Rumsfeld's Five Year Regime Change Plan, Slower Than Planned, But Getting There.

With the fires in and around Damascus probably still raging and with people asking "Were these the opening shots of a third world war", i'd like to remind everyone of a an incident that happened in Novemeber of 2001.

It's something that's been largely forgotton but now and again, someone mentions it and connects it with an incident of the day.

Shortly after 9/11 then 4 star General Wesely Clark was called to Washingon and told by a senior general "We're going to attack Iraq, the desicion's basically been made".
Six week later, Clark returned to Washington and ask the same General if the plan was still in place.

“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

The list also includes Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan.

Libyas and Iraq have gone.

Syrias next on the list.

Could the pre emptives by Israel be the softening up not only of Hezbollah, but against Syria itself by helping the rebels, leading to another "regime change" as in Libia, Eygpt, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rumsfel'd five year plan is taking place, but it's five year limit was just too ambicious.

Your forgetting the change in US leadership.

New presidents often discard the previous ones plans as I'm sure Obama has. They all like to leave their own legacy and have totally different foreign policies.

reply to post by Hopechest


Possibly correct however one man getting a National security brief (supposedly every morning; kinda a state of affairs briefing) can be pointed/directed in a given direction; and those guys and gals are pros at manipulation.

As the op pointed out it is taking a little longer I suppose because of all the vacations and golf??

S&F... I too have wondered if the General was right or just using the Rumsfield paper for campaigning?

reply to post by Hopechest


Possibly correct however one man getting a National security brief (supposedly every morning; kinda a state of affairs briefing) can be pointed/directed in a given direction; and those guys and gals are pros at manipulation.

As the op pointed out it is taking a little longer I suppose because of all the vacations and golf??

S&F... I too have wondered if the General was right or just using the Rumsfield paper for campaigning?

Originally posted by Hopechest
Your forgetting the change in US leadership.

New presidents often discard the previous ones plans as I'm sure Obama has. They all like to leave their own legacy and have totally different foreign policies.

This will go ahead with or without Obama...Pnac set the wheels in motion in 2001.

This will not be over unti it's over....doesn't matter whos in the whitehouse

reply to post by Hopechest

New presidents often discard the previous ones plans as I'm sure Obama has. They all like to leave their own legacy and have totally different foreign policies.

Do tell... The effort to control the worlds oil producing regions has been ongoing since oil was discovered. After WWII, this has been the goal as far as it goes with the Middle East. Regardless of who is in the White House. Except maybe John F. Kennedy (and they killed him).

reply to post by andy1972

Truth.

They just pass the baton from one regime to the next.

Ron Paul would have been our first anti-war President in decades.

reply to post by 727Sky


Depends. Much of the NSC is made up of presidential people that he wants so he will be mostly getting his own teams advice. As such they are usually department heads who will carry out the presidents foreign policy directives which are rarely ever the same as the preceeding ones.

Some big programs may remain in motion but not newly started ones. Toppling further governments certainly wouldn't fit that bill.

reply to post by Hopechest

I'd agree with you about changing guards and plans ...except Obama kept Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Bush's Secretary of Defense. He didn't hold him over for a respectable transition period either. He was Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. That's impossible to take in and suggest Obama had any serious intentions of major changes to policy.

It's also part of why I've never lent much stock to the idea that Obama was fundamentally different from Bush in his war strategy or overall planning. He kept the very people that oversaw the last couple years of policy from the last guy. Go figure?

reply to post by Hopechest

Toppling further governments certainly wouldn't fit that bill.

Quick, name a country the US hasn't bombed.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Toppling further governments certainly wouldn't fit that bill.

Quick, name a country the US hasn't bombed.

The UK!

Ron Paul, Schmon Paul, whatever. He would have been the first CAMPAIGNING anti-war pres in a long time but once he got in, the same stuff would happen. It happens to all the presidents. It happened to Obama. These guys are NOT in control. Ron Paul is not above this LOL.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by andy1972

 

Truth.

They just pass the baton from one regime to the next.

Ron Paul would have been our first anti-war President in decades.

Quick, name a country that doesnt beg for US assistance.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Toppling further governments certainly wouldn't fit that bill.

Quick, name a country the US hasn't bombed.

reply to post by princeofpeace

Quick, name a country that doesnt beg for US assistance.

All the ones that don't have US backed puppet governments.

Somewhere, some caves, probably there are some people planning on how to take out the USA as well. Oh wait, they have. Now, even running is a dangerous sport where some unlucky spectators had paid dearly with their legs and lives.

Though their weapons might not be as polished or even too crude but so far they have been really successful in farking up the lifesyles that you grew up with. Your freedom that been taken away, those TSA fondles and you are adverse of crowd because someone might have a bad day and decides to do something with an unwanted gift of a pressure cooker. Sucks...

Man proposes, karma disposes.

reply to post by andy1972

“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

Do you have a source link for this quote (or is it in the vid?). Not all members can view vids (always). Thank you.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by andy1972

 

“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

Do you have a source link for this quote (or is it in the vid?). Not all members can view vids (always). Thank you.

edit on 6-5-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

It's quoted in Clarks book 'A Time To Lead : For Duty, Honor And Country'.
General Clark recalls when he saw the Rumsfeld Memo.

reply to post by andy1972


Interesting, thank you.

Obviously though, this plan wasn't followed through, as only one nation was attacked within the 5 year timeframe...and we're only NOW (12 years later) going after the second? That's not slower than planned, that's glacial.

As the memo was around the time right after 911, it seems cooler heads prevailed. Chances are, the SoD just wanted a plan outlying how to go about it, if they decided it was needed.

Not sure what Syria will gain us though.

1) We back the Syrian government = Keep people who hate us and harbor terrorists in power. Further anger the middle eastern nations for our interference.

2) We back the Rebels = New leaders who hate us and ARE terrorists, and harbor other terrorists. Further anger the middle eastern nations for our interference.

or

3) Do NOTHING about Syria = Leader will be someone who hates us and harbors terrorists, but we save millions of dollars and no further erosion of middle eastern sentiment.

Hmm...??? Which is the best option? And why isn't this option being chosen?

reply to post by Gazrok


Syrias been a thorn in Israels side since the six day war.

There is however a fourth option to your list.

"know your enemy and know yourself and you will never be vencido"

Divide and conquor.

Israel and the USA cause a civil war between the sunni's and everyone else..as they've probably trying to do now..a nation(s) divided is (are) much easier to control.

Let them kill each other before Israel and the US move in...leaving another puppet government in power just like in Afghanistan..

Then we'll have a government that will loves us while the cash keeps rolling in and who harbours terrorists,but that'll be ok because they'll be our terrorists.