The only difference between a Juan Cole and a Bill Kristol is whether or not the UN (or maybe, NATO) OKs an international intervention. That said, Cole may actually be a bit of a paleolib on domestic policy, but, it's a convenient shorthand.
Here's Walt, delivering the smackdown to liberal interventionalist Howard Dean:
During (a)Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that "liberal interventionists are just ‘kinder, gentler' neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionists on steroids."That's really the only difference on how the two sides split on the issue of American exceptionalism, too - how nicely we "package" exceptionalist claims for the outside world to see.
Dean challenged me rather forcefully on this point, declaring that there was simply no similarity whatsoever between a smart and sensible person like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and a "crazy guy" like Paul Wolfowitz. (I didn't write down Dean's exact words, but I am certain that he portrayed Wolfowitz in more-or-less those terms). I responded by listing all the similarites between the two schools of thought, and the discussion went on from there.
I mention this anecdote because I wonder what Dean would say now. In case you hadn't noticed, over the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya, largely on the advice of liberal interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides Samantha Power and Michael McFaul.
Walt goes on to worry about mission creep, the degree of continued involvement and related issues. All spot on.
He closes with this worrisome line:
And who's the big winner here? Back in Beijing, China's leaders must be smiling as they watch Washington walk open-eyed into another potential quagmire.I can't argue.
No comments:
Post a Comment