Some interesting stuff there. One I found quite interesting was a briefing note for Rumsfelds visit to Iraq in 1984, specifically paragraph 7:
Iraq is confused by our means of pursuing our stated objectives in the region, whether in combatting Khomeini, in Lebanon, in Syria, or with friends such as Jordan, Egypt and Isreal. In each case, Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as measured against our stated objectives. As with our CW statement, their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that US policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desired of Isreal.
Is this indicative of a flaw in US foreign policy in the Middle East (sending mixed messages) or a slight contempt for their Arab counterparts ("their tempation is to give up rational analysis...")? It certainly shows the potential for Iraqui misjudgement in 1990.
Regardless, it's very interesting to see diplomatic cables such as these. My father is a career diplomat, and while I've never been privy to his work, I imagine it is similar to this. posted by smcniven at 6:28 AM on February 10, 2005
Wow. Elvis had really horrible handwriting. Also, I would think tha the would be able to afford better stationery than "American Airlines : In Flight" paper, but I suppose when your main concern is "helping the country out," being classy is entirely secondary. posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:43 AM on February 11, 2005
*I would think that he.
(I would also think that I would be able to type. Clearly, I would be wrong.) posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:44 AM on February 11, 2005
« Older
The Gettysburg Cyclorama...
| Everything you always wanted t...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Iraq is confused by our means of pursuing our stated objectives in the region, whether in combatting Khomeini, in Lebanon, in Syria, or with friends such as Jordan, Egypt and Isreal. In each case, Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as measured against our stated objectives. As with our CW statement, their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that US policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desired of Isreal.
Is this indicative of a flaw in US foreign policy in the Middle East (sending mixed messages) or a slight contempt for their Arab counterparts ("their tempation is to give up rational analysis...")? It certainly shows the potential for Iraqui misjudgement in 1990.
Regardless, it's very interesting to see diplomatic cables such as these. My father is a career diplomat, and while I've never been privy to his work, I imagine it is similar to this.
posted by smcniven at 6:28 AM on February 10, 2005