Thursday, August 18, 2005


The New York Times seems to never run out of ways to call President Bush dumb.

An editorial
by Gideon Rose in today's paper covers the evolution of foreign policy from rational to idealistic and back again. Guess where Mr. Rose puts President Bush? Yep, he's one of those unrealistic idealists. What Mr. Rose fails to understand is that in these days idealism is the most realistic course of action.

He does seem to get it later on his article when he talks about how the Bush Administration will proceed.
BEING fully American rather than devotees of classic European realpolitik, the realists-today represented most prominently by Ms. Rice and her team at the State Department-offer not different goals but a calmer and more measured path toward the same ones. They still believe in American power and the global spread of liberal democratic capitalism. But they seek legitimate authority rather than mere material dominance, favor cost-benefit analyses rather than ideological litmus tests, and prize good results over good intentions.

So what can we expect next? A spell of calm without dramatic visionary campaigns or new wars, along with an effort to gradually wind down the current conflict while leaving Iraq reasonably stable but hardly a liberal democracy.
One thing we can be clear on; no matter what sort of government emerges in Iraq the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are going to declare it a failure.

No comments: