In a recent GQ thread somebody called Dr. Condolezza Rice brilliant, to which I took exception. Another poster even called me out in the Pit for taking exception. Sparticus doesn’t play in the Pit.
I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion on the subject of foreign policy, whether they have a degree in international relations from one of the world’s most prominent universities or not (I do), or whether they are a military veteran or not (I am not.) But I am very wary of warmongers who have not served in the military.
Personally, I am for waging war against Iraq. However, I am completely disgusted with the way the Bushistas are going about it. Their belligerent and bellicose rhetoric has cost the US in alliances and credibility what it took half a century, millions of casualties and trillions of dollars to build. I think that the most generous explanation for this vaunt and threaten first policy (exercised from the get go of their administration, not just post 9/11) is that they are stupid and lazy, not that they want to drive up the price of oil and need for weapons. In order to ruin Colin Powell’s chances of ever being President, they have embarrassed him at every opportunity. And since they are almost all in the oil and weapons business, personal economic gain is a strong motive too. The fact that virtually every conservative with actual combat experience has been reluctant to back their tactics, and often opposed, tends to show that these armchair warriors are awfully casual with the costs of war to us, our allies and our enemies. War is a miserable enterprise, and if we have to kill another 100,000 plus Iraqis, I’d like to see plenty of diplomatic efforts and then military efforts to bring overwhelming pressure to make the bleeding as short and little as possible. First for our side, and then for the Iraqi soldiers who are human beings too, and forced to fight for scum like Hussein. And no, I don’t think that it has anything to do with Al Queda. It’s what should have been done 10 years ago, rather than asking the Kurds to “rise up” and then watch Saddam’s helicopter gun ships massacre them while doing nothing. That was an incredible favor to Saddam Hussein.
Isolationism is a perfectly legitimate approach to foreign policy for a country like New Zealand. Surrounded by water, remote, democratic, interested in trade, whatever. Not very influential, and not relied on by the rest of the world.
Isolationism for the world’s leading economic power which also happens to wield several times as much military force as the rest of the world combined in favor of pursuing unilateral economic and political advantage for itself, the Rice doctrine is stupid, shortsighted, reckless, contrary to the lessons of history and foolish. While the pre Bush II world had its share of people jealous and hateful of the U.S., our current standing is that most of our allies now hate us too. Our strongest ally, Great Britain, have a full third of their population that believes that Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. The operational agenda of the Bush administration is to treat world problems in other parts of the world as none of our business until such a time as it directly affects the U.S. In order to avoid singling out the Bushistas for this, I must note that Republicans in general support this thinking.
When the world’s leader abandons its responsibilities, gained by virtue of leading the world for the past 60 years, a power vacuum is created. Others will step in, and they will inevitably not be as stabilizing an influence as the US has been. Our detractors around the world may bad mouth us all they like, but the international chaos that ruled international relations for all of human history until the end of WWII was virtually eliminated during the Cold War and until the present by the institutions that the US participated in to resolve disputes peacefully. Such as the UN, the International Court, etc. The Bushistas despise the two mentioned bodies, as does the Republican party. The UN, for example, takes on much of the diplomatic efforts the US would have to undertake (followed by US military force) in the absence of such a body. And they do it largely at the expense of nations other than the US. When the primary military powers ignore a League of Nations, that League is useless (US less, hee hee, a pun) and possibly worse than useless. I am not claiming that undeveloped countries don’t have grave injustices, but rather that the recent past role of the US has not exacerbated them as compared to what the situation would be without such internationalist influences.
This basic struggle between isolationists and internationalists goes back at least as far as the Wilson administration, when the US was one of half a dozen great powers, rather than a superpower. While one nation that is an equal among many can probably sit out the big issues of the day (and a small one like New Zealand certainly can), if we do not accept our place as leader, looking out for not only our own interests, but also for internationalism itself, we risk losing the benefits of being the leader, setting the agenda and acting as the executive of that agenda, and either letting another set of leaders do those things, or losing internationalism altogether in a nuclear and bio-tech age. Leaders we don’t elect, don’t fund and don’t have a veto over. Internationalism, as it has been set up for the past half century, primarily advances the US agenda, not only of due process and equal protection and human rights, but also of methods of trade and dispute resolution.
My criticism of the Rice doctrine is that is calls for the US to downgrade the importance of internationalism in favor of pursuing direct US economic and military interests. A perfect example is the attitude that we will go get Saddam Hussein all by ourselves if necessary and the last thing we need to do is go build a coalition. And then the last thing that our foreign policy does is consider the sensibilities of other nations, and they feel treated as though their concerns are last on the list. Frankly, they are right. They have no ownership of the policy, only Bush does. (And to a small degree Tony Blair, but not enough to look like he helped create it.) If they support the Iraq policy (and this applies to virtually any policy whether it is Kyoto protocols, GATT, WHO, WTO or whatever), they are seen as being the lap dog of Bush (as Blair is perceived), get no credit for helping to create the policy, or advance it. They only stand to lose if it goes bad at some later point. If it goes well (and I believe that the initial ousting of Saddam will go well), Bush gets all the credit, and the various foreign leaders have no upside. If the “nation building” goes bad later, as is likely, the stench will stick to such supporters. Bush Senior was so successful putting together a coalition because he passed around credit to foreign leaders and let them buy in and get out front very early on. Junior made no discernable effort to sell this thing early on, and in fact was rather prideful in stating he would go it alone.
So what do I expect of Dr. Rice as national security advisor in order to earn the label of brilliant? Well, she could have used information available to her to stop 9/11. That was and is her job. That is why the job is called: National Security Advisor. She clearly knew something was up, but not exactly what. The various reports on using hijacked airplanes as bombs, that the WTC was a preferred target, etc. would have led a brilliant person with the warnings she had by August 2001 to put two and two together. Brilliance would ensured by finagling proper airline security in advance. All the clues were there. While Bush certainly did not know and was too lazy to figure it out for himself, this was Dr. Rice’s job. It was the FBI, CIA and NSA job too. Had they been doing their job, had they been as alert as they should have been, 9/11 never would have happened. Despite attempts since 9/11, nothing like it has happened since, has it? That is because proper precautions are now being taken. Well, that doesn’t take brilliance. Brilliance would have been reading the clues correctly and stopping it while it was temporally possible.
Do I think Dr. Rice’s numerous degrees constitute an indication of vast intelligence? No, not really. I know lots of multiple degreed people who are, to put it gently, not all that intelligent. Does being a provost at a major university indicate vast intelligence? I’ve never met a university administrator who was “brilliant”. Does being on a board of directors make her of super superior intelligence? No. I know lots of corporate board members. They are chosen, like Enron board members, for lending some prestige to the organization and being willing to vote the way management wants them to. Notable corporate directors who vary from this pattern are like Bill Hewlett and Steve Jobs, both founders or heirs of founders, who both at one point got booted off (or resigned from) their boards for being noisy and disruptive dissenters.
Other than gathering credentials, has Dr. Rice ever delivered the goods? By that I mean does she have a great achievement to her name? Like Kissinger, one of her predecessors, negotiating the detanglement of Israeli and Egyptian forces in the Sinai? Opening up China? Starting SALT treaties with the Soviets? No.
Do I think Dr. Rice is an idiot? No. There is no more evidence of that than of her “brilliant” status. She has demonstrated that she is an adroit politician, who uses all the tools available to her to advance her career and her policies. Do I think that her policies of unilateralism and isolationism are foolish, reckless and awful for the United States and the world? Yes. But they suit the personal interests and advancement of Dr. Rice rather well. She would not, in my opinion, have her current job, and many of her past jobs, without them.
Should the US fire Dr. Rice and return to internationalism under the direction of some credible internationalist like Colin Powell? While I have reservations about Powell too, they are far less serious than those against Dr. Rice, who should be fired.
