Sounds easy but this has rarely happened. With the exception of Harry Truman, every first term president with no significant prior foreign policy experience who has served in the last fifty years has created a mess of things during their first term. With John Kennedy you got the Bay of Pigs. Lyndon Johnson mired the United States in Vietnam. Jimmy Carter lives with the legacy of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of the Islamic Republic in Iran. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan failed to devise an effective counterterrorism strategy until well into his second term. And George Bush has shown us that a weak, not-too-bright leader, can really cock things up on the foreign policy front even when surrounded by senior folks with scads of foreign policy experience. (How can a team comprised of Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney mess things up so badly?)
The presidencies of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush–all who brought fairly significant prior experience working on foreign policy issues–generally avoided the problems that plagued the administrations of the other presidents.
On the Democratic side of the ledger, the most experienced candidates who understand the foreign policy/national security bells and whistles are Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton. Only Richardson and Clinton have experience on both the executive and legislative sides of government. Richardson, hands down, has more foreign policy experience than any candidate in the race. While Clinton’s role in her husband’s administration was limited on foreign policy issues, she did play a positive role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Senator Biden’s lack of executive experience is offset by his long tenure with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You cannot sit through as many briefings as he has, chair as many hearings, and visit as many countries without picking up some useful knowledge.
I put Chris Dodd and John Edwards in the second tier. Dodd’s time in the peace corps makes him a great travel guide in the Dominican Republic, but he has had no practical experience managing anything comparable to the national security bureaucracy. Edwards is a knowledgeable guy but also has limited experience on this front. Dodd has far more experience in the Senae than Edwards, so the edge to Dodd on the foreign policy/national security side.
Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama are unqualified. Period. Making a speech opposing an invasion of Iraq does not constitute qualification for understanding how to organize and implement a foreign policy. Barack is a gifted politician, but his knowledge of the workings of the State Department, the Pentagon, the U.S. Army and Marines, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, DIA, DEA, NRO, Treasury, and Commerce is deficient.
Even more worrisome for me is the foreign policy team he has assembled. Tony Lake and Susan Rice–his top two advisers–were not the stars of the Clinton Administration. In fact, both demonstrated a remarkable ineptness in dealing with the genocide in Rwanda. They did nothing. While Bill Clinton was the President and commander-in-chief at the time (and ultimately responsible) it also is true that his staff failed him. Presidents cannot know everything and must rely on senior staff to monitor problems, identify developing threats, and propose courses of action. Lake and Rice failed Clinton on this front and there is no evidence that either learned anything in the interim. If so, where were they in opposing the invasion of Iraq? Quiet, insignificant voices.
Who ever is selected as the next President, restoring order and competence to the National Security Council must be a priority. The President’s National Security adviser is first and foremost a traffic cop–identifying priorities and forcing the bureaucracies to reach decisions in timely fashion. The Clinton Administration stumbled significantly during the first two years. For example, the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) governing the organization of counter terrorism policy was not acted on until after the bombing of the Okalahoma City Federal Building in April of 1995. But when historians compare the Clinton NSC to the fiasco that has been Bush’s, the Clinton era appears as a veritable golden age.
The next President must enter office ready to take control of a foreign policy and national security bureaucracy that is in shambles. Giving the reins to well-meaning, inexperienced novices like Barack Obama would be a mistake that will only be appreciated after the fact.
Comments (102)
"(How can a team comprised of Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney mess things up so badly?)"
I think you just defeated your own argument. The experienced folks got us into this mess. What we need are people who can think outside the box of conventional stupidity. That may not be Obama, but that's what we need.
January 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experienced folks led by an inexperienced nitwit. If anything, this supports the argument that you can shore up Obama's weakness with experienced folks.
January 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Excuse me. Shouldn't that read, An inexperienced nitwit being led, and thereby used by cabal of experienced crooks?
~OGD~
January 1, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd have to ask who in hell is leading? I see no symptoms of leadership at all. Not even from the crooks.
These are libertarian conservatives. It's every person for himself,with a nitwit to take the blame.
And surely you can't think that Bush is an inexperienced nitwit. He's had his entire adult lifetime of experience as a nitwit, hasn't he? More likely you mean that he is a nitwit with no experience in anything useful other than how to lift his next drink and tell jokes.
January 1, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that everyone wants to prove their ability to distort with dialectics these days. Rumsfeld and Cheney are not libertarians by any stretch of a rational imagination. They are revolving door crony capitalist bureaucrats with a serious war-on fetish.
Thesis: libertarianism
Antithesis: conservatism
Synthesis: libertarian conservative
ROFLMAO...
January 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, what did John Edwards have to do with foreign policy? Hillary Clinton?
Your argument just seems to be rather arbitrary to suggest that they are fonts of foreign policy wisdom as opposed to Obama. I've seen absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, and they were both very wrong on the biggest foreign policy decision of this generation.
Among the top Democratic candidates, Obama has laid out the most detailed foreign policy agenda of the campaign. Edwards tends to focus on domestic policy, and Hillary tended to focus on being the frontrunner until about two weeks ago when she realized that she was in trouble in Iowa and she started focusing on attacking Obama for what he wrote in kindergarten.
January 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, one of the best descriptions of what happened inside the Clinton WH with regard to Rawanda is in Wesley Clark's earlier book, "Winning Modern Wars". Clark had just been appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in fact Rawanda's blow-up corresponded with his first day in office. He describes how the need to provide the Chiefs with a briefing on Pentagon assets happened as he was first meeting and interviewing some of his key staff members. Apparently the Pentagon did not even have useful maps identifying airfields capable of handling any sort of supply mission. Clark's opposite number at State -- Richard Holbrooke was also a new appointee, and until they met at the WH that day, they had never met each other.
The decisions about Rawanda were complicated by the fact that a UN military peacekeeping mission was already in the area (if I remember rightly it was Dutch and Belgium with French Support), and since the US had supported that mission's formation, key decisions were dependent on Madeline Albright's consultations at the UN, and of course State's consultations individually with the Dutch, Belgium and the French. In otherwords, this was not a simple decision for the Clinton WH, and it should not be depicted that way. One must remember that at the same time Rawanda blew -- Clinton, and Warren Christopher were attempting to persuade the French in particular, to back a UN intervention in Bosnia -- at that point with little success. Thus the politics of the Rawanda non-intervention decision has to be understood against the background of existing policy of persuading the French (and the British)to join and support a Bosnian intervention, backed by the UN Security Council.
While in retrospect I would agree with you that Rawanda deserved a far more direct and immediate response, I also think any prospective President needs to be asked in detail how they would "sort out" a complex decision such as the one Clark describes from first person participation and observation. We really don't have a good test for tolerance for and the ability to handle complexity -- and I suggest it is one of the most important assets of any President.
January 1, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming back to Clark, even for Africa, Darfur is isolated. Humanitarian and peacekeeping operations are supported by C-130 flights into El Fasher, and a vehicle convoy from Khartoum about every 2 weeks. El Fasher can't refuel the C-130s, so their payload is terribly limited by the need to carry round-trip fuel. In the past, I've discussed trying to secure the Babanusa-Nyala railroad and upgrading Nyala airport, but that's a long stretch to secure.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 1, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, Clark's military career goes like this. First in his class out of West Point, he won a Rhodes Scholarship, did an MA in Political Economy at Oxford. Returned, trained for combat, went to Vietnam as a 2nd Lt., commanded a company for 5 months, seriously wounded 4 times, spent a year in Military Hospital, had to learn to walk again. While still in therapy, taught a year (Economics) at the Point. Became a WH Fellow at the end of the Nixon Administration, Al Haig picked him out to accompany him to his NATO command. By this time he is a Major.
Command School at Levenworth, Returned to Pentagon for 3 years, wrote the new training manual for the Army as it shifted from conscript to all volunteer. Also did another degree at National Defense University -- wrote an analysis of Command Decision Making as reflected in the Pentagon Papers. After his training manual was accepted, asked for command of the worst Batllion in the Army so as to test his training theory -- got them up and ready in 5 months. Appointed to head the National Training Center in California -- served about 4 years. Promoted to command of the 4th Cav. Division in Texas in 1992. Clinton sorta knew him (Boy's State in Arkansas) so he picked him for the JCS position from which McCafferty retired. (Second Star) Served 2 terms, then promoted to CinC of Southern Command, (Third Star) then when the NATO command became open during Clinton's 2nd term, he was promoted to that (4th Star) -- and retired from that position with 4 Stars. I think it a pretty fair military career.
Clark combines in an interesting way the Academic World -- the Military Culture and an activist approach to diplomacy. His alter-ego on the Foreign Policy side is Richard Holbrooke and if you read back and forth in their books about the Dayton Peace Accord negotiations you will see how their partnership works. They do good and bad cop fairly well.
I got interested in Clark because Paul Wellstone found him to be a very straight up and helpful Military teacher -- realize that Paul had virtually no experience with the Military when he went to the Senate -- he needed a teacher. (It was Paul who recommended Clark's book to me.) Paul's last speech in the Senate, in opposition to the Iraq Resolution in October, 2002, quotes from Clark's writings in opposition to that resolution and the Iraq invasion. And that too was an interesting partnership.
Clark is also friends with Al Franken, who I expect to win the Wellstone Seat in the Senate next fall -- they got together when Franken took his USO show to Kosovo, and Wellstone provided the introduction. Franken also knows Wesley Clark Jr. He works for Michael Moore as a script writer. Clark has come a great distance from his Fellowship in Nixon's emploding White House, and his horse holding for Al Haig. Should Hillary win the nomination and get elected next fall (both of which I expect, but do not necessarily support), I expect Clark to become Sec of Defense (he is now retired long enough) or a similar position. In many respects, Clark's greatest skill is as a turnaround artist -- take a failed outfit, reorganize it, and put it back on the line. There is lots of Rumsfeldian damage that badly needs his "fix-it" skills.
Story about Clark. In the period before the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo began, he was with a delegation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Wellstone was a member) when they met with Milosevic in Belograd. After the meeting, Paul refused to shake hands, saying "I don't shake hands with bloody butchers." As they left, Clark asked about the snub -- and as Paul put it -- "you know we work for different people. Some of my bosses are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Generation Yugoslav immigrants on the Iron Range in Minnesota -- and they are all getting letters from their cousins about the massacures, town by town. They send me copies and bloody pictures with translations and ask me to 'do something'. I can get 80% of the votes in that district. Just imagine what would happen if Milosevic's buddies flooded that district with pictures of a hand shake. In fact, along with the comment, I should have stuck my tongue out at him." Paul said Clark could not stop laughing as the delegation rode convoy to their plane. Apparently Paul Goaded Clark a bit -- suggesting that the Army needed to appreciate the tactic's potential, but probably wouldn't because no big price tag was attached.
January 1, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no question about his resume. I know professional soldiers that considered him brilliant, and others, using Hackworth's term, that considered him a "perfumed prince".
Clark may be the greatest military-diplomatic mind since George Catlett Marshall. When, however, he makes public proposals, in a political context, that might raise logistical questions about logistical feasibility from a new West Point butterbar lieutenant, I have to question his wisdom.
No military officer is good at everything. I have no doubt that if Clark's diplomacy could have been sent, via time machine, to Patton, Patton's career would have been much better. Unfortunately, Patton delegated functions such as logistics and communications to very good people, focused on plans and operations, but failed to delegate his mouth in public settings.
Patton did, however, consider logistics and efficiency of movement. His use of amphibious forces in the Sicily campaign was a brilliant example.
Clark doesn't seem to recognize his own logistical limitations, and do the wise thing: delegate to the best logisticians and transport specialists he can find. A good senior sergeant, with experience in a battalion S-4 shop, given the Combat Service Support Guide and some transportation maps, could have spotted silly things that Clark said about Darfur and Rwanda, before he said them in public.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 2, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Clark, but in different ways he and Powell suggest the limits of military experience in training a political leader. Powell shows the limits of someone trained in a chain of command, with loyalties that are hard to buck. Clark shows the limits of a trained professional not used to the idea of public accountability, much as has been the problems of some business executives running for office. That probably has something to with why, after not gaining the 2004 nomination, he chose to further his career not by finding a statewide elective office, but by remaining a commentator, an independent "expert."
They also both suggest the limits of constantly praying for someone who's simply electable in, presumably, the minds of others, rather than someone we ourselves care deeply about. In a couple of years, after the buzz wears off, you realize that, for all shine of a general's stars, neither is going to get elected dog catcher.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your points are well taken, but it's interesting to consider why Eisenhower was reasonably effective, admittedly with some glaring errors, Indochina at the top of the list, and knee-jerk assumptions of monolithic Communism being the basic role. He was prepared to say no, both when the JCS proposed intervening at Dien Bien Phu and when SAC resisted civilian policy control over nuclear tageting. There was, however, quite a difference between his intervention in Lebanon's and Reagan's "presence", possibly because the Lebanese operation was clearly a US responsibility. There have been some interesting declassifications of how he made some very subtle leaks and threats about introducing nuclear weapons to the Korean War, which apparently did impress the Chinese.
A difference, I think, is that he clearly had command responsibility in Europe and recognized he needed to make an alliance work. While Powell worked with other militaries while a junior and field-grade officer, he wasn't in a policy role. Clark was in more of one, but I can't really say that the Balkans were as much of a pressure situation as the Thousand-Year Reich.
Still, I suspect Powell would have been electable.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 2, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
At its heart, there is something so intellectually dishonest about this piece. As with any of L Johnson’s Obama smears. He’s invented these three arbitrary tiers to rank Democrats in foreign policy.
- High Caliber Foreign Policy Wonk
- The second tier for which Larry gives no criteria. Seems reserved for elevating John Edwards above Obama.
- And the Third Tier: Where he’s cast Obama into the 9th circle of Kucinich hell. Foreign Policy Naiveté. For what reason? He does not say.
If he were to be honest, he might use Very, Kinda and NOT experienced as his three levels. And if he were also being honest about ranking them, Obama, Edwards and Hillary would all belong in Kinda Experienced level.
HRC’s experience as First lady is undoubtedly valuable experience, and wasn’t 8 years lost in Mexico drowned in tequila and bong smoke. But it also isn’t anything like Biden level foreign policy experience.
One has to wonder if L Johnson went to school with Obama or something, and will never forgive Obama for those purple nurples.
These pieces from Mr. Johnson make me wonder what he will do when Obama wins the democratic nomination. Will he will go back to being a Republican? Will we have to see any more of these logic pretzels in TPM any more?
January 1, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key person has been Cheney. He placed his acolytes throughout the government and that gave him more power than anyone outside of Bush himself. Then Bush, feeling inadequate, abdicated foreign policy to Cheney. Cheney then isolated Powell, neutering him, and let Rumsfeld play with the military toys and organization (Hey, they guy is an aviator. All that matters are the toys.) while Cheney handled the actual foreign policy.
Dick himself has, I think, become extremely paranoid as his heart trouble grew worse. This is one occasional side effect of heart trouble. He was attracted to the NeoCons who explained to him the views of the Israelis in the Middle East (Dick trusts the Israelis a lot more than the CIA. They certainly have experience in the Middle East which the CIA has never had.) Combine that with Cheney's impatience with bureaucracy in general (a characteristic of conservatism is that only results matter, and the process gets in the way of the anticipated and therefore right results - a very different attitude from that of good Intelligence analysts) and his belief that the CIA especially as well as most of the non-military Intelligence community was out to get him personally (see Paranoia above), and this gives us the results we have seen during the Bush administration.
Seems obvious to me.
But Dick was only the locus of the operation. The real fault belongs to Bush. He handed off the entire foreign policy thing to a man who needed close supervision, then Bush hasn't bothered to supervise. Bush, unfortunately, has neither the intelligence nor the interest in management and supervision, and it shows in everything this administration has attempted. Which I'd say is a good reason to agree with Larry.
January 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick himself has, I think, become extremely paranoid as his heart trouble grew worse. This is one occasional side effect of heart trouble.
Mr. Cheney has also had quadruple heart bypass surgery and two angioplasties. This surgery has been linked to mental decline if not more health issues in the past. One has to wonder about this when discussing Cheney’s actions and his influence on our country.
A study from Duke University, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February, 2001 and written about in the NY Times discusses the potential problems that may be influencing his decision making.
Five years after heart bypass surgery, 42 percent of patients show a significant decline on tests of mental ability, probably from brain damage caused by the surgery, doctors from Duke University say in a new study.
Published: February 8, 2001 (Link at left)
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
January 3, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times article is excellent. CNN provided a summary of Dick Cheney's heart problems up to July 2001.
1978 - first heart attack.
1984 - another heart attack.
1988 - third heart attack before age 48 resulting in quadruple bypass surgery. This was considered to have stabilized him, so that he had no follow ups after 1994.
November 22, 2000 - "a very slight heart attack" which led doctors to insert "a coronary stent to prop open a narrowed artery".
March 5, 2001 - new chest pain and discomfort which leads to an "urgent" procedure to re-open the blocked heart artery treated in November.
June 29, 2001 - Doctors inserted a pacemaker that includes a defibrillator.
The NY Times article points to the likelihood that open heart surgery causes brain damage because of interrupted blood flow to the brain. From the New York Times article Five years after heart bypass surgery, 42 percent of patients show a significant decline on tests of mental ability, probably from brain damage caused by the surgery, doctors from Duke University say in a new study.
Older patients and those with a drop in test scores soon after surgery were most likely to show declines five years later. With Cheney's history of heart problems that almost certainly themselves reduced blood flow to the brain, he would be a strong candidate to be above the 42 percent of patients who showed decline of mental ability.
Ten weeks after the surgery to insert the pacemaker with defibrillator was September 11, 2001. It would be very reasonable to assume that Dick Cheney's reaction to the threat represented by the 9/11 events would call forth a highly paranoid reaction.
As an unsupervised elected official, there is no one with the power to evaluate or control Dick Cheney outside of George Bush. It is obvious that Bush does not exert such control.
January 3, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having had two angioplasties, a bypass, and a pacemaker, I generally would say I'm in the other 58 percent, although it wasn't without side effects. There is some data that the problems of cerebral blood flow are fairly well correlated with how low a body temperature is maintained while on cardiopulmonary bypass, and then coming off the pump. You can recognize a good cardiac surgery suite (having worked on them as well as being worked on in them) when you notice it's cold.
Another factor, which did get me, is that blood anticoagulation and filtering, in the bypass pump, isn't perfect. Small clots, or possibly debris in the equipment, can circulate. Something landed on my left auditory nerve, cut off the blood supply to it, and left me deaf in that ear; I had already had damage to that nerve from a sunstroke as a child.
A pacemaker-defibrillator is larger than a pure defibrillator like mine, so it's a little more involved procedure. I think it was caution rather than paranoia that cause me to try to get out of that hospital where I was for overnight observation; I felt safer being at home where I could dial 911 than being in a hospital when they ignored the monitoring. My chest leads had fallen off in a way that would have indicated, in the nursing station, that my heart had stopped. Eventually, I did get someone to answer the phone, by calling the outside number of the hospital, asking for the nursing station, and introducing myself as the patient they should have noticed died half an hour ago.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 3, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
Best, Terry
January 3, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Terry, how's life?
Still posting to Chevron investor fora about geothermal and your annoyance with species protections and such when they interfere with a good profit opportunity?
I notice Chevron is running ads for geothermal these days in a (pathetic) attempt to clean up their image.
What was that you were saying about geothermal and Chevron again? About how you were for geothermal, how Gore wasn't a real environmentalist becasue he didn't support it enough, and that Chevron had no geothermal interest, despite operating all the US's major geothermal plants.
No need to apologize. I didn't take you seriously then either.
***
btw, what's particularly hilarious is Chevron trying to promote geothermal as a major renewable energy source, which is a of course a bad joke for America. Geothermal is difficult and costly to develop in most places, regionally variable and often unavailable, and can be toxic as well, and soon runs out in most places. Oh, and resulting tectonic instability doesn't help.
And American geothermal is largely composed of oil people as the technology is drill/hydraulic based, which means keeping a lock hold on our energy infrastructure from the same corrupt corporations that have been manipulating policy for decades. Supporting geothermal in America would be a huge subsidy for the oil industry.
**** edit
To SPHealy, for the rating:
Did I offend your delicate sensibilities? It seems we're back to you rating stalking people with the temerity to disagree with your posts. Do you have some factual quibble with the above post? Did TH not say the things i attribute to him? Is Chevron not running Geothermal ads? Is TH not a poster to geothermal investor forum who mocks species protections? Has he not claimed Al Gore isn't a real environmentalist, solely on the basis he's not pro-geothermal enough for TH?
So really, SPH, what's your problem? Anyways knock yourself out. As I've said before, rating stalking is adolescent behavior, and tells far more about the rater.
January 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
January 3, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This doesn't bode well for Mr. Johnson's theory that Hillery is Biden Smart, while Obama is GWB Dumb.
Fresh from the Biden Campaign.
"A decision will be made tomorrow about who we'll encourage our supporters to stand behind if we aren't viable in a precinct. Right now, I'd guess Obama gets our support because we're more inline with his vision of foreign policy than any of the other candidates, and besides, we like him and how he's run his campaign."(…)
Ahahahah Are we having fun yet?
January 2, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again, shilling for Hillary. This experience crap is a brilliant campaign maneuver on her handlers part but will someone please just point out where she has any leadership experience in foreign policy. Being first lady for 8 years does not count. So she followed her husband around the world. What did she really do? In terms of experience Obama has had more years as an elected official than has Hilliary and he has definitely proved himself a more adept politician. He really built the organization that is his campaign, he was not led into it on his spouse's shirttails.
I see this as a real double standard -- woman her marry the right man can be promoted into the nation's highest positions but the reverse is not observed.
January 1, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is your's a reading disability or a comprehension issue? Please show me where I said, "Hillary has the most experience" or "Hillary is best". On the Foreign policy front I simply note that RICHARDSON (got that Einstein?) and BIDEN along with Hillary have the most experience.
While Hillary had no formal foreign policy role, her job as first lady did have her meeting frequently with foreign dignitaries, visiting foreign countries. She also received specific praise for helping in the Northern Ireland conflict.
She has more experience that Obama in the Senate. Simple fact.
She and Edwards are tied in terms of Senate experience. Hillary gets the notd over Edwards because of her First Lady time.
That's not shilling. Those are facts. Big difference.
January 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reading and political comprehension are quite sound thank-you. You are pushing Hillary talking points whenever you can. In the present case you give a lame attempt at objectivity by mentioning Biden's and Richardson's superior experience, but since neither is a viable candidate, you are in fact pushing Hillary. You dissemble trying to maintain that you are not a Hillary partisan.
I like this, you make one of my points:
And I am sure she was very charming as well when meeting these dignataries. But I bet she didn't pull it off with as much class as Nancy Reagan or Rosaling Carter, she probably ranks with Pat Nixon or Barbara Bush.
January 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at it this way. Among the top four Democratic candidates for the nomination, who has the most foreign policy experience? Consider the experience to consist of personal networks outside the U.S. and understanding (with experience) of the U.S. foreign policy institutions (to include the NSC.)
From top to bottom the capable candidates are:
1. Richardson
2. H. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Obama
Richardson is so far ahead of the others that he is in a different universe. Clinton knows more significant overseas people than Edwards, and probably can be said to know the institutions better. Edwards shades Obama be by being on the national scene significantly longer than Obama. And face it - Edwards called Musharraf after the Bhutto assassination and Musharraf returned the call. Obama? No known action. Talk is not an action.
Mind you, my preference is Edwards followed by Richardson. I think that obama could learn on the job, but Larry's article demonstrates how Presidents learn on the job. People die to teach Presidents their job, and that's just the most obvious cost of Presidential OJT education.
I'm an old-line moderate Democrat (Ex-military, NRA life member, MBA who knows economic theory - but also once a union steward before getting the MBA as well as a welfare worker) who has recently realized how badly the corporatist DLC Democrats have served Americans. My objection to Clinton is that she is a DLC "Democrat." She'll be a great status quo President if you like the corporatist-oriented right-of-center status quo. And Obama? He's running as the moderate Republican in the race. I'd bet that Nelson Rockefeller was to the left of obama. He's that far right. No mandates for Healthcare? Unworkable. Obama has no clue. He'll say anything to get elected, much like Mitt Romney but without the long history of positions in office that can be easily compared to what he says today. And of the big four in the Democratic race, he has the least foreign policy background and preparation, which is what this discussion is all about.
And if he's the Democratic nominee, he is still so far ahead of every Republican living today that I'll go all out to see him elected. But on foreign policy, Obama is the weakest candidate in the Democratic lineup.
syvanen, you're an Obama "true-believer." You can't see your candidate's weaknesses. To you he has none. That may be appropriate for his PR people. But I hope that his personal advisers are not equally blinded.
If he gets the nomination (I think the Democratic nominee will win the election) then his advisers need to know how to keep him out of trouble and need to be able to be honest with him when he is wrong. That's one of Bush's greatest failures. He has no one to tell him he is wrong. He doesn't permit such people to talk to him, and as President he can keep them away. We don't need a Democrat who acts that way.
January 2, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and Larry, by claiming Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Obama, yet conveniently avoiding stating exactly what that experience consists of, give your game away.
The only point of Larry's post is to bash Obama in suport of a Hillary candidacy.
Hillary is clearly the only one of the top three that favors a primarily military approach to foreign policy. She has made her bones in the Senate by being a cheerleader for military solutions to foreign policy problems, and by cozying up to senior military officilas and defense contractors.
Oh, and the constant insinuation that Obama is nothing but a smooth-talking hustler on these supposedly progressive blogs leads one to wonder just how progressive they are when it comes to race.
January 2, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have yet to see a position Obama has taken that I like, and Obama's total lack of foreign policy experience would be a minor thing if he had anything else to offer. He hasn't offered much of a policy position to begin with, he is an unknown (what makes him tick?) and then he lost me when he started using the Republican talking points about solving the Social Security (non) crisis. He really lost me permanently the other day when he lambasted Clinton and Edwards for their health plans with mandates he completely lost me.
He objects to mandates? You will never get universal heath care without them. I'll never vote FOR any candidate who isn't pushing hard for universal health coverage. I've seen nothing that indicates that Obama has a clue regarding health care. His policy statements, such as they are, seem designed to create his political image as different from Clinton and Edwards, not to solve American problems. Our next President needs to be a real problem solver, not a political poseur. He also has no national political experience. And I think he is just too young for the job. But I guess since his father was African I am supposed to vote for a man that as far as I can see has little more than his burning ambition to recommend him. What does Shelby Steele call that? White Guilt? I'm surprised that you tried to use it as an argument to vote for Obama. Won't work. He gets compared to the rest of the field. He doesn't get a "Pass" because of the Race of his father.
Your "support" for him does him no favors, either.
January 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you address a question of whether Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Obama by ranting about your disagreement with Obama's domestic policy positions, and by quoting Shelby Steele (rightwing talking point alert!!!).
Thanks for proving my point.
January 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thoroughly covered the issue of Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, a description of what such experience would consist of for politicians, and how it should be used to judge Obama for his suitability to be the Democratic candidate for President in my above post at 9:55 AM.
Your comment above
is nothing more than a demand for "White Guilt." You are demanding that Obama get special treatment because of his race or the "supposedly progressive blogs" must not really be progressive.Your demand insults me, attempts to insult and intimidate progressive blogs, lacks common decency, and insults Obama. Obama is running for President. He'll get chewed up and chewed over just like the rest of the candidates. He can deal with it.
January 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't addressed the nub of my argument - which is that Larry (and now, you) place Edwards in a "second tier" of foreign policy, while relegating Obama to the unacceptable "third tier" without explaining why Edwards has more experience.
As far as I know, Edwards did next to nothing in the foreign policy arena when he was a Senator, and his campaign is focused almost exclusively on domestic issues.
I am not trying to knock Edwards here. But your giving him a pass proves that all you and Larry are trying to do is bash Obama in favor of her chief rival.
Again, if FP experience or the lack thereof was your sole concern, you would not be singling Obama out. It does make one wonder why you both dislike him so, as it seems pretty irrational.
An I am as insulted by your transparent dishonesty and manufactured outrage as I am by the "progressive blogs" constant and bogus claim that Obama is running to the right of his chief rivals for the nomination.
January 3, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really am not an Obama 'true believer'. I just became big time irked with johnson's pretend neutrality, peppered with Hillary talking points followed with unfair attacks on Obama. If Edwards had been the object of those attacks I would have sounded like an Edwards advocate. Edwards is still my first choice followed by Obama.
January 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton's experience is over-rated, at least in terms of governance. As the AFP article points out, every President will deal with crises that cannot be foreseen. My impression of Obama is that he is less likely to lose his focus in foreign policy crisis and fall back on poll watching. I worry that Hillary won't necessarily keep her focus in terms of foreign policy.
That Clinton "urged her husband to intervene" in Rwanda doesn't necessarily mean that she had a well thought-out position on Rwanda or the genocide, only that she, like most observers wanted someone to do something. Being the First Lady she had the opportunity to urge the President to do something personally.
I think you should be much more reluctant to elevate Hillary's term as First Lady to a "tie breaker" in terms of experience. This idea that she and Edwards are somehow "tied" in terms of experience because of their time in the Senate strikes me as silly. Objectively, Obama has more experience as an elected official, having first been elected to office in 1997.
January 1, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Larry, did you take a clue from this regime's playbook? Using Saddam and 911 in the same sentence so many times that a significant number of dunderheads believed that the two were related?
Putting Clinton (Hillary, that is), Biden and Dodd in the same sentence when you discuss experience is what I'm talking about. Maybe the republicans should get Barbara Bush or her daughter-in-law running because they have so much experience commander-in-chiefing during a time of war!
Before you insult me for my inability to read, or call me a moron, I just want to say that you have lost all the credibility that you gained with your thoughtful and inciteful posts about Valerie Plame. You are boorish, and you remind me of no one more than George Bush in your stubborn "with me or against me" mentality. You obviously have no respect for opinions that don't agree with your own, and that is your (and George's downfall).
Too bad. You had so much promise.
Jan
January 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have some problem with this. First, the only people with genuine foreign policy experience would be those who pushed for effective policy on the senate foreign-relations committee or who served in the executive in a foreign-policy capacity. Yet we all agree to consider other experience, such as time as governor, legislative record in the senate, and so on. And we should take seriously such experience.
Second, it's not so clear to me that Clinton has foreign policy experience. I see no evidence she played more than a token role in this in this in the Clinton administration. Her standout issue then was health care. She didn't read briefings and may or may not even have been aware of the pursuit of Al Qaeda. While I have concerns that she wasn't an effective senator, period, despite praise for her ability to work with others, since I can't name legislation that she (in contrast to great senators like Kennedy) has led on, I don't see anything serious to do with foreign policy period, except for the botched stances on Iraq.
Third, we've a habit of overrating experience in this area. We credit generals like Powell with more than their policy capacity. We credit Bush I with his knowledge, which was real, but don't give demerits for the down side of CIA director, responsibility for an agency with a middling track record. We can look to the one candidate with real experience in my mind, Biden, and he came up with what has to be the most unrealistic plan, forcing a splintering of Iraq on the Iraqis.
Fourth, the history given is laughable. Nixon as our model? Didn't he extend a war for many unnecessary years, with untold consequences for American power, for human deaths, for the American economy, for political divisions within America, and for disillusionment with American government, all of which hit the fan under Carter and gave us Reagan? Didn't he extend the war disastrously to Cambodia? I'm not convinced Bush I solved a heck of a lot of foreign policy problems either. Unlike several presidents, he took no role in furthering the Middle East peace process. The policy that gave us the blowback of the Taliban surely progressed under him.
Fifth, the examples mostly just show that presidents do better in their second term. How is that relevant to a new president now?
Finally, while I frankly have great qualms about some of Obama's compromises, as I along with many others have discussed in response to MJR's valuable posts, I actually give him a lot of credit here. He doesn't have much different from the others on Iraq, but then I can hardly assign him demerits. He talked sense on negotiations with Iran and others, as well as with the shortcomings of our backing Musharef, and he only got slammed by Clinton for it!
I'll still stick with Edwards, and I'll accept the consequences for mistakes if any. He's been at least forthright on Iraq. But the slighting of Obama and puffing up of Clinton seems to me wholly unwarranted.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 1, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nixon was a conniving, manipulative guy, but he knew what he was doing. I'm not touting his Vietnam policy, my point is he did not make amateur mistakes. Perhaps you remember a thing called the opening to China?
How about arms talks with the Soviets?
Helping Israel in the seven day war?
C'mon, wake up.
January 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Vietnam of some importance?
This nonsense of an experienced First Lady Hawk to touting the experience of Joe Biden proposing more ethnic cleansing in Iraq is the usual tripe in my view.
Nixon's experience with China BTW was a long history of damning the traitorous Democrats for losing China and proposing to unleash Chiang Kai Chek on the mainland. His historic opening to China was a stab in the back to former friends, kinda like a President Huckabee converting to Islam.
Innocents writing opinions on foreign policy are worse than inexperienced in my view.
Best, Terry
January 1, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Cambodia, Chile, and El Salvador.
I will take your word that Nixon knew what he was doing.
January 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... he did not make amateur mistakes."
Well, in domestic policy he made an amateurish mistake called Watergate. In foreign policy, read Anthony Summer's Arrogance of Power (p 372). "The CIA's top Vietnam specialist, George Carver, reportedly said that in 1969, when the North Koreans shot down a U.S. spy plane, Nixon became incensed and ordered a tactical nuclear strike.". Kissinger called the Joint Chiefs and told them to do nothing until Nixon sobered up in the morning.
The man was a drunken kook, experienced or not.
January 1, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something Nixon is never given credit for was his setting-up the Soviet , and then sucker-punching it. Pure Nixonian ball-busting; realism in a laugh while we squeeze 'em in a vise Tricky Dick sort of way, that neither the right or left sides of the political bipolarity are willing to admit. The right, because it knocks Ronnie down several pegs to his proper place as just being there when the Soviet collapsed. The left, because they would never give attribution to the methodology Nixon used: the clout of western manufacturing and consumerism.
Once PepsiCo and Burger King opened up within the Soviet; once the eastern bloc consumer was provided with a confusing array of personal hair care products; the game was over, and Nixon knew it. He derived great pleasure getting Brezhnev's attention by threatening to end trade.
January 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the relative foreign policy experience between H. Clinton and Obama? There are three areas to consider. 1. What foreign policy decisions have either made. (None for both that we know of.) 2. Which one has the better network of significant individuals in other countries or in foreign policy positions that each knows. Clinton is way ahead of Obama. 3. Which of the two better knows the American foreign policy institutions? Obama has zilch. Hillary has a lot of second-level connection as Bill's wife and first lady, and some first level (as a Senator) connection. ALL of this is more than Obama has. It's not inconsiderable.
Hillary Clinton has had an office in the White House and knows the people who were there. That, mentorship by Bill Clinton, and personal connections to White House operations in foreign policy is more than Obama had. Fair? No. But true? Yes. You can only ignore that comparison if you are biased against Clinton. Obama's youth, his lack of national and international political experience, and his total absence of any foreign policy experience should be considered as a major strike against him. He has to present some alternative strengths to make up for this clear deficiency in his background.
Obama cannot compare favorably with either Clinton or Edwards in terms of foreign policy. Which would not be so bad if he were even adequate on domestic policy. But he's not. as near as I can tell, Obama is an extremely ambitious politician who has found himself in a socially advantageous position because of his parentage, personality and background who wants to use it to become President for whatever personal reasons drive him. Unfortunately I don't think he has the experience to carry it off yet. If I could tell what he really believed, I might easily prefer him to Clinton, but he is running so far to the right of the democratic field that he has totally lost me. He seems to prefer to be seen as being distinctively different from his opponents yet being inline with what the polls say is preferred by voters to being basically correct.
But back to what this discussion is all about. Obama is the least qualified on Foreign policy of the top four Democratic candidates for the nomination. There is no valid argument that can bury that fact.
This area of consideration may be overrated in comparison to the other considerations of what we want as President, but it is still very much worth considering. After Clinton's term in office, no one considered that Bush needed to be evaluated on his foreign policy prospects, and yet that has turned out to be the biggest of his disasters.
Foreign policy is what Presidents are for. Congress can deal with domestic issues, but our Constitution gives foreign policy power to the President with little or no restriction.
Any failure to consider the relative ability of Obama in foreign policy is buying a pig in a poke. America did that with Bush. Do we want to do it again?
January 1, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe things would be better if we'd elected Cheney directly. All the familiarity with how the military industrial complex works seems to have a significant relationship to how much profit they want to make off of it and very little to do with how much better they want to make the lives of the American people.
January 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are missing the issue of goals. The US has had a long tradition of isolationism. I don't know whether intervention in Rwanda would have taken place regardless of who was president. The current example of Darfur reinforces this view.
We don't do "humanitarian" intervention, we do interventions when there are resources we want to control. I will grant that there is a difference in how well the implementation of this intervention gets carried out and that experience might help.
But, looked at from the end of WWII to now, the US has consistently lost the wars it has engaged in. There is a lesson to be learned from this, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with experience. Perhaps we just need to realize that the era of gunboat diplomacy is over.
Personally I would prefer an inexperienced president who knows his limitations and looks for good advisers to one who thinks he is an expert and overreaches. (I'm not talking about anyone in particular.)
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first phase started in October 1990, with the invasion of Rwanda from the (Tutsi) Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) rebel group invaded across Uganda's southern border into northern Rwanda. This quickly became multipolar, with the French intervening and the Belgians conspicuously withdrawing. I'd say this phase ended in mid-1992, with the RPF in retreat and the Hutu emboldened.
The UN force under Dallaire, arriving in mid-1993, was quite small, initially under 100 troops. Fairly quickly, Dallaire asked UN HQ permission to take over a particularly inflammatory radio station, and some arms. This was denied, but there's quite a bit of informed opinion that this could have slowed the flaring. AAR of the Panama operation strongly suggested disabling Noriega's broadcast facilities didn't get a sufficiently high priority. In 1997, SFOR demonstrated the value of getting this done in a timely way. Information operations doctrine, with 20/20 hindsight, makes this an early step to take, but that was not generally accepted in 1993. Still, UN Headquarters insisted on the observer role.
When the plane with the two presidents went down, and the explosion started, UN ROE were so confused that 10 Belgian soldiers died, with orders not to defend themselves. Belgium then pulled out, and Dallaire did what he could with no resources of consequence. He had asked, before the explosion, for 5500 troops and nonrestrictive ROE.
Rwanda is landlocked, and there were at least tens of thousands of Hutu doing the killing, up close and personal. Because the machete was high technology, there wasn't anything, other than perhaps the broadcast facilities, that could be hit with air strikes.
Considering typical pacification force ratios, a forced entry, to be effective, would have been in division or larger strength.
So what would not have been inept? What, exactly, could the US have done in Phase 1? In Phase 2, should the US have prevailed on the UN to give the on-scene commander his authorization and reinforcements>? In Phase 3, would you have sent the 75th Rangers and 82nd Airborne, and see what other airborne/airlanding troops were available from Britain, Canada, Russia or France?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with this line of questioning in light of LJ's commentary that Somalia's Blackhawk down tragedy was a foreign policy failure. The machete blood-letting in Rwanda would likely have been quashed for only as long as forces occupied and policed Rwanda. Same situation in Somalia. That is in part why there was undercommitment there. Now in Kenya there are mass killings of the innocent.
There needs to be a different approach internationally, incrementally and it must continue over time.
January 2, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry inadvertently brings up what could be a substantive difference in the foreign policy of Obama and Hillary. (It is very difficult to really tell from campaign rhetoric since they all sound alike on the stump). That is the Rwanda civil war.
I happen to think that the US did not commit an error by failing to intervene in that civil war. We have quietly watched many more Congolese die in their interminable civil war over the last decade then were killed in Rwanda. We have wisely kept away from that and I hope Hillary, if elected doesnt commit us to that mess. Likewise with Darfur -- another civil war where we need not join one side or the other. Thus with Tony Lake on his staff Obama displays a caution that is absent from Hillary's record.
I really fear that she could get us into some real foreign policy jams because of a need to overcome her insecurity and to prove that she would have a real muscular foreign policy. Obama seems much more comfortable with himself -- he has no need prove his masculinity.
January 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, the "messes" you're referring to, the ones that directly involved the US, involved illegal aggression against foreign countries. Now let's assume, for the moment, that Senator Obama is smart enough to avoid making those mistakes. Voila, no messes.
Not knowing the workings of that alphabet soup of agencies you reeled off? Not a problem. That's why an executive appoints qualified subordinates.
Not being able to make immediate foreign policy decisions? Also not a problem. We've had enough of a "decider", even if you yearn for one. The Congress, the State Department and other agencies would presumably have a larger role in an Obama administration, as they should in a democracy. Or do you favor an oligarchy?
January 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa..this is getting exciting! Before anyone starts slapping at Larry too hard, though, one should remember he is ex-CIA! (snark)
A couple points...
First, and I am not entirely innocent of this myself, it seems lately that to praise Hillary is perceived as an attack Obama, and vice versa.
Not saying this is the case here, nor that it is always bad (politically) when two teams are heading into the 4th quarter pretty much tied.
Second, I am an Edwards guy, and when it comes to my second choice, I (barely) lean Obama.
However, I do believe that Hillary's first lady experience counts. If I spent eight years living with Albert Einstein, I'm sure I would walk away with an above average knowledge of physic even if I never picked up the first book.
January 1, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry not only praises Hillary but he does attack, quite explicitly, Obama. If he would just come out and admit that he is a Hillary partisan and not play his silly pseudo-objectivity game where Hillary comes out looking presidential and experienced and Obama a stumbling amateur (notice the title to this thread, who do you think he is referring to?) I would be happy to discuss his ideas. But he is not interested in these ideas. They are just ammunition in the war against Obama.
January 1, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
On one hand, it is important for Obama to understand the workings of the national security and foreign policy bureaucracies.
On the other hand, the national security and foreign policy bureaucracies are in shambles, meaning they don't work?
If they are in shambles, what does Obama need to know to lead them so that they are not in shambles, and so that they do not fall into shambles again. If previous presidents had experience in foreign policy and national security yet these bureaucracies are now in shambles, how did that happen? It cannot be blamed on one administration only.
Also, what do you say about the performance of the national security bureaucracies from the standpoint of their being no terrorist attacks on US soil since shortly after 9-11? (shortly after 9-11-01 were the unsolved anthrax attacks).
January 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, what do you say about the performance of the national security bureaucracies from the standpoint of their (sic) being no terrorist attacks on US soil since shortly after 9-11?
I would venture a guess that no serious attempt has been made, since the lame, pathetic attemps we have heard about (Florida sans weapons, plans, and anything else; New Jersy sans any awareness of anything at all) were widely publicized. Do you really think that Bush would let any success go unlauded?
What do YOU say about the fact that the biggest security breach of all time occured during Bush's watch -- he and Condi were warned, and Bush (at least) blew it off -- and they get credit for keeping us safe!!!!!!!!!!
This should not be such a hard act to follow, except for the fact that they have left the biggest messs inernationally and domestically imaginable. They also have gotten off scott-free for their asleep-at-the-switch policies as to protecting our borders.
Has anyone else noticed that everything bad in the world is accomplished by AlQaeda or AlQaeda in Iraq? All the news agencies report it like it were fact. BinLadin never had a better friend than George.
Jan
January 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, you are speculating when you say you would "venture a guess." The logic that the BA would laud any foiled attacks does not speak to the national security agencies successfully preventing attempts, which is harder to measure either for the BA or its avid opponents.
We want prevented attempts, that is, attempts never made because they are calculated to be a waste by the terrorists or hostile intelligence agencies involved. We do not want foiled attempts. Foiled attempts by inept, lame and inexperienced actors suggest that only such actors would attempt an attack given the security (offense and defense) in place.
January 1, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why have we heard about these lame ones? If I am speculating, so are you.
Also, since everything, from visitors to the White House and VP's House to scientific papers about our climate are considered "top secret" what is left but speculation?
This bunch makes us speculate and then they repudiate us for speculating!
I'd be very happy to deal with facts, but the Bush/Cheney regime keeps them hidden.
Jan
January 1, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One explanation: we hear about the lame ones because they happened and the press caught wind.
You said yourself that you suspected no others occurred other than the lame ones.
There is the value of not revealing any operational information, whether express or implied that could tip anyone off to US counter-terror methods, sources, timing and so on. That is one reason less-than-lame events may not be discussed much.
Who has repudiated you for speculation? I merely pointed it out for balance.
Your last sentence seems to overstate the power of the administration.
January 1, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, Mohammed Noor Khan was a captured al Qaeda member who was providing information but his name was leaked by the administration for political purposes. This leak resulted in obstructing a British operation against an active cell there. Inconclusive information on his computer was used to stir up fear of impending attacks in major cities here.
His case was very much “less than lame” but was leaked to boost the security image of the administration before the election. The press almost always caught wind of these arrests through administration spokespeople. And remember the lame ones were not being treated as such by the media and we were in a state of heightened alerts for years. I think they were using all they had to score political points.
As to LJ’s original premise about the importance of FP experience, at this point, the current president has as much forged-in-the-fire experience as any since Nixon or FDR. That does not stop him from pursuing more on-the-job training and resume padding by fomenting war with an imaginary nuclear Iran, contradicting his own national security apparatus.
January 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Don. Informative, concise and well-written.
January 2, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply |