I almost always enjoy Tom Friedman's writings, partially because I never know how much I will agree with him. For example I agree with today's column about Iraq and Saddam Hussein that:
"Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice. "
But I disagree with almost all of what I consider partisan reviews of the Bush administrations diplomacy and internal politics:
"They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors."
First the cheap shot - I don't remember the Clinton administration preparing the US public for a long term occupation of Bosnia and Kosovo or Friedman complaining about this.
Second, I don't know how you could both prepare the US public for a long term occupation of Iraq and also have successful diplomacy with the Arab world.
Third, (and second shot, but less cheap), they may be having serious discussions of policy, because this administration (both the president and his subordinates) has the discipline to keep to a decided policy.
My next posting will have more on the balance between keeping the allies and the US public, but I do remember reading quite a bit about Secretary Powell at Davos and other non-American locations.
Friedman touches off one of my pet peeves:
"Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of your whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled North Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to trigger two wars at once."
Superpowers can handle more than one issue at a time (hell, anyone in the G-7 could if they wanted too - OK I'll give you the caveat of domestic support) and North Korea is not going anywhere. This is also part of what has been the prevailing internationalist meme that a poor diplomatic agreement now is better than no diplomatic agreement. This Bush administration does not appear to believe this and it is one of the things I admire about them. I suspect that Iraq is not the focus of the Bush administration, simply the issue they are taking care of now. The other meme they (hopefully) appear to have escaped is that "If it's on television it's important and the only thing you care about." Warren Christopher had a pathetic NYT opinion piece that the USG must focus all of its resources on North Korea, Now! and it reminded me that back when I was in the State Department and Warren Christopher was Secretary we had a saying "This would never have happened if Warren Christopher was still alive." I'm also certain that the administration is enjoying paraphrasing Chief Wiggum/Edgar G. Robinson "Where's your multi-lateralism now?"
"Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice. "
But I disagree with almost all of what I consider partisan reviews of the Bush administrations diplomacy and internal politics:
"They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors."
First the cheap shot - I don't remember the Clinton administration preparing the US public for a long term occupation of Bosnia and Kosovo or Friedman complaining about this.
Second, I don't know how you could both prepare the US public for a long term occupation of Iraq and also have successful diplomacy with the Arab world.
Third, (and second shot, but less cheap), they may be having serious discussions of policy, because this administration (both the president and his subordinates) has the discipline to keep to a decided policy.
My next posting will have more on the balance between keeping the allies and the US public, but I do remember reading quite a bit about Secretary Powell at Davos and other non-American locations.
Friedman touches off one of my pet peeves:
"Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of your whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled North Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to trigger two wars at once."
Superpowers can handle more than one issue at a time (hell, anyone in the G-7 could if they wanted too - OK I'll give you the caveat of domestic support) and North Korea is not going anywhere. This is also part of what has been the prevailing internationalist meme that a poor diplomatic agreement now is better than no diplomatic agreement. This Bush administration does not appear to believe this and it is one of the things I admire about them. I suspect that Iraq is not the focus of the Bush administration, simply the issue they are taking care of now. The other meme they (hopefully) appear to have escaped is that "If it's on television it's important and the only thing you care about." Warren Christopher had a pathetic NYT opinion piece that the USG must focus all of its resources on North Korea, Now! and it reminded me that back when I was in the State Department and Warren Christopher was Secretary we had a saying "This would never have happened if Warren Christopher was still alive." I'm also certain that the administration is enjoying paraphrasing Chief Wiggum/Edgar G. Robinson "Where's your multi-lateralism now?"
posted by Drew at
11:05 AM
