[9:59 AM] Here is a very nice op-ed that appeared in the Financial Times. It is critical of the "Bush Doctrine" --which the author says is not truly Wilsonian -- and its selectivity in calling for democratic reform (the Middle East) while ignoring autocratic thugs where U.S. strategic interests are at stake -- "Scepticism about the Bush administration's true commitment to the spread of democracy is strengthened by the tendency of the US right to support ruthless dictatorships when these are seen to serve US interests." More on this later.
#
posted 10:07 AM
ABOUT | EMAIL | RSS | ATOM
GOOD READS
What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?
Moral Hazard
How conservatism encourages
nuclear terrorism.
by Robert McNamara
It is time for the United States to cease its Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. Current U.S. nuclear weapons policy is immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous.
Is it really the case that, as the British tabloid the Daily Mirror famously put it, nearly 60 million Americans were simply too “dumb” to understand the implications of reelecting George W. Bush? It seems so...But as appealing as it is, folly does not constitute a sufficient explanation of the 2004 election.
Inside the Committee that Runs the World
September 11, 2001, was a catalytic event that revealed the core character of the Bush administration’s national security team. As rival factions fought for the president’s ear, the transformative ideals espoused by the neocons gained ascendancy—triggering a rift that has split the Republican foreign-policy establishment to its foundations.
The Right's Assault on Kofi Annan
The neoconservative and paleoconservative assault on Kofi Annan and the UN has been like a slightly slower version of the Swift Boat veterans' campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Listening to the cable pundits, you would never suspect that there is no proof at this point that Annan, or indeed anyone else at the UN, did anything wrong.
Think Again: Bush’s Foreign Policy
Not since Richard Nixon’s conduct of the war in Vietnam
has a U.S. president’s foreign policy so polarized the
country—and the world. Yet as controversial as George W.
Bush’s policies have been, they are not as radical a
departure from his predecessors as both critics and
supporters proclaim. Instead, the real weaknesses of the
president’s foreign policy lie in its contradictions:
Blinded by moral clarity and hamstrung by its enormous
military strength, the United States needs to rebalance
means with ends if it wants to forge a truly effective
grand strategy.
Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results.
The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters
A PIPA/KN Study
By deciding to invade Iraq, the Bush Administration decided not to do many other things: not to reconstruct Afghanistan, not to deal with North Korea and Iran, and not to wage an effective war on terror. An inventory of opportunities lost.
Council on Foreign Relations
The lack of sustained engagement with Iran harms American interests, and direct dialogue with Tehran on specific areas of mutual concern should be pursued.
The Misunderestimated Man: How Bush chose stupidity
As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.
LINKS
Carnegie Endowment for Int'l Peace
Middle East Media Research Institute
NYT INT'L NEWS
GOOD STUFF
ARCHIVES
<< Home