...and alot of assumptions that beg a lot of very important questions.

And Brookings, a major and extremely influential mover in defense and foreign policy circles, is hardly itself blameless in the sorry state of the middle east, which is easy to see from reading between the lines and even not between the lines (the not-so-veiled references to the 'necessity' of outside intervention). It is not surprising in that regard, and others, that it would be doubling down on it's longstanding policy recommendations. (Recommendations, I would reiterate, that have directly led to some of our biggest failures and some of the biggest current 'messes' in the ME.) It is and always has been pretty clear what Brookings' agenda is and that they know which side of the bread is, for them, buttered. Pollack is a very, very bright guy, but, nonetheless, still a "very, very bright guy" with an agenda.

Hint, the key initials here are M.I.C., and its been around a looooong time. Eisenhower was not exactly an idiot.

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing, and good for people to know what the folks who advise their leaders are advising. Appreciate the willingness to share your impressions from what is not the most easily accessible of sources. They don't exactly hand out invitations to those briefings on the corner, ya know.




[Post edited by EAPo at 11/16/2016 4:44PM]