"You're either with us, or you're against us." Zbigniw Brezinski takes a look at the curious historical background for President Flightsuit's favorite mantra, and what it means as it is applied to foreign policy today. Lenin used the phrase, "he who is not with us is against us" to marginalize the social democrats and to indicate that they should be dealt with accordingly.
Today, "[t]his phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world -- summed up by the words 'war on terrorism.' War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it reflects in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.
"The second troubling condition, which contributes to the crisis of credibility and to the state of isolation in which the United States finds itself today, is due in part because that skewed view of the world is intensified by a fear that periodically verges on panic that is in itself blind. By this I mean the absence of a clearly, sharply defined perception of what is transpiring abroad regarding particularly such critically important security issues as the existence -- or the spread or the availability or the readiness -- in alien hands of weapons of mass destruction."
Thanks to Josh Marshall for steering the vega to Fareed Zakaria's column in the Washington Post today, concerning the administration's plans for Iraqification. According to sources in the White House, Bush has been getting very pissed off about the daily horrors coming out of Iraq and is demanding a plan to turn the whole mess -- from security to political control -- over to the Iraqis on an accellerated timetable. That's something that everyone professes to want happen, from Karl Rove to Jacques Chirac to Dennis Kucinich (what a trio!).
The administration thinks we're naive. Bush, of course, wants US troop levels down -- way down -- by summer of 2004 so that the Iraq bad news doesn't play a part in the election. His hope is that once most of the troops are gone, and it's Iraqi policemen, rather than members of the 82nd Airborne who are dying, the press will stop reporting on the disaster.
After all, how many reports do you see coming out of Afghanistan these days.
He's like an exterminator who goes into the attic to remove a wasps' nest, riles up the wasps, lets them start buzzing around the entire house, and then leaves, saying, "glad to be of service."
Writes Zakaria, "There are no shortcuts out. Iraq is America's problem. It could have been otherwise, but in the weeks after the war the administration, drunk with victory, refused to share power with the world. Now there can be only one goal: success. The first task of winning the peace in Iraq is winning the war -- which is still being waged in the Sunni heartland. And winning it might take more troops, or different kinds of troops (send back the Marines). It might take a mixture of military force and bribes -- to win over some Sunni leaders. But whatever it takes, the United States must do it. Talk about a drawdown of troops sends exactly the wrong message to the guerrillas. In the words of one North Vietnamese general, 'We knew that if we waited, one day the Americans would have to go home.'"
Is there a pattern exhibited by what's going on in Fallujah? First, there was invasion lite -- simply avoid anything that impedes the rush to Baghdad. Then there's the attempt to "win the hearts and minds." When that proves ineffective, finally, there's overwhelming force.
Even Stanley Kurtz can't abide by the administration's attempts to spin the news in Iraq.
Geez, this CBS/Reagan thing isn't worth the kilobytes to even comment on. Except to say it's another victory for the doctrinaire conservatives who will not permit anything negative to be said about the patron saint of voodoo economics. But, what did CBS expect, after Fox tried to sue the creator of the Simpsons -- a Fox program -- for making fun of...FoxNews?
Here's a classic case of Washington doing the wrong thing in every way. While we pay lip service to global free trade, while we promise to help Africa emerge from its seemingly intractible poverty, and while we wallow in our growing budget deficit, Washington gives subsidies to companies buying subsidized cotton. Incredible.
*****
My father was a paratrooper in Europe during the winter of the Bulge. Today, he's a devout Catholic who makes a pilgrimage to Lourdes each year. After reading The Boys' Crusade, I now think I understand the connection.
*****
One of the most exciting baseball seasons has just ended (one in which the winner of the W.S. scored fewer runs, had a lower BA, and a higher ERA than the loser...but I digress), but the convergence will continue on these pages. While eager to bore my readers with the latest rumors swirling around the hotstove league, and the latest thoughts on how to make the Yankees bigger, stronger, faster, I direct you to Rob Neyer's column on the long -- and consistent -- history of Yankee hatred.
Today, "[t]his phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world -- summed up by the words 'war on terrorism.' War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it reflects in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.
"The second troubling condition, which contributes to the crisis of credibility and to the state of isolation in which the United States finds itself today, is due in part because that skewed view of the world is intensified by a fear that periodically verges on panic that is in itself blind. By this I mean the absence of a clearly, sharply defined perception of what is transpiring abroad regarding particularly such critically important security issues as the existence -- or the spread or the availability or the readiness -- in alien hands of weapons of mass destruction."
Thanks to Josh Marshall for steering the vega to Fareed Zakaria's column in the Washington Post today, concerning the administration's plans for Iraqification. According to sources in the White House, Bush has been getting very pissed off about the daily horrors coming out of Iraq and is demanding a plan to turn the whole mess -- from security to political control -- over to the Iraqis on an accellerated timetable. That's something that everyone professes to want happen, from Karl Rove to Jacques Chirac to Dennis Kucinich (what a trio!).
The administration thinks we're naive. Bush, of course, wants US troop levels down -- way down -- by summer of 2004 so that the Iraq bad news doesn't play a part in the election. His hope is that once most of the troops are gone, and it's Iraqi policemen, rather than members of the 82nd Airborne who are dying, the press will stop reporting on the disaster.
After all, how many reports do you see coming out of Afghanistan these days.
He's like an exterminator who goes into the attic to remove a wasps' nest, riles up the wasps, lets them start buzzing around the entire house, and then leaves, saying, "glad to be of service."
Writes Zakaria, "There are no shortcuts out. Iraq is America's problem. It could have been otherwise, but in the weeks after the war the administration, drunk with victory, refused to share power with the world. Now there can be only one goal: success. The first task of winning the peace in Iraq is winning the war -- which is still being waged in the Sunni heartland. And winning it might take more troops, or different kinds of troops (send back the Marines). It might take a mixture of military force and bribes -- to win over some Sunni leaders. But whatever it takes, the United States must do it. Talk about a drawdown of troops sends exactly the wrong message to the guerrillas. In the words of one North Vietnamese general, 'We knew that if we waited, one day the Americans would have to go home.'"
Is there a pattern exhibited by what's going on in Fallujah? First, there was invasion lite -- simply avoid anything that impedes the rush to Baghdad. Then there's the attempt to "win the hearts and minds." When that proves ineffective, finally, there's overwhelming force.
Even Stanley Kurtz can't abide by the administration's attempts to spin the news in Iraq.
Geez, this CBS/Reagan thing isn't worth the kilobytes to even comment on. Except to say it's another victory for the doctrinaire conservatives who will not permit anything negative to be said about the patron saint of voodoo economics. But, what did CBS expect, after Fox tried to sue the creator of the Simpsons -- a Fox program -- for making fun of...FoxNews?
Here's a classic case of Washington doing the wrong thing in every way. While we pay lip service to global free trade, while we promise to help Africa emerge from its seemingly intractible poverty, and while we wallow in our growing budget deficit, Washington gives subsidies to companies buying subsidized cotton. Incredible.
*****
My father was a paratrooper in Europe during the winter of the Bulge. Today, he's a devout Catholic who makes a pilgrimage to Lourdes each year. After reading The Boys' Crusade, I now think I understand the connection.
*****
One of the most exciting baseball seasons has just ended (one in which the winner of the W.S. scored fewer runs, had a lower BA, and a higher ERA than the loser...but I digress), but the convergence will continue on these pages. While eager to bore my readers with the latest rumors swirling around the hotstove league, and the latest thoughts on how to make the Yankees bigger, stronger, faster, I direct you to Rob Neyer's column on the long -- and consistent -- history of Yankee hatred.
posted by John at 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home