Ray, I missed the top URL! I thought you had written it. "He's in his cups, I thought. In vino veritas, etc." You aren't Yuno Hoo, are you? Please, please, say you're not.
After billions in damage, and some thousands murdered in New York, I get really annoyed when the US response is characterized as being 'all about oil'.
My simple view is that foreign policy is always designed to serve a purpose, hidden or
plainly stated. Please explain how I've been bewitched by regarding realpolitic as the basis of policy? I'm trying to follow your
logic here, and it leads me to wonder if you want me to believe that we have foreign policy that is specious and has no basis in
solving an underlying purpose or problem? That seems far-fetched to me.
Foreign policies of all nations have lots of purposes. To think that US policy about terorrism only has one motive (eg. protect US oil interests, or improve defense contractors book/bill), for instance, is mistaken. Some of those folk will be hanging around with motives unworthy of a carrion fly and lobbying, but it doesn't follow... even if some of their input is taken up.
How much foreign policy is "designed" and how much just happens and the "program evaluation" comes afterward? None of of these things makes the policy "specious."
Don't have much time these days. Gotta go. |
