May 9, 2006
HOLY QUOTA HIRE, BATMAN!:
A Realistic Idealism: There's a Right Way to Support Democracy in the Mideast (Madeleine K. Albright, May 8, 2006, Washington Post)
Recent events in Iraq and the Middle East have revived the hoariest of academic debates -- between the so-called realists in foreign policy and the idealists. Realists, who come in both Democratic and Republican varieties, argue that the Bush administration has been naive to promote democracy in Arab countries, as evidenced by ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq, recent gains by Islamist parliamentary candidates in Egypt and Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections. They suggest that, in the storm-tossed atmosphere of the Arab Middle East, democracy will do less to extinguish terror, as President Bush predicts, than to ignite it.It is customary for politicians and commentators to distance themselves from those responsible for foreign policy setbacks. Because Bush is increasingly viewed as overly ideological and out of touch, the herd will increasingly want to appear hardheaded and realistic. My fear is that, in the process, a new conventional wisdom will emerge that promoting democracy in the Middle East is a mistake. It is not.
We should remember that the alternative to support for democracy is complicity in backing governments that lack the blessing of their own people. [...]
The time has come to start looking beyond the Bush administration to its successor. Our new leaders, of whichever party, will face daunting challenges, including that of redefining what America stands for in the world. Their "to do" list is sure to include winning the battle of ideas -- as we should have long ago -- against the likes of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, halting nuclear proliferation, devising a sensible energy policy, and restoring America's reputation as a supporter (and observer) of international law and human rights. At the top of that list, however, must be a reaffirmation of America's commitment to liberty and respect for the dignity of every human being. Without such a commitment, all else will be in vain.
So once you pare away all the partisan cant, she agrees we should aggressively support liberalization in the Middle East, continue the fight against what little remains of al Qaeda, stop the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and make Judeo-Christian morality the basis of our foreign policy. The only points where she differs from the Adminstration are that she would have left Saddam in place, although that obviously violates the standard she just enunciaed, and she'd allow transnational organizations and treaties to dictate our foreign policy, even though that would frequently force us to behave immorally and be complicit in precisely the kind of tyrannies she just said we couldn't get in bed with. Clear enough? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 9, 2006 12:54 PM
I clearly understand what she is saying. She was for it, before she was against it.
Posted by: AllenS at May 9, 2006 1:08 PMShe should stick to 400-pound leg presses and dancing with Kim Jong Il, if it keeps her away from the keyboard.
Posted by: John at May 9, 2006 1:14 PMWasn't this the same woman who, after Saddam was captured, asked darkly if Bush was hiding Osama somewhere, ready to bring out when the election came around?
And should I take her seriously on this go around?
Posted by: Brad S at May 9, 2006 1:42 PMShe said the Spanish word for testicles in public at the UN. That is the reason she became Secretary of State.
She is on record as saying she flirted with (blind?) world leaders and tried to distract them with her pins.
Quota hire is right.
Posted by: Bob at May 9, 2006 1:54 PM...she'd allow transnational organizations and treaties to dictate our foreign policy...
I'd like to point out that our membership in transnational organizations and our signature on treaties constitute the basis of our foreign policy. If we want to ignore the organizations, we shouldn't be in them; and if we want to violate the treaties, we shouldn't sign them.
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 2:54 PMBrandon:
Why? We can enforce them against others when we choose to but they can't against us. It's near ideal.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 3:54 PMQuota hire, maybe. But representative of which demographic, exactly?
BTW: she can leg-press 400 gnomes.
Posted by: ghostcat at May 9, 2006 4:20 PM50%+ of the species.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 4:25 PMOJ,
So are you saying that we should make treaties, and then just do whatever we please regardless of what we agreed to? Is that what you consider making "Judeo-Christian morality the basis of our foreign policy?"
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 4:43 PMOJ,
And entering into agreements that you have no intention of honoring is moral?
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 5:02 PMBrandon:
The agreements are meant to restrain our enemies, not us. Yes, that's perfectly moral.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 5:10 PMOJ,
If that's how you feel about agreements, I'm starting to wonder if, now that you have my money, my copy of Redefining Soverignty will ever show up.
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 5:17 PMAre you an enemy of the United States? It's immoral to fulfill odious agreements.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 5:21 PMNo, I'm not an enemy of the US. I only make enemies I'm sure I can defeat.
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 5:34 PMThen why wouldn't I honor the agreement?
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 5:40 PMI might be one of your enemies.
Posted by: Brandon at May 9, 2006 5:44 PMThen expecting me to be bound by an agreement would be idiotic.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2006 7:05 PMSo, my then initial statement, "If we want to ignore the organizations, we shouldn't be in them; and if we want to violate the treaties, we shouldn't sign them," still makes sense. Because if we're not going to consider ourselves bound by agreements with enemies (and we're willing to advertise that fact), our enemies would have to be idiots to enter into them with us. They aren't, so we shouldn't bother.
They are idiots, but more important they're powerless to do anything about it. They do join the organizations and treaties. We ignore them as regards ourselves and enforce them against our enemies. We deposed Saddam pursuant to UN Resolutions even though the UN tried stopping us. It's a perfect system.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2006 12:02 AMI suspect Madeline Albright thinks she can be (or is) the Marlene Dietrich (or Mata Hari) of diplomacy.
As for the 'battle of ideas', that has never really been in question (since the mid 1980s). People who want death and violence are going to choose Osama (or whatever bunghole of the month is out there), no matter what the US says or does.
So, we must be prepared. "They want to die, and we want to kill them".
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 10, 2006 8:37 AMIt's immoral to fulfill odious agreementsBut it's moral to enter in to them in the first place? Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 10, 2006 12:23 PM
Yes, if you can use them against the odious party. Selling grain to the Soviets for example.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2006 12:30 PMBut your example doesn't work. We sold grain to the Soviets who paid for it. Your example would work if we'd made a contract to sell them grain then renegged and they were hurt by that.
Posted by: sharon at May 10, 2006 1:03 PMWe did renege on it for purely moralistic reasons.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2006 1:08 PM