03-25-2003, 02:33 PM
That was all I felt I could comment on with the limited time after I got up this morning.
The article is well written and asks some very good questions, just like the fellow who wrote the "Special Providence" asked good questions about "whither the world in the era of an apparent American hegemony."
I guess his major question is: is what is going on now squandering 50 years of good will, or spending it un necessarily? A fair question. Given his limitations in space, he covered a lot of ground.
I found it interesting, though space limitations probably dictated, that the author ignored Clinton's now and again bombing of Iraq, usually with cruise missiles, as something other than an attack, though of course it was much lesser in scale than Kosovo, Afghanistan, certainly. Clinton's lack of action, other than the usual missile attacks, when the inspectors were sent packing showed a lack of leadership, and a desire for consensus that characterized his entire presidency.
The author touches on a point that many folks were concerned about when the current president was running for office:
Lack of depth in foreign affairs, a weakness in background that Pres Clinton also shared when he was running. Maybe that is why he travelled so much. George Bush, senior, broke a trend, as both Carter and Reagan, when they entered office, had little to no foreign relations background, in contrast to Nixon and Kennedy and Ike.
The choice for GW Bush by the Republican party puzzled me, however, the American political process also elected Harry Truman.
The article is well written and asks some very good questions, just like the fellow who wrote the "Special Providence" asked good questions about "whither the world in the era of an apparent American hegemony."
I guess his major question is: is what is going on now squandering 50 years of good will, or spending it un necessarily? A fair question. Given his limitations in space, he covered a lot of ground.
I found it interesting, though space limitations probably dictated, that the author ignored Clinton's now and again bombing of Iraq, usually with cruise missiles, as something other than an attack, though of course it was much lesser in scale than Kosovo, Afghanistan, certainly. Clinton's lack of action, other than the usual missile attacks, when the inspectors were sent packing showed a lack of leadership, and a desire for consensus that characterized his entire presidency.
The author touches on a point that many folks were concerned about when the current president was running for office:
Lack of depth in foreign affairs, a weakness in background that Pres Clinton also shared when he was running. Maybe that is why he travelled so much. George Bush, senior, broke a trend, as both Carter and Reagan, when they entered office, had little to no foreign relations background, in contrast to Nixon and Kennedy and Ike.
The choice for GW Bush by the Republican party puzzled me, however, the American political process also elected Harry Truman.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete