Frontline documentary: The War Behind Closed Doors

buonrottobuonrotto
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I don't know if everyone'e aware of this, but PBS's Frontline now has episodes online for streaming. I thought people might be interested in this:



<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/"; target="_blank">PBS Frontline: The War Behind Closed Doors</a>



The full documentary (sans a few grisly 9/11 images that are blacked out] is available online in Real Player and WMP. Covers the "hawks" (Wolfowitz & Co.) and "moderates" (Powell & Co.) from the Gulf War cease-fire to practically yesterday. Gives a good perspective on the admin and the Iraq issue through the past 12 years or so.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    interesting stuff.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I posted links to the interviews last week. It's a very good show. That and NOVA.
  • Reply 3 of 39
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Just a warning, the frontpage of frontline just killed my Safari...
  • Reply 4 of 39
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    The most surprising bit was the fact that the policy document, authored by Wolfowitz, advancing "pre-emptive strikes" against foreign threats had been around since '91.



    Screed
  • Reply 5 of 39
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Of course Bush's ideas for dealing with Iraq aren't new, I'm surprised that so many people are acting like this is a new idea.
  • Reply 6 of 39
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    [quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:

    <strong>The most surprising bit was the fact that the policy document, authored by Wolfowitz, advancing "pre-emptive strikes" against foreign threats had been around since '91.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    It wasn't invented in 91, if thats what you think. The same group of hawks have been around pulling strings for quite a long time.
  • Reply 7 of 39
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by zKillah:

    <strong>I posted links to the interviews last week.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oops, sorry! It's interesting to listen to a show like this which does its best to be fair, show all sides of policy-making. I have to say in some important ways I do agree with Wolfowitz about preventative measures (though there's too much emphasis on military means and takes a myopic view of what it means to eliminate threats), and is genrally good because it is pro-active at least. I've always thought very highly of Powell and his "camp" that advices localized responses to threats as needed, and has a better if also short-term set of priorities for dealing with threats to the US. Wolfowitz seems to have some broad strokes that the Powell team could build on. Neither seem to have a complete doctrine, set of scenarios, or strong outlook for protecting the US.



    I guess what I'm trying to say is that there must be some sort of better solution, inspired by both lines of thought: something that takes a the longer view , is more humane, more, what, principled and abstract that could apply to any nation as a strategy for protection and eventually peace. Uh, whatever.
  • Reply 8 of 39
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    For those having problem here is the large Real version:



    <a href="http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/wgbh/pages/frontline/2113/real/ch1_hi.rm"; target="_blank">http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/wgbh/pages/frontline/2113/real/ch1_hi.rm</a>;



    Just replace ch1_hi with ch2_hi for chapter two aso up to six.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>

    Oops, sorry!

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    What ever for? I?m glad you decided to dedicate a thread to it.

    [quote] It's interesting to listen to a show like this which does its best to be fair, show all sides of policy-making. I have to say in some important ways I do agree with Wolfowitz about preventative measures (though there's too much emphasis on military means and takes a myopic view of what it means to eliminate threats), and is genrally good because it is pro-active at least. <hr></blockquote>



    I agree with Wolfowitz.



    [quote] I've always thought very highly of Powell and his "camp" that advices localized responses to threats as needed, and has a better if also short-term set of priorities for dealing with threats to the US. Wolfowitz seems to have some broad strokes that the Powell team could build on. Neither seem to have a complete doctrine, set of scenarios, or strong outlook for protecting the US. <hr></blockquote>



    Dunno ?bout Powell. I think it was a serious mistake to let Powell have his way here. All he did is gum things up and created many greater tensions with our allies than otherwise. It would have been much better to do this alone, and without the British too. Blair is as much of a burden as is Powell, if not more so. (I actually believe Blair carries more weight with Bush than does Powell). This should have been a strictly unilateral move. And Lending credibility to the UN as an alternative pure folly.



    [quote]I guess what I'm trying to say is that there must be some sort of better solution, inspired by both lines of thought: something that takes a the longer view , is more humane, more, what, principled and abstract that could apply to any nation as a strategy for protection and eventually peace. Uh, whatever. <hr></blockquote>



    There isn?t. Not when the gangsters you?re up against sit on a goldmine.
  • Reply 10 of 39
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I respect Powell a lot because he's very level-headed and lends an especially critical eye towards military intervention. He's obviously not opposed to it, but he learned the lesson of Vietnam about what the limits of military actionand how to focus the military agenda. I think he tries to think of legitimate alternatives to it too. While I am rather put off by all the posturing and political mumbo-gumbo of the UN and international relations, it is a necessary "evil" (relative term) that Powell has a better sense of than Wolfowitz. While I think we can't worry too much about how people want to twist the image or intentions of our actions, especially the ridiculous views of radicals out there now, we have to listen others' more, uh, honest perceptions. Long-term resentment breeds terrorists and anti-American sentiment no matter the virtue we see in what we're trying to do. So while Powell does sort of muddy things up with a more politically -correct agenda, his input is important for that reason, it asks the "hawks" to take an even longer view, to think about fostering these people's values rather than having to control them ad infinitum.



    I've become a lot more "conservative" I suppose since I think the Wolfowitz doctrine isn't totally off the mark. I would be happy if everyone who didn't like one another just didn't bother with one another, but I don't think such a naive world view is remotely realistic.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    spaceman_spiffspaceman_spiff Posts: 1,242member
    [quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:

    <strong>The most surprising bit was the fact that the policy document, authored by Wolfowitz, advancing "pre-emptive strikes" against foreign threats had been around since '91.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    These days Bill Kristol sounds like an ardent "Bushie". During the 2000 campaign he was a "McCainiac". Since 9/11 Bush's foreign policy seems to be shaped by the same ideas that would have molded John McCain's foreign policy, i.e., the neocon critique.
  • Reply 12 of 39
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong> So while Powell does sort of muddy things up with a more politically -correct agenda, his input is important for that reason, it asks the "hawks" to take an even longer view, to think about fostering these people's values rather than having to control them ad infinitum.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    I agree in principle. I agree with that we should do everything we can to foster and persuade others to the values of democracy, freedom and free market enterprise sans force or coersion. I just disagree about the timeframe. I don?t believe we have that much time left. With 9/11 the Islamacists almost collapsed the insurance industry. Once that goes it?s a very slippery slope to economic disaster.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by zKillah:

    <strong>I agree in principle. I agree with that we should do everything we can to foster and persuade others to the values of democracy, freedom and free market enterprise sans force or coersion. I just disagree about the timeframe. I don?t believe we have that much time left. With 9/11 the Islamacists almost collapsed the insurance industry. Once that goes it?s a very slippery slope to economic disaster.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, I think in the near-term military/police/CIA intervention is necessary. I just mean as a complement in the near-term, and as an eventual endgame.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Damn, Powell's route has really screwed him. Banking on the UN to take real action was very very foolish in hindsight.
  • Reply 15 of 39
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    A bit to early to tell, isn't it?
  • Reply 16 of 39
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    It may happen eventually but they have made his life absolute hell in the interim.



    I've always said this will be a UN deal and I'll stick to that. I may be proven wrong, though.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Damn, Powell's route has really screwed him. Banking on the UN to take real action was very very foolish in hindsight.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    He might think so too at this point. He's certainly sick of the UN's carrot and stick plicy towards Iraq, that only after the US used highly aggressive language towards Iraq that if anything got the UN off its butt but dragging its feet as much as Iraq itself.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    spaceman_spiffspaceman_spiff Posts: 1,242member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Damn, Powell's route has really screwed him. Banking on the UN to take real action was very very foolish in hindsight.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well we really did and still do want the U.N. to step up. If it doesn't, we can and will go forward on Iraq without the U.N. That much is already baked into the cake. However, we don't want the U.N. to emerge from this with it's stature completely undermined. Why? Because after Iraq there will still be North Korea. The U.N. can still play a constructive role there.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>It may happen eventually but they have made his life absolute hell in the interim. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Democratic principles are tough, ain't they?
  • Reply 20 of 39
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    So is subjecting yourself to a continent historically known for bickering and horrible wars.
Sign In or Register to comment.