Among the three links Tekboy provided from Foreign Affairs was an essay by Martin Indyk entitled "Back to the Bazaar". If anyone's interested, I recommend it. It's nicely written, very clear, and unobjectionable. That's the problem.
After reading it, I decided it was more about Indyk, who was a player in the Clinton administration and who is now among the govt-in-waiting types at the Brookings Institution. It appears to me to be meant to be a part of a body of work which will keep him positioned for positions in any future Democractic administration and if, oh by the way, the Bushies should be so inclined, to help him get a position there. My cynical take is that for most players, the playing gets addictive and thus most of their subsequent actions are aimed to get back in.
If I read David Halberstam's book on the Clinton admins dealings with the generals, one of those few that, while addicted, walked away from the addiction was Tony Lake. But Tekboy is more likely to know the specifics there.
I also wish to recommend the long two parter link that Tek offered from the Washington Post on the Clinton administrations efforts to corral bin Laden. I have little doubt we will have several books on that sooner rather than later, at least one by the forces of darkness ever critical of anything Clinton, at least one by the forces of 70 watt bulbs ever appreciative of Clinton, and, hopefully, several that actually keep the story straight.
I'm curious about the views of other members of the thread on the Indyk article or, for that matter, others of the three. I've seen Kevin's careful critiques of the globablization article which hit the mark.
John (seminar, seminar) |
