<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time for fresh eyes in the Middle East</title>
	<atom:link href="http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/</link>
	<description>More than one way to look at the world around you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:53:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ken in Tennessee</title>
		<link>http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken in Tennessee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 05:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Kent, maybe Jimmy Carter was right.

Very interesting piece in Tuesday&#039;s WaPo by David Ignatius, where he reports that the Bushies may have finally come back around to the Iraq Study Group&#039;s recommendations.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It&#039;s hard to tell who is leading this charge.  Maybe Condi, with her belated overtures to Iran and Syria, maybe Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, who have now had enough time on the ground to recognize that their prececessors weren&#039;t crazy, or perhaps even Stephen Hadley now that he has the backing of a czar.  

The only sure thing is that we haven&#039;t heard from Cheney since he returned from the Middle East.  Either he had a divine revelation while he was over there or, more likely, he&#039;s being kept heavily sedated in an undisclosed location while this plays out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kent, maybe Jimmy Carter was right.</p>
<p>Very interesting piece in Tuesday&#8217;s WaPo by David Ignatius, where he reports that the Bushies may have finally come back around to the Iraq Study Group&#8217;s recommendations.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html?hpid=opinionsbox1</a></p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to tell who is leading this charge.  Maybe Condi, with her belated overtures to Iran and Syria, maybe Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Fallon, who have now had enough time on the ground to recognize that their prececessors weren&#8217;t crazy, or perhaps even Stephen Hadley now that he has the backing of a czar.  </p>
<p>The only sure thing is that we haven&#8217;t heard from Cheney since he returned from the Middle East.  Either he had a divine revelation while he was over there or, more likely, he&#8217;s being kept heavily sedated in an undisclosed location while this plays out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Krellwitz</title>
		<link>http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Krellwitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 03:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-54</guid>
		<description>I agree Kent. In my view, any progress will ONLY come with sustained diplomatic discussion. Currently, our entire foreign policy towards the ME is derived from what Prof. Edward Said calls &quot;a classic orientalist view.&quot;

(Edward Said was a comparative Lit professor at the University of Columbia, who unfortunately died earlier this year. He grew up as a Palestinian Christian, and is know for being opposed to our foreign policy in the region, unwavering support of Israel, and the Western view of eastern civilization in general-hence &quot;orientalist&quot;. I recommend his book &quot;The Politics of Dispossession&quot;)

Anyhow, in one of his lectures (available on google video), he rips apart the Harvard Professor&#039;s thesis from which the US&#039;s foreign policy is derived. (Meaning this guy has a say in our foreign policy).

Too often people in academia are labled as &quot;not in touch with reality&quot; or something to that effect.

However, we have to remember that our government actually consults many of these high profile professors. For example, Gregory Mankiw, a brilliant MIT  macroeconomist/ professor, was chief economics advisor to President GWB. Whether or not Bush did everything Mankiw suggested, I&#039;m not sure- (actually I don&#039;t think he did...)

The same goes for foreign policy, and I believe we should be listening to Said, NOT Harrington (or whatever the other guy&#039;s name is).

Check Said out. He&#039;s the shit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree Kent. In my view, any progress will ONLY come with sustained diplomatic discussion. Currently, our entire foreign policy towards the ME is derived from what Prof. Edward Said calls &#8220;a classic orientalist view.&#8221;</p>
<p>(Edward Said was a comparative Lit professor at the University of Columbia, who unfortunately died earlier this year. He grew up as a Palestinian Christian, and is know for being opposed to our foreign policy in the region, unwavering support of Israel, and the Western view of eastern civilization in general-hence &#8220;orientalist&#8221;. I recommend his book &#8220;The Politics of Dispossession&#8221;)</p>
<p>Anyhow, in one of his lectures (available on google video), he rips apart the Harvard Professor&#8217;s thesis from which the US&#8217;s foreign policy is derived. (Meaning this guy has a say in our foreign policy).</p>
<p>Too often people in academia are labled as &#8220;not in touch with reality&#8221; or something to that effect.</p>
<p>However, we have to remember that our government actually consults many of these high profile professors. For example, Gregory Mankiw, a brilliant MIT  macroeconomist/ professor, was chief economics advisor to President GWB. Whether or not Bush did everything Mankiw suggested, I&#8217;m not sure- (actually I don&#8217;t think he did&#8230;)</p>
<p>The same goes for foreign policy, and I believe we should be listening to Said, NOT Harrington (or whatever the other guy&#8217;s name is).</p>
<p>Check Said out. He&#8217;s the shit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BillT</title>
		<link>http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>BillT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 02:24:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://globalinteractions.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/time-for-fresh-eyes-in-the-middle-east/#comment-53</guid>
		<description>I strongly disagree that talks with Syria are becoming fruitful.  I have read strong arguments for and against, but the against arguments have always been more deeply rooted in pragmatic opinions, as opposed to speculative optimism.  I would be happy to discuss strengthening our ties with Egypt and Jordan, but I believe that we cannot hold discussions of any consequence with the Syrian regime at this point.

Should they release their death grip on Lebanese politics and stop the instigations with Israel and Iraq, then we could work toward more meaningful discussions.

I think everyone can agree that modifications in diplomacy are worth exploring, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I strongly disagree that talks with Syria are becoming fruitful.  I have read strong arguments for and against, but the against arguments have always been more deeply rooted in pragmatic opinions, as opposed to speculative optimism.  I would be happy to discuss strengthening our ties with Egypt and Jordan, but I believe that we cannot hold discussions of any consequence with the Syrian regime at this point.</p>
<p>Should they release their death grip on Lebanese politics and stop the instigations with Israel and Iraq, then we could work toward more meaningful discussions.</p>
<p>I think everyone can agree that modifications in diplomacy are worth exploring, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
