| ||
Wed 2024-11-20
Tue 2024-11-19
Mon 2024-11-18
Sun 2024-11-17
Love, Acceptance, and Screeching Modems Sat 2024-11-16
Fri 2024-11-15
Search
Archives
2023
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
One good site
MDN
Nelson Minar
Blog licensed under a Creative Commons License
|
In all of the NYT's
coverage of the 9/11
commission report, this article
about international policy seems
important and easily overlooked. It's
a summary of the report section titled
What
to do? A Global Strategy.
long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power:
diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic
policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we
favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable
and weaken our national effort.
This is the concern that connects 9/11 to Iraq. Iraq wasn't a source
of terrorism, but we attacked it. And by pursuing a war
in Iraq, Bush has undermined our diplomatic and moral position. The
NYT article suggests this is one of the few places where the
9/11 report is critical of Bush policy:
Mr. Bush also maintains that Iraq had been a "central front'' in the
war on terror, a point that the report treats with stony silence.
Instead, it warns of what could happen if the American experiment in
Iraq goes bad, declaring, "If, for example, Iraq becomes a failed
state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding
grounds for attacks against Americans at home.''
Hearts and minds are not won by unilateral unprovoked wars,
torturing prisoners,
and clumsy propaganda outlets.
|
|
