Bill, those are assertions without a base. I understand, all too unfortunately, the Bush foreign policy.
It found, in 9-11, a justification for a large scale change in American foreign policy. It was already an imperialist policy (See Dana Priest's, The Mission). But the Bush folk transformed that policy from a defensible, multilateral (see Wesley Clark's defense of the NATO policies vis a vis Kosovo) mixture of economics, social change, force, etc., into an indefensible, unilateral, militarized foreign policy. And lost the widespread worldwide, in fact, respect for the US.
Foreign policy is a complicated affair and short attention spans like Bush, coupled with ideologically based advisers don't function well here.
I recall Tek arguing at one point that the disasters being visited upon us by the Bush administration's foreign policy should not be too worried about. They could be easily corrected later on. I feel reasonably certain he no longer believes that. I certainly don't. |
