Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Ilaine who wrote (78452)	2/28/2003 6:03:39 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Schumpeter, the eminent political economist, believed that while the average person was logical enough in personal matters, he "drops down to a lower level of mental performance . . . as soon as he enters the political field"--and stays there "in the face of meritorious efforts" to put facts before his face. Couldn't help think of the example of Pollack vs Mearsheimer... The only explanation for accepting M over P would be political nature lowering levels of mental performance (no offense intended). In a cold score of credible facts there is no contest - Pollack buries Mearsheimer.

To: Ilaine who wrote (78452)	2/28/2003 9:01:36 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Geez, you do know how to ask questions which would take several posts and days to answer. Let's see if I have a handle on a short answer. John, do you think that Clinton would have initiated an attack on Iraq if he were in Bush's shoes? On this one, I have no serious idea. Tek, who worked for him, would have a much better take. My guess is that he would not. That he would have done much as the Bush folk did with Afghanistan. Might have done it sooner, might even have done it before 9-11 because all accounts of the last year of his administration have him focused on Al Q (though those accounts might well be self serving since they were written after 9-11, again, check with Tek here). I think he would have considered Iraq "contained" (much to be argued here about levels, types, etc.) and would have waited for Saddam to try to jump out of the box before doing much. Had that happened, he would have been more eager to work with NATO to do something (see the way he addressed both Bosnia and Kosovo) but might have been boxed into the UN thing because of the resolutions coming out of the 91 war. His containment policy after 9-11 would, undoubtedly, have been much more aggressive. The brake he saw that public opinion put on the use of military force in foreign policy would have been eased by 9-11, so he would have been more aggressive. But I don't think would have invaded. Unless Saddam did something much more aggressive. I also think he would have considered maintaining the international institutions of NATO and the UN more important than attacking Iraq, unlike Bush, so would have pushed them only so far. Certainly not far enough to consider their breakage. He also could have pushed them further than Bush has because he would not have alienated their populations so massively. And if he had, do you think public opinion would have been different? And if so, why? Oh, absolutely. I don't agree with the argument that Clinton's entire approach to foreign policy was simply a product of polls and focus groups. Read both Strobe Talbott and David Halberstam. But, while Clinton had an incredible ability, has an incredible ability, to shape public opinion, I despaired of his using it to genuinely shape it in new directions. Too often, he went with the flow. But 9-11 makes for very different leaders. Clinton might have done more shaping. Who knows. Thanks for the questions.