# Be it resolved: Fire Dr. Rice: internationalism vs. isolationism and unilateralism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2002, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979 "2002-11-16T03:18:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/1 "2002-11-16T03:18:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/2 "2002-11-16T04:27:25Z")
For starters, I don’t think you can properly label the Rice position as “isolationist.” It isn’t like she’s saying the US should withdraw from the international stage and let the rest of the world do whatever the hell it wants. Quite the opposite, actually. The real question is to what degree should the US assert a leadership position on the world stage versus acting as just one voice among many. “Unilateralist” versus “Multilateralist” would be a better description. And frankly, the unilateralist view seems to be working well, at least from the US point of view. Remember how alarmed everyone was at the US dropping out of the ABM treaty? Remember the calls for more dialogue and fears of chilly relations with the Russians? Bush stuck to his guns, and once Putin saw Bush was serious about abrogating the treaty in accord with its terms he had to accomodate the US position. That’s good negotiation strategy. Heck, you might even call it leadership. Same thing with Iraq. The threat to go ahead without the UN probably served to get the UN Security Council on board with the US’s preferred resolution. Indeed, in the (highly unlikely) event that Saddam actually complies with the resolution, the world will have the Bush/Rice doctrine to thank for putting in a tough inspection regime. Re: Rice’s credentials – Rice has served in some critical capacities in the past. From her [White House bio](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html): > [@](#): > > From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender – Integrated Training in the Military. I’d say her position during German reunification and the demise of the Soviet Union would be significant by any definition. And this little gem: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by I am Sparticus_ > **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.** Is both offensive and stupid. No one could have predicted those hijackings – they were a singularly unique event. What few clues existed were scattered around the country, and were mixed in with thousands of other leads and possibilities that meant nothing. Nothing like it has happened since, but then, nothing like it had happened before, either. You’re criticizing Rice for essentially not having a crystal ball. It’s like criticizing Clinton’s NSA for not predicting the Oklahoma City bombing. Anyway, you richly deserve [your pitting](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144271). ---
**Author:** ![aaaphen256](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@aaaphen256](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaaphen256)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/3 "2002-11-16T04:42:08Z")
Great post, I’ve seen an article somewhere very critical of her “democratizing Iraq” statements. I’ll have to see if I can find it. ---
**Author:** ![aaaphen256](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e57/32.png) [@aaaphen256](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aaaphen256)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/4 "2002-11-16T04:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **And this little gem:Is both offensive and stupid.** He may push the limit, but he’s not the one using the word “stupid”, is he. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/5 "2002-11-16T04:51:44Z")
And a few more points, upon further review… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > **But I am very wary of warmongers who have not served in the military.** Like Abraham Lincoln or FDR?\*\* > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* Such as?\*\* > [@](#): > > In order to ruin Colin Powell’s chances of ever being President, they have embarrassed him at every opportunity. \*\* If Bush wanted to hurt Colin Powell’s chances at being president (a position Powell has repeatedly refused to seek, BTW), why would he appoint him to such an important and prestigious position in the first place?\*\* > [@](#): > > And since they are almost all in the oil and weapons business, personal economic gain is a strong motive too. \*\* I wish you guys would make up your minds on this. Once and for all, are you accusing Bush of pursuing Iraq to reduce or raise the price of oil? If it’s to reduce the price of oil, then the easier method would be to ease sanctions on the Iraqis. If it’s to raise the price of oil, explain why the Bush administration is so pro-exploration (ANWR, etc).\*\* > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* You mean guys like [John McCain](http://mccain.senate.gov/northkoreawpost.htm)?\*\* > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* I utterly fail to see how altering our diplomatic posture would affect the casualty lists. With or without a coalition, if we invade Iraqi soliders will be on the business end of American weapons. The bleeding will last as long as it takes to oust Saddam. It isn’t like Saudi and Syrian cooperation is going to convince Saddam to step aside, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/6 "2002-11-16T04:53:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aaaphen256 \* > \*\*He may push the limit, but he’s not the one using the word “stupid”, is he. \*\* Aaaaaaaaand your point would be? (N.B., I called his _argument_ stupid, not him personally. And it was. It was just a hair short of the stupidity behind moon hoax arguments.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/7 "2002-11-16T05:16:05Z")
Wow, **DDG** Bush faced down Russia! What courage! What leadership! Think he might take on Upper Volta, or Chad next? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/8 "2002-11-16T05:27:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*In order to ruin Colin Powell’s chances of ever being President, they have embarrassed him at every opportunity. \*\* They embarrassed him by giving him what he wanted? Oh, yeah, I hate it when that happens to me, too… [http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/bush.iraq.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/bush.iraq.ap/index.html) > [@](#): > > But in the end, a team led by Secretary of State Colin Powell – hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were conspicuously sidelined – finessed the French into giving up on a two-stage resolution and turned Russia’s inclination to abstain into outright affirmation. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2479105.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2479105.stm) > [@](#): > > Friday, 15 November, 2002, 01:33 GMT > Powell rises above his critics > > By Jon Leyne BBC correspondent in Washington > > US Secretary of State Colin Powell has faced criticism from both left and right in recent months. But his quiet diplomacy on Iraq appears to be paying off, and silencing the doubters. > > \< snip \> > > Because just at the moment he seemed to be losing the battle within this deeply divided administration, Colin Powell actually had the president on his side. [http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3187](http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3187) > [@](#): > > 2002-11-09, Last Updated 2002-11-09 10:50:13 > > UN resolution victory for Powell against US hawks > > By Christophe de Roquefeuil - WASHINGTON > > …The unanimous Security Council backing for the US text is a notable success for US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued with administration “hawks” supporting a tougher line, to give the United Nations another chance. > > Powell worked tirelessly behind the scenes for two months, calling his French and Russian counterparts on an almost daily basis. He also remained silent, publicly, whenever Vice President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped up attacks on Iraq. > > It was Powell who convinced President George W. Bush to address the UN General Assembly on September 12. > > Bush warned that if the United Nations did not tackle Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction then the United States would. > > “Certainly, since September 12, the tone in Washington has changed dramatically. It’s Powell, Condoleezza Rice and the president who are talking Iraq policy and basically we haven’t heard from the vice president or the Pentagon,” said Judith Kipper, of the Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign policy think tank. > > The State Department, under Powell’s instructions, also toned down administration calls for a “change of regime” in Iraq which had alarmed many US allies, western and Arab alike. > **[THREATS AND RESPONSES: DIPLOMACY; How Powell Lined Up Votes, Starting With...](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/world/threats-responses-diplomacy-powell-lined-up-votes-starting-with-his-president-s.html)** > > State Sec Colin L Powell began drive for newly approved United Nations Security Council resolution calling for new round of weapons inspections in Iraq in Aug with presentation to Pres Bush; administration officials say he also won support of Vice... > [@](#): > > DIPLOMACY > How Powell Lined Up Votes, Starting With His President’s > By STEVEN R. WEISMAN > > WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 — In late August, from the Situation Room at the White House, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made one of the most important presentations of his tenure, arguing via video screen to President Bush at his ranch in Texas that the administration needed to go to the United Nations for another round of weapons inspections in Iraq. > > Also in the room were Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who had made little secret of their disdain for his line of action. Yet when Secretary Powell completed his argument, both supported him, an administration official said. > [@](#): > > \*\*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. \*\* Um, maybe I missed something, but didn’t Colin Powell’s team just spend the last two months building a coalition? In the UN? And didn’t the “Bushistas” sit still for it? > [@](#): > > \*\*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 \*\*Didn’t Colin Powell just spend the last two months making sure the other members of the UN Security Council had “ownership” of the policy? Which was why they finally passed the Iraq resolution? Do you think they passed it because the “Bushistas” intimidated them into it? > [@](#): > > \*\*Had they been doing their job, had they been as alert as they should have been, 9/11 never would have happened. \*\*Oh, yeah, hindsight is always 20/20. Got any proof that they _knew_ what was going to happen? From what I’ve seen, all they had were hints, and the hints I saw, I don’t see how anybody short of Miss Cleo could have been expected to “know” what was going to happen. > [@](#): > > \*\*nothing like it has happened since, has it? That is because proper precautions are now being taken. \*\*Um, like what “precautions”? Oh, you mean the mile-high wall that was erected around every national monument, famous bridge, important skyscraper, government building, and shopping mall in the United States, so as to prevent any more jets from being crashed into them? Oh, yes, and then there’s the way every person in the U.S. has been issued iodine pills, smallpox vaccinations, gas masks, and a month’s supply of Cipro. Not to mention the way every person in the U.S. named “Ahmed”, “Mohammed”, or “Osama”, or anyone with these names in their family, has been stood up against a wall and shot. Yep, we’re safe now. I don’t suppose you could entertain the possibility that “nothing like it has happened” simply because they shot their wad, and the ousting of the Taliban and the removal of their main power base has set them back and scattered them? No, of course not, because it wouldn’t be any fun if there wasn’t any more coming. > [@](#): > > \*\*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? \*\* She is not the Secretary of State–she is “National Security Advisor”. Her brief includes the “national security” of her nation, this nation, this one right here–America. Her job is not to go out and fix the world–that’s the Secretary of State’s job. Heaping opprobrium upon her head because she hasn’t fixed Israel yet, or Chechnya, or Taiwan, or Northern Ireland, is just stupid. It’s not her job to do that. And it’s questionable whether she even could if she wanted to. For one thing, she hasn’t got the clout in the world community to even attempt it. Compare and contrast her bio with Kissinger’s. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html) > [@](#): > > Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001. > > In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University’s Provost, during which she was the institution’s chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students. > > As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors – the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching. > > At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). > > She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador’s Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. > > From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. > > In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender – Integrated Training in the Military. > > She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. > > In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. > > Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master’s from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. [http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-bio.html](http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-bio.html) > [@](#): > > Henry Alfred Kissinger was the 56th Secretary of State of the United States from 1973 to 1977, continuing to hold the position of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs which he first assumed in 1969 until 1975. After leaving government service, he founded Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm, of which he is chairman. > > Dr. Kissinger was born in Fuerth, Germany, on May 27, 1923, came to the United States in 1938, and was naturalised a United States citizen on June 19, 1943. He received the BA Degree Summa Cum Laude at Harvard College in 1950 and the MA and PhD Degrees at Harvard University in 1952 and 1954 respectively. > > From 1954 until 1971 he was a member of the Faculty of Harvard University, both in the Department of Government and at the Center for International Affairs. He was Associate Director of the Center from 1957 to 1960. He served as Study Director, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, for the Council of Foreign Relations from 1955 to 1956; Director of the Special Studies Project for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund from 1956 to 1958; Director of the Harvard International Seminar from 1951 to 1971, and Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program from 1958 to 1971. (He was on leave of absence from Harvard from January 1969 to January 1971). > > Secretary Kissinger has written many books and articles on United States foreign policy, international affairs, and diplomatic history. > > Among the awards he has received are the Guggenheim Fellowship (1965-66), the Woodrow Wilson Prize for the best book in the fields of government, politics and international affairs (1958), the American Institute for Public Service Award (1973), the International Platform Association Theodore Roosevelt Award (1973), the Veterans of Foreign Wars Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Medal (1973), the Hope Award for International Understanding (1973), the Presidentia1 Medal of Freedom (1977) and the Medal of Liberty (1986). > > He has served as a consultant to the Department of State (1965-68), United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1961-68), Rand Corporation (1961-68), National Security Council (1961-62), Weapons Systems Evaluation Group of the joint Chiefs of Staff (1959-60), Operations Coordinating Board (1955), Director of the Psychological Strategy Board (1952), Operations Research Office (1951), and Chairman of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (1983-84). > > From 1943 to 1946 Dr. Kissinger served in the U.S. Army Counter-Intelligence Corps and from 1946 to 1949 was a captain in the Military Intelligence Reserve. Kissinger was a heavyweight and was awarded the prestigious appointment of Secretary of State. In comparison to him, Rice is a lightweight (although certainly no slouch) and was appointed merely National Security Advisor. Kissinger came into the office with a huge background in State, and with considerable muscle, which he proceeded to swing in the direction of things like SALT talks. Rice came into her office with not much on her resume besides teaching, and a couple of short stints in a few medium-weight political appointments, and being on a lot of committees and boards of directors, and her appointment as NSA is commensurate with her experience. Pointing to Rice and saying, “Well, what’s _she_ done lately, nyah nyah…” and attempting to compare her unfavorably to Kissinger is just–sorry–pathetic. You obviously have a serious jones for Leeza–why on earth is this rant in Great Debates? You wanna debate, “Should George fire Leeza?” Okay, I say, “no, since she hasn’t done anything bad enough to warrant her being fired.” All your ranting about her degrees and her political skills and her failure to save us from Osama Bin Laden don’t add up to a reason to fire her. All you’re saying is, “He should fire her because I don’t like her.” That’s not a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/9 "2002-11-16T05:39:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Like Abraham Lincoln or FDR?** _\* Well, Lincoln was in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War, even though I don’t think his unit saw any action, and FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy…admittedly, he wasn’t in the military, but he had a lot to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/10 "2002-11-16T05:42:36Z")
Besides, she is _hot_! That space between her teeth just makes me weak in the knees, I swear. Course, her politics are a bit of a problem,but if Jimmy Carville can deal with it… ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/11 "2002-11-16T06:05:47Z")
This is a good color for her, too, that kind of peachy-orange. [![](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/images/_1332915_crice150.jpg) ](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/images/_1332915_crice150.jpg) And, um, the article is interesting, too, not just for the cheesecake. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1332915.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1332915.stm) > [@](#): > > Wednesday, 16 May, 2001, 02:04 GMT 03:04 UK > Bush’s hawks and doves > > George Bush has to balance strong personalities of his foreign policy team > > By Rob Watson Washington Correspondent > > During the recent tensions between the United States and China, the favourite point of discussion in the game of Washington whispers was who was ascendant in the Bush foreign policy team - the hawks or the doves? > > The so-called hawks, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld kept a low profile during the crisis. > > More in evidence were the more dove-ish National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell at the State Department. > > On paper at least President George W Bush has the foreign policy dream team - a mix of experience and charisma in Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice. > > \< snip \> > > …Norman Ornstein, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, says it is important to remember the big four have more in common than divides them. > > “What you have here is a group of people who believe in free trade, internationalism, a strong American role in the world with some difference more in tactics than basic philosophy,” he said. > > Most notably absent, he added, is that not one of the four represents the “populist, isolationist protectionism that elsewhere is out there in conservative thought”. Well, so much for this: > [@](#): > > \*\*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. \*\* Yes, I remember how the Bushistas downgraded internationalism in favor of pursuing direct U.S. economic and military interests in China. Gee, I’m getting all warm and nostalgic for the Chinese Spy Plane Crisis–it all seems so simple in comparison to Al Qaeda. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/12 "2002-11-16T06:10:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*This is a good color for her, too, that kind of peachy-orange. > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/images/\_1332915\_crice150.jpg](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1330000/images/_1332915_crice150.jpg) > \*\* It is a good color, but what do you think of yellow on her? I think she needs to stick with light, “sunny” colors. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/13 "2002-11-16T07:59:06Z")
brilliant = says what I think > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\*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 disagree with you here. I think you are misunderstanding what “credibility” means in foreign policy parlance. Credibility does not, and never has meant following through on your treaty obligations, or living up to your ostensible ideals. Clearly, the U.S. has never done this, but it has still managed to maintain what is called “credibility.” Credibility is basically having everybody believe that you will use force at the drop of a hat if it suits your purposes. In this sense, then, the Bush regime has only increased the credibility of the U.S., with its constant lunatic announcements. However, credibility, in the sense of people believing what you say, is at an all time low. In the eyes of the world, the U.S. has lost all credibility, in this sense. Although we are sheltered by the media from the real nature of U.S. imperialism, our victims around the world certainly understand it. To them, the Bushites’ stream of lies is nothing new, nor is the planned aggression against Iraq anything new. Certainly, for people living in the Middle East, it is nothing new. While the U.S. rants and raves about Cuba, since it has not become a Scandanavian democracy, the U.S. has perpetrated what is one of the worst crimes against humanity in history with its murderous sanctions and bombing in Iraq, and is now going to punish the country even more. Bush is basically taking the stance of the Athenians in the 5th century B.C.E., which they explained to the Melians shortly before they invaded the island. [Thucydides Melian Dialogue](http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/MELIAN.HTM) The Athenians explained that it was better to exert your power wherever you can, eschewing friendly alliances in favor of conquest. When asked by the Melians if it might be better to be friends, the Athenians replied, "No, your enmity is not half so mischievous to us as your friendship; for the one is in the eyes of our subjects an argument of our power, the other of our weakness. " Further, they explained their motivations in very clear terms: “For of the Gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a law of their nature wherever they can rule they will. This law was not made by us, and we are not the first who have acted upon it; we did but inherit it, and shall bequeath it to all time, and we know that you and all mankind, if you were as strong as we are, would do as we do.” Of course, Bush is a bellicose moron who couldn’t hold a candle to the Athenians and who lies constantly about his intentions, but the sentiment is the same. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/14 "2002-11-16T08:00:24Z")
**I am Sparticus** , And I quote: > [@](#): > > Be it resolved: Fire Dr. Rice: internationalism vs. isolationism and unilateralism 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 am the one who took you to the pit. I took you to the Pit because hijacking a thread isn’t my style. I took you to the Pit so that a) I could call you for the fool that you are and b) you could respond without hijacking a thread. You claim you don’t ‘play in the Pit’ which is just a way of saying that you will not debate my points. I didn’t even need to read your whole post to know what you are going to say. At the same time it seems that you shy away from any real debate. Put up or shut up Sparticus. You name the forum and the time and I’ll be there kicking your ass all the way till Sunday. Slee ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/15 "2002-11-16T08:39:05Z")
What do you know Dewey, Cheatum & Howe? Lincoln served in the Illinois militia. Twice IIRC. Where the hell did you learn history? The missing of that gem is “both offensive and stupid”. And you don’t think anybody could have determined the WTC targets? You clearly have not reviewed all of the evidence of all the warnings and previous attacks. Everything was available months before the attacks, the methods, the targets, the people, etc. There was no intercepted telegram or engraved invitation specifying who, what, when and where. But someone paying attention and putting the information together fearlessly, like the now disciplined FBI agents in Minneapolis and Phoenix might have been able to do it if they had Dr. Rice’s job. They were aggressively pursuing terrorism, and were ordered off their cases, which turned out to be exactly the loose ends of a bigger plot that they warned of: the 9/11 attacks. Had people like this, instead of ax grinding isolationist unilateralists had access to the big picture information 9/11 probably would not have happened. We spend trillions of dollars every decade to protect America against just such attacks, and despite heavy concerns in August 2001, nothing, nada, just reports from Rice to the President. Do I think Bush knew. No. But Rice was supposed to know, she should have known. Is it unfair to call the Bushistas isolationists because they do not advocate a complete withdrawal from the world stage? No. Their policy is isolationism and unilateralism. I cited enough examples of their withdrawal to support calling their policy isolationist. Simply because you contend that it is not “complete” isolationism doesn’t give any meaning to your redefining the term. To what extent should the US lead on the world stage? Whenever we have any substantial interest in a field we should take a leadership role. When we do, we have enormous influence on the agenda, control the execution, advance the cause of law and share the costs in something we would try to control by ourselves otherwise at a greater expense and with less effectiveness otherwise. Abandonment of the most powerful leader from a leadership role in any kind of enterprise is viewed as an opportunity by the ambitious, and everyone else in the world has interests different than ours in some ways. Being the leader means that you get your interests met far easier and far more fully than any follower. Yes, it is leadership to scrap the ABM treaty in favor of the Star Wars program. Bad leadership. While we will now spend $35 billion on Star Wars, a program proven not to work against incoming missiles more than half the time when they are beaconed, and will not work in the next five years, we face creative WTC types of attack and possible smuggled nukes. While paying defense contractors, like Carlyle Group and Halliburton and others (TRW is in there too) huge sums of money to expedite this program in the face of a very small risk, we are not hiring the necessary thousands of intelligence analysts, security and surveillance personnel necessary to prevent further attacks. Compared to El Al, the Israeli air line, all American air security (except Air Force One) is laughably bad. Last time I checked, lighters and matches were still allowed on flights. WTF? Last time I checked, bagged was not being examined before being loaded into holds. Why not? Because the Bushistas are afraid these jobs will be unionized jobs. In view of the risk of likelihood vs. the cost per incident, this is terrible risk management. And while the American press has calmed down about the ending of the ABM treaty, one need only use the internet to see news organizations from around the world still pointing out what they feel to be a betrayal. Of course, China, North Korea, Russia and others will now be figuring out how to get around the technology we are testing and which even I believe will work in 10 years of constant effort, the level of expenditure in both cash and foregone improved security in airlines and customs isn’t worth the expedited money that is being paid for it. Nor has the rest of the world forgot Kyoto, the World summit in Africa that Bush snubbed recently, and all the other examples of isolationism I listed above and you couldn’t find answers for, as well as the ones we don’t know about. And no, the threat to act unilaterally did not get the UN to get aboard on the authorization, the passing of watered down language, and Colin Powell’s constant diplomatic efforts (including telephone calls during his daughter’s wedding) managed to save Bush from embarrassment. Bush Senior managed the whole thing a lot easier by keeping the allies informed as partners from the get go. And yes, Putin saw he had no choice about the ABM treaty. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t resent Bush causing him to lose face about it. It’s going to have the same result that Bush’s treatment of Mexican Vincente Fox had: early on in the administration, Bush and Fox cozied up to each other a lot. When it persisted in being a one way relationship as far as who gets what, Fox started snubbing Bush when Bush wanted to be seen with a supportive foreign leader. Blair and Sharon will still be seen with Bush, but Sharon is on his way out. Netanyahu (sorry about the spelling) will be quite attentive to Bush’s needs. You note Dr. Rice’s extensive resume and the posts she served. It’s a matter of public record. But where is the evidence of brilliance that is so vaunted? A problem solved, an unlikely alliance forged, etc. I don’t know of one. In the private sector we smirkingly call a resume like hers evidence that someone cannot hold a job. I’m not saying the woman is not brilliant, but I have yet to see it. Preventing 9/11 would have done it for me. Getting Saudi Arabia to support the Iraq invasion will do it. Hell, it’s their chestnuts we are pulling out of the fire. If she and Bush and Powell are so f’ing brilliant, why isn’t the dictatorial House of Saud giving ample backing instead of fighting us every step of the way? Because the Bush foreign policy is so ham handed that it is hurting the Saudis and embarrassing them to be seen with us. Hey, but a clever lawyer will claim that getting rid of the Saudi’s might be a good thing. It would be, but not in a way that turns them into another mullah run Ayatollah land. And while she held a position relevant during the fall of the Soviet Union and German Reunification, she did not personally take or recommend any course of action or policy to bring those about that I am aware of. While I understand that the Reagan fans like to take full credit for those events, folks in the affected parts of the world who study these things in the majority believe that they happened despite the increase of tensions Reagan caused and those in the minority say that his bellicosity was at best a small factor. Those in the know attribute the fall of communism to its failure to compete with capitalism externally and internally and the demise of a generation of leadership willing to suppress it. I saw Boris Yeltsin, a former communist, step in front of Soviet tanks, not Dr. Rice. The world really does not revolve around a small set of American conservative demi-gods, although they could be very positively influential, and occasionally are, when they try. Nothing like the 9/11 attacks has happened before and nobody could have predicted them? What are you smoking? When did you land on this planet? The WTC was attacked in 1993 and many people killed. Al Queda attacked it. Where have you been? Where were you when Timothy McVeigh attacked the Oklahoma City federal building? Were you aware that there were interceptions in August 2001 indicating something big was up? That the now disgraced FBI agent from Minneapolis demanded to be allowed to search Moussoui’s (20th hijacker, now confessed) stuff and pursue the lead? You were aware that the NSA intercepted transmissions two or three days before that were not yet decrypted and translated that reiterated all of this? You are not aware that terror analysts had warned about hijacked airliners being used as bombs was a serious possibility for several years? You missed the airplane attack on the Clinton Whitehouse by some right wing nut early in the administration? If you insist on not informing yourself that is one thing, but to call others stupid who do read past the first page of a newspaper is just arrogance. As for which warmongerers I am wary of who didn’t serve: the deserter Bush, the draft deferrer Cheney (3 times), Gingrich, Wolforitz, Richard Perle, and most every other Bushista. Rumsfeld served in peace time. Powell served in Viet Nam. Notably, he is the dove. (His investigation of the Mai Lai massacre seems to have been a whitewash however.) I don’t think most of these people understand the application of military force to political problems or the meaning of the blood shed. Most of these fools could have avoided this entirely if they hadn’t screwed it up in Gulf War I. If they had delayed the unilateral cease fire a bit longer, Hussein might have been overthrown. Their failure to then is costing us dearly now. Let’s hope it is mostly dollars and not too many American lives. Don’t misunderstand me Dewey, I’m a liberal democrat and a hawk. Hussein really is as evil as Hitler or Stalin. There is a way to make war, and the Bushistas don’t have a clue and refuse to listen to those that do. You get your allies together, you go in and you kill the sons of bitches. That is the order it must be done in. You don’t leave out steps, and you don’t stop short of the last step. It is war. If you only remove Napoleon to Elba, it f’ing serves you right. You have got to learn history’s lessons. Read Thucydides and Machiavelli and Clauswitz and what the hell, Sun Tzu. If you leave a wounded enemy behind you in any kind of war or battle, you (and I mean the Bushistas, not you personally) are an f’ing fool. Either that or an arms dealer. Let’s see, you have called Lincoln and FDR warmongers. You left out George Washington, who fired the first shot of the “French/Indian” War. Lincoln and FDR were fired on first, but I do understand the argument (I don’t agree with it) that they “invited” the conflicts. Suffice to say in the afterlife, I’ll hang out with FDR, Lincoln (and maybe Washington) and you can hang out with the Bushistas. Bush appointed Powell to Sec’y of State in order to insure his loyalty. While Powell has his weak points, he does not bad mouth his employers and never has. This is a situation of Bush keeping his enemies closer than his friends. Powell could, if he wanted to (the Mrs. does not want him to) challenge Bush for the 2004 nomination. He is internationally respected. Bush is using that respect (as he should), while at the same time undermining Powell on a daily basis by contradicting virtually everything Powell says to foreign leaders a few hours after he says it. This has been going on since day one. Please read the “World” section of your local Sunday paper. Yes, I will be happy to explain why being in the oil and weapons business makes the Iraq thing economically profitable for the Bushistas. You are under the misimpression that whoever wins the conflict must either charge more or less or the same for the oil in order to make a profit. Not so. Currently, Iraqi oil is mostly embargoed. Even if it weren’t, you only have to have it pass through one subsidiaries hands to make money off of it, whether it is cheap or expensive. As for weapons, you sell them to everyone. Us, them, allies, enemies. Weapons manufacturers make money. And so do building contractor’s after a war. Perhaps you did not know how Iraq got rebuilt after the Gulf War? Well, Halliburton, then run by the then former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney got millions in construction contracts. Dewey, you “utterly fail to see how altering our diplomatic posture would affect the casualty lists.” In light of the rest of your posts, I imagine that you are serious. So I will explain it. When you have 150 nations fighting with you, instead of just 1, not all of the casualties on your side will be Americans. When you have 150 nations fighting with you, instead of just 1, the other side will be much more demoralized, and throw down their weapons sooner. When you have 150 nations fighting with you, instead of just 1, you can launch your attacks from a nearby country, say Saudi Arabia, rather than Qatar, or Diego Garcia. When you have 150 nations fighting with you, instead of just 1, you can evacuate your wounded to a closer full service hospital. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/16 "2002-11-16T08:46:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by I am Sparticus \* > \*\*To what extent should the US lead on the world stage? Whenever we have any substantial interest in a field we should take a leadership role. When we do, we have enormous influence on the agenda, control the execution, advance the cause of law and share the costs in something we would try to control by ourselves otherwise at a greater expense and with less effectiveness otherwise. \*\* This would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. The U.S. advances _its own interests_, **not** the cause of law. This has always been the case for every state that has ever existed. To think that the U.S. is any different in this regard displays a degree of indoctrination that is sort of awe-inspiring. It is especially astounding considering the record: from numerous coups to overthrow democratic governments, to illegal invasions and bombings, to extra-judicial assassinations and killings, to torture and kidnapping, and on and on. The U.S. has consistently attempted to weaken international law on almost every issue, from arms control to environmental regulations, to human rights, and on and on. Please, don’t pretened that your favorite state is “advancing the cause of law” when it exerts its power around the world. It just makes Americans look like fools. At least be honest about it, like the Athenians. They were democratic and barbaric too, but at least they were honest about it. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/17 "2002-11-16T09:28:24Z")
Dear Sleestak: I don’t post in the Pit because it is unfairly moderated. As much as you may wish to think it is because you are a martyr, or that I must avoid name calling entirely, it is not. My complaint about the Pit is that the multi-thousand posters are allowed to write things the “lesser” posters are not. Note the Scylla/Ace controversy last week as just one example. I had a run in with the moderator a few months back. There is a thread on it, I won’t repeat it here. I’ll gladly debate you on the two points you raised in this forum, where the moderation is far more even handed. **First** , you ask me how many degrees from prestigious Universities I have. This isn’t relevant to anything, but I addressed it above. Your homework assignment, to read those posts. I recommend sounding out the words. It does not bode well for the thoroughness of the “ass kicking” that I am to receive at the end of your verbal foot that you did not bother to read my post. But it does not surprise me either for someone who starts and ends his arguments with ad hominems. Nonetheless, it is truly an outstanding feat of intelligence that you are able to fully comprehend my post to such a degree that you feel free to brag about not reading it before claiming to completely understand the points I raised that you haven’t read. What’s that funny feeling? Is it phlegm or have you shoved my opinion down my throat yet? You know, like Dewey did when he slammed Abraham Lincoln because he was a warmongerer who had never served in combat, ignoring Lincoln’s service in the Illinois militia. I find that those sorts of false analogies based on lying about the historical record add a lot of color to these wee debates that go on in these parts.\* **Second** , what do I mean by deliver the goods? If you had bothered to read my post, you’d know that too. The original proposition was put forward by someone that Dr. Rice was “brilliant”, a frequent sobriquet that conservatives heap on each other. The evidence offered for this was that she had a lot of degrees and public positions. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it for me. Brilliant for me means having an actual accomplishment. For example, there are a lot of physicists with lots of degrees and lofty titles and papers. But have they added to the Standard Model, won the Nobel prize for a theory, understood the significance of a unusual observation? So you want the international relations equivalent showing brilliance? Has Dr. Rice made peace somewhere? Anywhere? Not as far as I know. Has she come up with a startling analysis of data that has saved the world? Metropolis, Gotham? Nope. Nada. No evidence of brilliant. Had she come up with 9/11, I’d concede brilliance. But I just don’t see it. Now if you wish to define brilliance as having a bunch of degrees and a series of increasingly important jobs, well, then the woman is brilliant. I just don’t agree with that definition. If you want to praise her because you like her politics and say she is a brilliant politician, I’ll have to pass. If you want to say she is brilliant because her beauty shines forth in the night like a multi-faceted jewel struck by the pure white of lightening, the more power to you. Not my cup of tea, but not ugly either. If you want to say she is a brilliant orator, I’ll say she can get her point across and is better than her boss, but that is truly damning with faint praise: she can hold her own in a conversation in her subject of expertise. But Zbignew Brezinski can talk rings around her and he barely speaks English. Same with Kissinger. I still say it is a roll of lifesavers. \*I mean, the guy disses Abe Lincoln! Who the hell disses Lincoln except embittered Confederate war re-enacters arguing over the nicety of whether Lincoln had the legal right to end slavery and his hypocrisy for not doing it all at once? Yes, massah! Personally, if it weren’t for the ending slavery thing, I’d say the North lost the Civil War because we were still stuck with the South after the war. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/18 "2002-11-16T14:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Lincoln served in the Illinois militia. Twice IIRC. Erm, not exactly. Maybe close enough for Trivial Pursuit, but not IMO close enough for the purposes of this discussion. He didn’t exactly “serve in the militia” twice–he volunteered, saw no action, was mustered out a short while later, and then reenlisted in a scouting battalion, again for a very short time. [http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/gallery/presidential/lincoln.shtml](http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/gallery/presidential/lincoln.shtml) > [@](#): > > In 1832 the governor of Illinois called for the state militia to campaign against the Indians under Black Hawk. Black Hawk was the war chief of the Sacs, who had tried to reclaim territories which they had given up by treaties. Young Abraham Lincoln joined a volunteer company and was elected captain. He said later that he had no success in life which gave him so much satisfaction as his experience with the Illinois Militia. When it appeared that his unit would not see service, many of its members disbanded and went home. This group included Abraham Lincoln . . . who left because he wanted to be of real service. On the same day Lincoln was mustered out, however, he reenlisted as a private . . . in a scouting service sometimes called the Independent Spy Battallion. He was mustered out of the Battalion on June 16, 1832. [http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD\_Issues/amdipl\_1/milsvc\_I.html](http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_I.html) > [@](#): > > Several men in the pantheon of American Presidents had such limited military experience that one could question whether or not they should be counted as true veterans. > > \< snip \> > > Abraham Lincoln spent more time than that as an Illinois militia member during the Black Hawk War of 1832, yet his service totaled only three months and included no fighting. Why do you persist in comparing Rice to veteran heavyweights like Kissinger and, now, Zbigniew Brzezinski? [http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/profiles/brzezinski.html](http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/profiles/brzezinski.html) You’re comparing apples and oranges here. It’s like comparing Jennifer Aniston to Katharine Hepburn and Meryl Streep. You’re comparing newbie-but-competent TV actresses with Old Pro Oscar-winning movie actresses. Evidently your panties are in a bunch because somebody somewhere used the adjective “brilliant” to apply to Rice. Nobody I know thinks she’s “brilliant”. So who have you been talking to? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/19 "2002-11-16T14:58:26Z")
Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Never eat at a place called “Mom’s”, nor play poker with a man named “Doc”. Never match wits with a Cecilian when death is on the line, and never lie down with a woman who has more than two cats. And never, ever, _ever_ get into a “cite war” with **Duck Duck**. You are totally awesome, m’dear. You must have God’s Own Search Engine. (I trust you will forgive the uninvited familiarity on the basis of sincere admiration) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2002, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979/20 "2002-11-16T15:05:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Never match wits with a Cecilian when death is on the line \*\* Does this mean to not match wits with the likes of Cecil Adams? Or to not risk death vying against a Sicilian? Or, is it a clever pun? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/be-it-resolved-fire-dr-rice-internationalism-vs-isolationism-and-unilateralism/136979.md?page=2)