SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (50870)10/10/2002 2:29:37 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Where Is the Debate on Iraq?
By Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay


Good piece. The point in it that now makes the most sense to me after reading the Zakaria piece in The New Yorker is the first category, the democratic imperialists. I had not thought to compare the rhetoric here to Wilsonian rhetoric but Z makes a very good argument.

Of course, he also argues that the failing the neocon version of this argument makes is that it ignores diplomacy.



To: tekboy who wrote (50870)10/10/2002 2:59:27 PM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
Very interesting story, but what is "Algemeen Dagblad"?

From a :less reputable" source, a compare and contrast blast from the past:

W.'s World nytimes.com

A bit you might appreciate:

In fact, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's principal foreign policy adviser during the campaign and soon to be his national security adviser, expressed this distinction with great clarity last year in an article in the journal Foreign Affairs. When foreign policy is centered on values, she explained, "the 'national interest' is replaced with 'humanitarian interests' or the interests of 'the international community.' The belief that the United States is exercising power legitimately only when it is doing so on behalf of someone or something else was deeply rooted in Wilsonian thought, and there are strong echoes of it in the Clinton administration. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect." There is an unsettling coldbloodedness in that "second-order effect," though it doesn't read as if Rice is trying to shock. She simply does not believe in humanitarianism as a goal of foreign policy.

A bit more on Rice:

If Powell will be the Bush administration's Mr. Outside, Condoleezza Rice, as national security adviser, will be Ms. Inside. A former official on the Security Council in the Bush administration, she met W. in 1995, and the two bonded when Rice talked baseball. Bush quickly found that he was comfortable asking her the most elementary questions. Rice is crisp, knowledgeable, self-assured and quite possibly bionic. She has spoken in the past of having no time for a wide range of otherwise normal human activities, including recreation, family, introspection, "life crises." While Powell will almost certainly be the key figure in the formulation of policy, Rice seems likely to wield a whip hand inside the National Security Council. It was Rice who insisted that she and Powell would speak to me only by conference call; and after we had our conversation, she e-mailed colleagues informing them that they need not -- meaning, ought not -- talk to me, though several did so.

Rice assembled Bush's team of foreign-policy advisers for the campaign, passing over moderate Republicans in favor of what Robert Gallucci, the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, describes as "intelligent hard-liners." Rice is an intelligent hard-liner herself. There's a delicious twist in the fact that her mentor at the University of Denver, where she earned her doctorate, was Josef Korbel, the father of Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. Albright's flights of moral passion, her description of the United States as the "indispensable nation" and her eagerness to use the military for humanitarian purposes appear to Rice and her colleagues as the very text of reckless Wilsonianism.


There's also a somewhat scathing bit on Powell in there, but readers can search it out if interested.