This is a rather odd collection of criticisms, jcky. On the one hand, the policy has been "hijacked by ideologues", on the other, the image is "confused, unfocused and awkward"? Generally, when a policy has been hijacked by ideologues, it is going in a very definite direction, no confusion at all. It's just not a direction you agree with. As we see here.
The main charge seems to be that the Bush administration did not sufficiently consult with 'the Wise' -- the diplomats, the generals, our allies -- before going public. Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe they knew perfectly well what their response would be, and knew an end run would be necessary. Since the discussion has now shifted from 'whether' to 'when', seems they had a point.
The mission has been defined, the coalition will follow after. As opposed to collecting the coalition first, and defining the mission as the lowest common denominator of what the coalition will accept.
As for the leaks, I incline to the school that says the first was a real 'oh my gosh, lock up the son of a bitch who leaked this'; the rest are disinformation designed to cover the first. Who needs an Office of Strategic Initiative when you have the New York Times? |
