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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (97494)	5/5/2003 5:31:56 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

HAWKS, SCHMAWKS: ANDREW SULLIVAN One of the more irritating memes of the foreign policy debate is that the world is divided between hawks, who favor military action, and doves, who favor diplomacy. Of course this has always been a crude simplification. But our current world shows something that Machiavelli understood well: that being a hawk sometimes is the only means of being an effective dove. Why have Syria and North Korea become - even temporarily - more compliant with U.S. diplomatic entreaties? Because they're scared of us. Being feared is sometimes much more important than being loved. In the Middle East it's almost always more important. The critical facet of the current president's superb foreign policy has been his inclusion of Powell and Rumsfeld on the same time (with Rice operating as go-between). It has given him more credibility and flexibility than any recent president, except Reagan. And what was Reagan's signal achievement? Bringing about the peaceful collapse of the evil empire in part by scaring the world to death. Now, we even see signs of Paris supporting U.S. pressure on Syria. From Le Parisien this weekend: The thing is sufficiently rare to be remarked: Paris and Washington find themselves, on the subject of Syria, following a common line. On his return from the Middle East, Dominique de Villepin used, in effect, an unusually firm tone vis-a-vis the regime of Bachar el-Assad. In a press conference, he first urged the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon ... In his speech, Villepin [also] urged Damascus to 'moderate' its support of 'politico-military' organizations operating against Israel from Lebanese soil. His target: Hezbollah, the Shiite group also supported by Teheran. In plain language: viewed from the French foreign ministry, Hezbollah, which has a main office in Beirut, can continue its political activities, but must stop its attacks on Israel. For Paris, a notable turn: we remember what happened to Lionel Jospin in February 2000 when, at the time Prime Minister, he called Hezbollah a 'terrorist movement.' This comment resulted in a 'convocation' with the President. But why this sharp turn [in French policy]? What's at stake, explains one diplomat, is the seller's bonanza that's developing in the Middle East. The Americans, after their 'victory' in Iraq, are next going to tackle the Israel-Arab dossier. Thus France, marginalized because of its opposition to the US, wants nonetheless to have influence in the region.Isn't victory sweet? Just remember who got us here and who opposed it.http://www.andrewsullivan.com/