Glenn Greenwald has a post up in response to yesterday's flurry of blog exchanges between the "netroots" and "foreign policy community." In his post, he critiques my critique of his critique of the "foreign policy community" as follows: [T]he no...

From "Mayberry Man" The New Yorker, Peter Boyer,
8.20.07

Giuliani, toadies, lickspittles, cognitorex blogspot

But it won't matter who gets the republican nomination. Their 6 years of control was an unmitigated disaster and Americans understand that.

But if we wanted a professor to write us an "A+" paper, we'd send for that great realist Zbignew Brzezinski. He'd be better employed writing such papers, rather than being the Bumpkin's National Security Adviser.

To be sure, Giuliani's notions about the loss of Vietnam are alarming. As alarming as Barack Obama's notions about engaging with Pakistan?
Evidently not:

"This is a bold pronouncement, especially for a man whose candidacy is based, at least in part, on his having been opposed to the Iraq War from its outset.

On the merits, I’m sympathetic to his argument. After all, President Bush promised to go after terrorists wherever they might go and stated categorically that governments that harbor terrorists within their borders would be considered “against us.” While Musharraf is in an incredibly shaky position and exercises little if any control over North Waziristan, where the al Qaeda leadership is thought to be, they are in his territory. It’s far from clear what good our “alliance” with his regime has done to enhance our security.

That said, the consequences of a U.S. invasion of Pakistan are hard to predict. Musharraf’s government would surely fall and the successor would likely be Muslim extremists. He pledged a few weeks back to make a serious effort to assert control of the region and combat “Talibanization” there. It would certainly be preferable to have him do it than for us to try."

Or so you wrote on 1 August, your blood pressure not raised by this proposed course by an iota. You and Freddy stick with Zbig and Henry and Brent, writing those A+ papers and dissertations to be filed in the ivory tower. The rest of us will continue to listen to Giuliani, judging if his undoubted strengths are outweighed by his alarming notions.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

True. The thing is, in anything related to terrorism, his 'experience' consists of screwing things up quite badly.

"His chief advantage, the sense that he’s a grown-up who will take a pragmatic but aggressive role in fighting the Islamist terrorists, is undermined by his unserious pandering. "

I see him as a 'grown-up' who's learned the lessons that he can get away with pretty much everything, so long as he makes hard-core speeches. We're currently enjoying such a president, we really don't need another.

As to Rudy and his "new" foreign policy, I have to agree with Dr. Joyner. There is much pandering in it. He seems to have accepted Dubya's outline and embellished enough to hopefully hold on to the conservative base while attempting to appeal to the more moderate crowd, less inclined toward military actions.

He seems to be arguing that we will always be involved in military actions as either policemen or nation builders for most if not all of the twenty-first century. There is little doubt that we need to maintain our military superiority in the world but am doubtful we need to go to the extremes that he appears to be recommending. No other country in the world, save Russia and China, is anywhere near becoming a conventional military threat nor even a serious nuclear one.

Admittedly, in the sphere of nuclear weapons, one warhead can inflict devastating damage, but in a nation v nation encounter we will still be victorious due to our superior arsenal and delivery systems.

I was struck by his minimal reference to police and crime fighting forces in the "Terrorists’ War on Us". John Kerry pointed out during the 2004 campaign that most of our success against terrorists will come from the crime fighting sector around the world and I believe, given events over the past few years, he has been proven correct.

As far as pushing America's ideological agenda and vision around the world; I think we have tried that for many years with some successes while at the same time with the creation of significant animosity. At some point we have to understand that a desire for freedom in and of itself is not a guarantee of establishing a functioning democratic government. We have always failed to recognize that generally a country moving toward a democratic structure will suffer years of greed, fraud and a rise in crime initiated by those who grab the power base(try Russia). This creates significant suffering for the general populace and can lead to anarchy or dictatorship (try Russia again).

Our experiment with establishing a democratic system of government is not applicable in today's world. We were primarily an agrarian nation made up of social and religious outcasts who sought a new beginning in a land far away and free from the oppression they had experienced in their homelands. These people were adept at providing for their own safety and security and managed to make their way through the travails of Indians and weather and whatever. Much of the world's underdeveloped population today are familiar with providing for their immediate needs but the larger problems of security, safety and everyday survival mechanisms are provided by some kind of government, authoritarian or otherwise. Our ancestors relished the freedom and flexibility to provide for themselves. Without this desire or motivation to be free and self-sufficient the idea of a democratic government is neither understood nor sought.

We are not the sole source of extolling democracy. We have many allies who believe as we do; that while imperfect it is still the best form of government going. This vision, encompassing as it does a firm belief in capitalism and free markets, is anathema to many peoples whose primary focus on life is from their religious experience. Ergo our current dilemma.

It would seem that while we should spread the gospel of individual freedom and democracy, we best tread lightly that we don't appear to be shoving it down the throats of those that might want part but not all of our experience. This idea is basic, yet Rudy's treatise seems to be quite the opposite.

I marvel at an individual who spent a mere 4 months in the aftermath of 9/11 doing little more than pontificating and motivating, venturing out to become an international expert on terrorism, traveling to 35 countries giving more speeches and through consultations providing an expertise on dealing with terrorism, his knowledge of which appears to have no basis in fact. He now expects the American public to accept his lame view of foreign policy as gospel. The general tone of his policy seems to be more of the "I am the decider" philosophy.