Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Speaks

[LEK]

At the time when General Petraeus was testifying before Congress, telling them that American troops needed to stay in Iraq indefinitely, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a paper saying the very same thing! Now, we know Petraeus and President Bush are simply following orders!

However, this CFR article also admitted that the entire war effort could eventually fail!

A Freeze in the Surge
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15968/freeze_in_the_surge.html?breadcrumb=/

[Geronimo]

It's no secret he General Petridish is also a member of the CFR.

Just for the record, the CFR is nothing more than the American branch of the Illuminati.

[forsmant]

Membership in the CFR does not necessarily mean they are for one world government. The "Illuminati" has a pyramid based leadership where those at the top know the true nature of the rest of the pyramids actions. While General Petraeus is a member, he may believe that he is doing the right thing for America and not delivering it into the New World Order. I don't know for sure without asking him directly of his involvement. I am sure he would deny any affiliation with one world government.

[Zippyjuan]

Would that be the same Council on Foreign Relations that published this- over a year ago:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12577/

Report Calls for Military Disengagement From Iraq
Related Bio: Steven Simon, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies


February 7, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations

Council Scholar Recommends Policy Shift to Containing Conflict

“The United States should...make clear now to the Iraqi government that, as the results of the anticipated surge become apparent, the two sides will begin to negotiate a U.S. military disengagement from Iraq,” says a new Council Special Report. “The proposed military disengagement would not be linked to benchmarks that the Iraqi government is probably incapable of fulfilling....The U.S. drawdown should not be hostage to Iraqi performance.”

The report’s author, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies Steven N. Simon, says the surge is a fait accompli and its results will be known very soon: “the surge is going to take place regardless of public or congressional opposition. Thus, the issue is what happens after the surge. Since General David Petraeus has said that he expects the results of the surge to become apparent quickly, the ‘day after’ realities should be thought through now.”

“The United States has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the end of the Ba’athist regime, the elimination of the Iraqi regional threat, the snuffing out of Iraq’s unrequited aspiration to weapons of mass destruction, and the opening of a door, however narrow, to a constitutionally-based electoral democracy,” says the report, After the Surge: The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement From Iraq.“Staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of these gains in blood, treasure, and strategic position.”
Disengagement “would entail withdrawing the bulk of American forces from Iraq within twelve to eighteen months (that is to say, over the course of calendar year 2008); shifting the American focus to containment of the conflict and strengthening the U.S. military position elsewhere in the region; and engaging Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, members of the UN Security Council, and potential donors in an Iraq stabilization plan,” Simon writes.

“The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own,” says the report. “The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation.” And “even if the United States had the abundant ground forces and reconstruction teams necessary, it is not clear that the situation in Iraq today is retrievable.”

Simon argues that any realistic reckoning for the future will have to acknowledge “six grim realities:”

> “The United States cannot determine political outcomes or achieve its remaining political aims via military means.”

> “Leaving U.S. forces in Iraq under today’s circumstances means the United States is culpable but not capable—that is, Washington bears substantial responsibility for developments within Iraq without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.”

> “The ongoing war has empowered and advanced the interests of the chief U.S. rival in the region, Iran.”

> “By siphoning resources and political attention away from Afghanistan, a continuing military commitment to Iraq may lead to two U.S. losses in southwest Asia.”

> “The Iraq war constrains the U.S. military, making it very difficult if not impossible to handle another significant contingency involving ground forces.”

> “The implosion of domestic support for the war will compel the disengagement of U.S. forces; it is now just a matter of time.”

“The bleak truth remains that the United States is incapable of restoring Iraq even to the relative stability of the Ba’athist era...The even bleaker truth is that continued U.S. military operations on Iraqi territory might well leave Iraqis even worse off. In that light, for the U.S. government to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers in the pursuit of an unattainable objective (a stable, pluralistic Iraq aligned with U.S. interests), or an inappropriate one (reputation for toughness and reliability) would be the least morally defensible course that Washington could take.”

The United States should:

Declare its intention to disengage the majority of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within twelve to eighteen months, to begin once the results of the surge become known.

> Retain the forces necessary to secure Baghdad International Airport, the Green Zone, and access routes that connect them.

> During the disengagement period, stage the drawdown to maintain the forces in Iraq needed to protect or relocate vulnerable minority populations and suppress insurgent activity in the largely Sunni provinces.

Shift focus to containment of the conflict and strengthen the U.S. military position elsewhere in the region.

> Plan for humanitarian contingency operations.

> Refocus on containment of the war in Iraq.

> Reinforce the U.S. military presence elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region, for example, Kuwait; explore options for increasing special operations forces deployed to Jordan; increase the number of rotational deployments to the region, including joint exercises.

Engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, members of the UN Security Council, and potential donors in a stabilization plan for Iraq.

> Prepare to provide Jordan with help in managing the cross-border refugee flow.

> Work with the UN secretary-general to form an Iraq stabilization group, including Iran and Syria, with an emphasis on control of borders, management of refugees, economic and technical assistance to Iraq, and diplomatic support for political reconciliation.

> Work with the UN, NATO, and neighboring states on plans for humanitarian intervention in the event that violence in Iraq becomes genocidal.

> Act decisively elsewhere in the region, particularly on the Palestine-Israel impasse by articulating a vision for final status, and on support for Lebanese sovereignty.

“Having staked its prestige on the intervention and failed to achieve many of its objectives, the United States will certainly pay a price for military disengagement from Iraq. But if the United States manages its departure from Iraq carefully, it will not have lost everything. Rather, the United States will have preserved the opportunity to recover vital assets that its campaign in Iraq has imperiled: diplomatic initiative, global reputation, and the well being and political utility of its ground forces.”

Contact: Anya Schmemann, CFR Communications, 202-518-3419; aschmemann@cfr.org


The Council on Foreign Relations is comprised of people with a lot of different backgrounds and opinions.
Another publication on Iraq: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html

The Price of the Surge
How U.S. Strategy Is Hastening Iraq's Demise
Steven Simon

The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq. Despite the current lull in violence, Washington needs to shift from a unilateral bottom-up surge strategy to a policy that promotes, rather than undermines, Iraq's cohesion. That means establishing an effective multilateral process to spur top-down political reconciliation among the major Iraqi factions. And that, in turn, means stating firmly and clearly that most U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Iraq within two or three years. Otherwise, a strategy adopted for near-term advantage by a frustrated administration will only increase the likelihood of long-term debacle.

(more text at link)

[Truth Warrior]

A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm

[LEK]

The CFR is for the eradication of national sovereignty and a one world government. I can not imagine anyone being a part of it and not knowing what it's tenents are - especially these. They are very open about these two facts - it is not hidden from the members.

The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, “Tragedy & Hope”:

“The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.”

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

(From Obama's advisor)
CFR member Zbigniew Breninski (National Security Advisor to President Carter) proclaimed: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."