From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Feb 26 2003 - 21:12:35 MST
Wei Dai writes
> Instead of replying to your long post, which seems to mostly repeat what
> you wrote earlier, let me point to this essay written by Richard
> Holbrooke, who was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under
> President Clinton. He argues that we don't need a second resolution, and
> shouldn't have asked for one. Presumably this person knows more about how
> the Security Council works than either of us.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45433-2003Feb21.html
This curious article contains, first,
> The administration is now caught in a dangerous dilemma,
> partly because its military and diplomatic tracks are out
> of sync and partly because of its failure to maintain
> America's historical leadership role in its core alliances...
and ultimately blames this state of affairs on Bush not being
as decisive as Clinton (his boss) who went right ahead into
Yugoslavia without even bringing the issue up before the
U.N. (where Russia would have surely vetoed any action).
But then he also says
> Over the past 60 years, the United States has consistently
> combined its military superiority with moral and political
> leadership. Unfortunately, in the present case some members
> of the administration, and many of its most fervent outside
> supporters, have abandoned this tradition and acted as though
> complete superiority in such things as night-vision goggles
> (and other modern military technology) allows the United
> States to ignore the importance of traditional relationships.
But then he also takes time to criticize the U.S. for helping out
Tony Blair domestically. (!?)
I am rather confused. Is he complaining mainly because Bush
is not Clinton? B is not C? C is not B?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 21:08:53 MST