| New Labels, Same Wine |
7 April 2003
|
New Foreign Policy Divides
The dichotomy of realist and idealist in US foreign policy goes back to Woodrow Wilson, a man who caused more evil with his good intentions than words can express. On the heels of the war on Iraq, a new set of factions is emerging from Washington. The faces and the feelings may set the course of imperial policy for decades to come.
First, there are the "Nationalists" led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney [Kensington acknowledges the terminology offered by Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institute.] these happy warriors are more than prepared to use force at the drop of a hat, but don't seem to have much of what the earlier President Bush called the "vision thing" for the peace that follows.
Opposing, or complimenting, them are the "Imperialists" who like cracking skulls and driving tanks in the sand just as much, but who believe that America can graft its version of democracy onto any culture and thereby improve it. Paul Wolfowitz is an fine example of this.
Mr. Daalder suggests a third group, "realists", led by Colin Powell, who like war less, but this discussion involves only those who matter, and it is clear that any hesitancy about this war will be a sign of weakness in future.
While disliking the nationalists is only decent, the imperialists offer the most problems. Americans cannot believe that others don't want to be just like them, may not desire what they desire, choose to live differently from 90120. This blindness will get many Marines and Airborne killed in years to come. Like Mr. Wilson, they will claim that they kept America out of war when they could, took America into war when they wanted and jailed their opponents. [Eugene Debs ran for president from a jail cell provided by Mr. Wilson after Comrade Debs stated US involvement in WWI was wrong. Sound familiar?]