Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter

Scott Horton, September 28, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses Gen. Petraeus’s decision to double down in Afghanistan rather than deescalate and blame the quagmire on his predecessors, evidence of a civilian-military rift on war decisions with Obama failing to control policy and his generals near open rebellion, how the media love fest over Gen. Petraeus gives him unprecedented influence in the political process and why – for the sake of the republic – the permanent U.S. war footing must end soon.

MP3 here. (32:42)

Gareth Porter is an independent historian and journalist. He is the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. His articles appear on Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and Antiwar.com

4 Responses to “Gareth Porter”

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Paul News and AngelaKeaton, RichinLiberty. RichinLiberty said: RT @RonPaulNews: Antiwar Radio: Gareth Porter http://bit.ly/a0VMsj @AntiwarScott [...]

  2. What a great analysis of current state of militay power in US and the real reasons of prolonging war Scott & Gareth.

    I also read Gareth's article at truth-out regarding UN report on IDF raid on flotilla. Again, great analysis of report which most will probably not read but Gareth provides a link and some direct quotes.

  3. Part 1
    I think you guys are missing the boat on Obama's avoidance of punishing Petraeus. First of all, Obama sure as hell did fire McChrystal because of the hoopla surrounding the article in Rolling Stone. I don't think they were unaware of McChrystal's record before the story came out. Secondly, the administration had less of a problem firing McChrystal because it made them look like they were actually in charge and willing to make hard decisions, but they also had Petraeus in the lurch. Like you were saying about Obama being a product to sell Scott, I believe they look at Petraeus as being the war hero that you can move around to make whatever military problem look like it's being taken care of. Petraeus=Surge=Results! Now, though, Petraeus knows Obama has no one else to turn to.

  4. Part 2
    Lastly, I think you guys give these guys way too much credit for their ability to think in broad, policy strategies. Let's face it, all this shit is about saving face to the people they surround themselves with: the Washington Establishment. I thought the McChrystal article did a great job of showing the inner workings of those in charge of prosecuting the war. The only real disagreement between Obama and Petraeus is the fact neither of them want to look like the other has gotten over on the other because it will make them look weak. It has nothing to do with a divergence on their grand strategy in the Asia. Of course, the consequences of whatever they do will be far reaching, but it will not have been because of the intentions of either of them or anyone else. This is school boy shit! Who's going to be the coolest dude. It's really hard to take seriously Petraeus having the brains and especially the nuts to create a soft military dictatorship after reading his emails to Max Boot.

Leave a Reply