controversial uranium enrichment program would be premature, and that Russia was being “extremely cooperative in the work we have done together” on the issue.
Lavrov said Russia is “in principle very reserved on sanctions, as they rarely produce results.” He said sanctions should only be used when all diplomatic means have been exhausted, and that “in the situation with Iran, this is far from the case.”
Lavrov also said the U.S. and Russia had identical positions on the issue.
“We are not asking anything of each other on Iran, because it would be ridiculous to make requests on an issue where our positions coincide,” he said.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, with respect to Iran, we had a lengthy conversation. We reviewed the outcome of the October 1st meeting. The United States has always had a dual-track approach to Iran where we made it clear we wanted to pursue the engagement and diplomatic track. And the very strong, united approach that has been taken in the P-5+1 which, of course, includes the United States and Russia, we think is making an impact on Iran. Iran has several obligations that it said it would fulfill. We believe it is important to pursue the diplomatic track and to do everything we can to make it successful.
We believe that Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear energy, but that it is not entitled to nuclear weapons. Russia agrees with us on that. At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be. So we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event that we are not successful, that we cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons.
I think what President Medvedev said was that they may be inevitable, not that they are inevitable. He said that they’re not always preferable, but they may be inevitable. But we are not at that point yet. That is not a conclusion we have reached, and we want to be very clear that it is our preference that Iran work with the international community, as represented by the P-5+1, fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they’re doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium. Those would be confidence-building measures, and that would give us an opportunity to take stock of where we are on the diplomatic track......."
Pentagon: Mother of all Bunker Busters is "Plan-B for Dealing with Iran"
"For several years, the U.S. military has been working on a 30,000-pound superbomb that can penetrate and destroy what the military calls “hardened targets“: Command bunkers or WMD facilities shielded by concrete and buried deep underground.
Now it looks as if the Pentagon is speeding delivery of the bomb, formally known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. The Associated Press’ Anne Gearan reports today that the Defense Department awarded a contract worth around $52 million to speed up integration of the bomb aboard the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. According to the story, the MOP could be ready for B-2 delivery as early as next summer.
So why the rush? Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell offered a bland statement about the world being a dangerous place, but it’s tempting to see this as a response to Iran’s newly revealed nuclear site, buried deep inside a mountain near Qom. Gearan described the MOP “Plan B for dealing with Iran” if the diplomatic approach fails......"
No comments:
Post a Comment