[besson3c]

I was listening to a bit on NPR today from a guy who wrote a book about the UN...

He pointed out that the US really got its ass handed to it during Bush's first time by not doing things diplomatically and being unilateral. This is a stark contrast in the approach that Rice is taking in trying to take a far more diplomatic approach.

I think Rice is a much better secretary than Powell was (at least according to the style that he was forced to adopt). What do you guys think? Screw the UN and anybody else, let's just look after our own interests, or let's do everything diplomatically, even if the process is much slower and bureaucratic?

The other interesting thing this guy talked about was Bolton. Bolton is sort of the unofficial UN ambassador since he hasn't really been sworn in (I believe), but his appointment may have been interpreted as a provocative action since he has been really quite anti-UN and a known defector.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that we have Rice, who I will give props to in trying to mend diplomatic relations, and Bolton who sounds like a bull in a China shop as far as our relations with diplomatic bodies such as the UN? Doesn't it seem like the two would be working against each other.

The place and effectiveness of the UN can be debated in another thread, but answer in the context of the fact that we have been making use of the UN for some things (such as orchestrating the new Iraqi government, etc.)

[MinM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He pointed out that the US really got its ass handed to it during Bush's first time by not doing things diplomatically and being unilateral.

You mean he opined. Pointing something out implies that it is established fact.

I think Rice is a much better secretary than Ashcroft was

Of course she is, considering Ashcroft was Attorney General.

[Nicko]

Of course...each of the three of those people are working for the same person ... connect the dots.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think Rice is a much better secretary than Ashcroft was (it was Ashcroft in the first term, right?)

It was Colin Powell in the first term. Ashcroft was Attorney General, not Secretary of State.

[Dork.]

I don't think Rice has been terribly effective as Secretary of State. To be fair, an awful lot has happened under her watch, and it might be a tall order for anyone to do that job well given our current circumstances. But Rice strikes me as a policy wonk, an academic, who sometimes has a hard time acknowledging reality. The conflict in the Middle East a few months ago, while not instigated by the U.S., was certainly helped along directly by Rice; her role was basically to hold off a cease fire until Israel could "get the job done" and eliminate Hezbolah. When Hezbollah emerged not only still existing, but a bit bolder, that plan backfired on her. I think Colin Powell was a better Secretary, if only because he had real-world experience with armed conflict, and knew why it was a good idea to try to avoid it, but if you had to fight, to overwhelm your enemy ad get it done quickly, then leave. Which was 100% at odds with Bush and Rumsfeld's policy.

I think Bolton is an interesting character. For all his rhetoric, he must feel the U.N. is useful for something, or else he wouldn't agree to be there. I think his main gripe is with the percieved endless bueracuracy and unaccountability of the UN. I think he genuinely wants to refoem the body, and make it leaner and more able to respond to world crises. Lets face it: even though the UN is doing a lot of good in the world, doesn't everyone seem to want to reform it right now? Even we admit that the structure of the Security Council is a bit outdated, but of course we want any new governing body to preserve our veto.

There's only one reason why we seem to be playing nicer on the diplomatic front: we have too many troops tied up in Iraq, and can't afford to flex our muscle like we did there and in Afghanistan. Bush foreign policy will hurt us for years down the road, because it has demonstrated that the World's last superpower has limits. Our current Iraq policy is one of weakness -- our men and women there simply can't pacify the country, not because they are not up to the job but because this administration handed them something they can't do with the resources they have. Toppling Saddam's army and government is one thing -- we did an excellent job at that, anf out troops should be proud of that -- but pacifying the extremists in the country is a different matter altogether, fighting insurgents that are spread out in homes among the people. It simply couldn't be done without wide-ranging world support backing us up. (And no, I'm not forgetting about Poland!) The exact same thing happened in Lebanon this summer. In fact, you could say that the Lebanon adventure was a second test of Bush's Iraq war plan, executed by the Israelis, which also failed in the same manner. Except that even Israel realized how useless it was to occupy Lebanon for any length of time.

[besson3c]

edited my post to replace Ashcroft with Powell... added qualification to account for the "style Powell was forced to adopt", because he has since expressed some disagreement with the Bush doctrine.

[vmarks]

Rice has made some errors which I see as egregious.

Rice has played nice with the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that they are directly responsible for the deaths of American diplomats, deaths which occured during Powell's tenure.

Because she is doing this, we have a mixed message: For Afghanistan and Iraq, we will not deal with terrorists, you're with us or against us - but for Palestinian Authority terrorists, we'll deal, negotiate, and chat over tea.

A mixed message is never a strong confident message, and it weakens the United States unnecessarily.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rice has made some errors which I see as egregious.

Rice has played nice with the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that they are directly responsible for the deaths of American diplomats, deaths which occured during Powell's tenure.

Because she is doing this, we have a mixed message: For Afghanistan and Iraq, we will not deal with terrorists, you're with us or against us - but for Palestinian Authority terrorists, we'll deal, negotiate, and chat over tea.

A mixed message is never a strong confident message, and it weakens the United States unnecessarily.

No offense vmarks, but I think America should probably butt out of this feud, we've supported Israel for far too long anyway, which often hasn't served in our best interests.

This isn't my personal commentary on the conflict, just speaking both in terms of resource allocation and politically.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No offense vmarks, but I think America should probably butt out of this feud, we've supported Israel for far too long anyway, which often hasn't served in our best interests.

This isn't my personal commentary on the conflict...

If that isn't your personal commentary, then what the hell is a personal commentary?