tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post110497655218766310..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Roots of the Hatred: An Answer to PowerlineDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1105062633940072512005-01-06T17:50:00.000-08:002005-01-06T17:50:00.000-08:00"Eben Flood" and "NST" might do well to follow som..."Eben Flood" and "NST" might do well to follow some of the resasoning being used to justify the debacle in Iraq - "We fight with the army we have, not the army we want to have" or something similar (that paraphrase is a real butchery, but it's the basic reasoning employed by Rumsfeld et. al.)<br /><br />Similarly, we live in the world we have, not the world we want to have. And while self righteous anger and nativist rhetoric targeted around the world might make for popular political lines, it certainly isn't smart foreign policy. I affirm that the US must in some situations act unilaterally, but I take issue with the stupidity involved in Bush's approach to unilateral action. In slightly different terms, unilateralism in Iraq was a senseless waste of US political capital. I can't set a number for "how many allies" we needed without doing research I don't have time to do right now, but the US could have used its political capital in a much more efficient fashion by taking more time with coalition building. In turn, this would have left the US with the resources to conduct effective diplomacy, giving us a better chance of solving things like trade disputes with the EU, nuclear proliferation etc.<br /><br />And to the original republican "justication" for the senseless waste in Iraq: I agree that the reasoning is valid, but I think it paints a false picture of what's happening. Of course we fight with the army we have, but that's no excuse to fight stupidly with the army we have. The real problem is that we have to fight with the CIC we have, not the CIC we want to have.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03445497103630902861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1105025016785981772005-01-06T07:23:00.000-08:002005-01-06T07:23:00.000-08:00Ain't this irony...a liberal who supported the war...Ain't this irony...a liberal who supported the war clashing with a conservative who opposed it. Politics is a weird creature...:)<br /><br />I understand your objection, but I think it misses the point. Its not that I don't believe the US can't act unilaterally--I do. Its that I believe the US needs to create a global climate in which acting unilaterally is at least tolerated, if not accepted. The way you do that is by operating multilaterally WHEN POSSIBLE, thus gaining "credit," if you will, so you can act unilaterally if necessary without being seen as an evil titan.<br /><br />Clinton and Bush make for an excellent here. Both attacked countries unilaterally (and I supported both actions). However, Clinton's presidency was characterized by engaging the global sphere, working with international and regional institutions when possible, and a general respect for the interests and concerns of other nations. The Bush administration, by contrast, as acted alone even when it didn't have to, has been aggressive in promoting the US' and only the US' interests, and has shunted aside international and regional institutions. Can it be any wonder that Clinton's action was met with a much more moderate reception than Bush's?<br /><br />To someone like me, who sees the wisdom in both Clinton and Bush's wars, I'd say there is a qualitative advantage to living in a Clinton world (where US unilateralism is tolerated because it is a last resort) and a Bush world (where US unilateralism is feared becasue it is the first resort). Its not just about amount of allies we can count up on our side on any given project. Its about the global mood and how it reacts to the exercise of US power holistically that counts.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1104983544232514832005-01-05T19:52:00.000-08:002005-01-05T19:52:00.000-08:00Interesting post. However, one of your conclusions...Interesting post. However, one of your conclusions namely you write: <EM> ...(both) hold value systems which would support more government spending to alleviate the ails of poverty</EM> I'd disagree. Some time ago, I argued (<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpseudopolymath.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fmodest-christian-proposal.html">here</A> for example) that government sponsored charity is exactly the wrong thing to do if you feel charity is a valuable personal virtue.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.com