As easy and reassuring
as it may be to believe the Unites States is currently waging a war of good vs. evil in the Middle East, it's simply not the case. YES, Saddam was evil. YES, democracy is better than tyranny. But, to understand our struggles in the region solely in that context is childish and dangerous. Regrettably, that's what our Commander in Chief seems to do.
Madeleine Albright says it better than I. Money quotes:
Madeleine Albright says it better than I. Money quotes:
"It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences."
"But hope is not a policy. In the short term, we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics in which the clash between good and evil will be swamped by differences between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Arab and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, Hashemite and Saudi, secular and religious and, of course, Arab and Jew. This is the world, the president pledges in his National Security Strategy, that "America must continue to lead." Actually, it is the world he must begin to address  before it is too late."
posted by Rob Moran at 9:37 AM
3 Comments:
I agree with her to a certain extent; however, I think it's necessary to point out the shortcomings in her view as well. This idea that policy is an answer to absolute standards of morality - as if merely changing the way the state bullies the rest of the world is meaningful - is a severe error, IMHO. I mean, am I the only one who finds the following quote profoundly disturbing?
I am somebody who finds a lot of fun in the possibility of being able to make decisions that have an effect on Americans, on our foreign policies and in trying to solve problems.
Gov't administration is not a showdown between the apocalyptic forces, true, but it's also not a game where human interests can be reduced to policy dynamics. The simple acceptance of complexity in managerialism is not enough; there must be a sense of balance in the scope of decision making that affects people.
In other words, our country is not a toy for the Clinton administration to tinker with until some theoretical optimum efficiency is reached. This is not a game, and I'm not comforted by those who enjoy managing my affairs "for fun".
I agree with most everything you said, and by no means do I completely endorse the foreign policy of the Clinton administration. But, I don't think Madeline (I'm on a first name basis, btw) meant to suggest that policy is an answer to absolute standards of morality; she's simply offering that the current leadership has failed to form policy based on the very complicated and entrenched issues that make Iran and Iraq such volatile places. It's an obvious point, yes, but one that many Americans still do not grasp.
Of course the simple acceptance of that reality is not enough, but it's a necessary starting point.
My biggest gripe with Clinton's foreign policy was his inexcusable inaction during the genocide in Rwanda. Also, his aerial bombings in Iraq proved rather ineffective. Those are the two mistakes that first come to mind.
Both are things that I did not realize at the time, both due to youthful ignorance and the lack of meaningful media coverage.
BTW, nice glamour shot, Jeremy!
Post a Comment
<< Home