Condi Selects Neocon Eliot (World War 4) Cohen As Her Advisor

Rice names conservative critic as counselor
Published: Friday March 2, 2007


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has chosen Eliot Cohen, a neo-conservative critic of US policy in Iraq, as her counselor, a key trouble-shooting role in US diplomacy, officials said Friday.

Cohen will replace Philip Zelikow, a long-time Rice associate who resigned at the start of the year to return to a university teaching job, department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.

Casey described Cohen, currently a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, as a "distinguished scholar, a very important military historian and expert on US defense policies".

Cohen has worked for years with the US military and has been affiliated with a number of neo-conservative advocacy groups, including the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Project for a New American Century.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Rice_names_conservative_critic_as_c_03022007.html

Eliot A. Cohen is considered to be a "neo-con" (neo-conservative). He is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Cohen is a professor and director at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, with an emphasis on strategic studies, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, Iraq, arms control, and NATO. Cohen has worked with the Secretary of Defense and taught at the U.S. Naval War College.

Member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Aspen Strategy Group.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eliot_A._Cohen"

As some consider the Cold War to have been "WWIII", they also view the so-called War on Terrorism as being "WWIV", and the term is occasionally used in the United States political and policy debates that continue in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. As long ago as 1992, Count de Marenches, the former head of French intelligence, wrote a book<[1>] alleging that a "fourth world war", of terrorism versus civilization, was taking place. As a designation for the post-9/11 war on terrorism, its use was first proposed by Eliot A. Cohen in his opinion piece written for the Wall Street Journal opinion page on November 20, 2001 titled, "World War IV: Let's call this conflict what it is." A core quotation from his thesis is:

<snip>


Cohen was one of the first publicly to single out Iraq as the second battlefield after Afghanistan in his version of World War IV. On December 23, 2001 he then wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "War with Iraq will have its perils. Some are likely to be illusory: the Arab "street," for example, which never quite rises as promised. Others may be quite real, to include the use of chemical and biological weapons. Should the U.S. fail to take the challenge, sooner or later it is sure to find Iraqi terror on its doorstep. It may have already. Should the U.S. rise to the occasion, however, it may begin a transformation of the Middle East that could provide many benefits to the populations of an unfree region. That will, in the end, make us infinitely more secure at home."

Following Cohen's lead, Norman Podhoretz wrote an article for Commentary magazine titled, "How to win World War IV" (Norman Podhoretz) in February, 2002. Podhoretz was not as certain as Cohen about specific tactics: "Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power.' He agrees fully with Cohen's overall thesis, though: 'In my opinion, by raising the possibility of a transformation of the Middle East, Cohen cuts to the heart of the matter. The real enemy in this war, Cohen argues -- as Daniel Pipes has also so persistently and authoritatively done at greater length -- is not the generalized abstraction 'terrorism,' but rather 'militant Islam.'"

http://www.armageddononline.org/worldwar4.php