Posted on 01/21/2007 8:18:44 PM PST by CutePuppy
LONDON -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice often calls herself "a student of history." And increasingly, she is using history -- or her chosen slice of it -- both to explain and justify the Bush administration's Middle East policy.
When Ms. Rice talks about the challenges the U.S. faces across the Mideast, she points, somewhat surprisingly, to Europe after World War II and to the West's decades-long face-off against the Soviet Union, which happens to be her area of expertise. It is a penchant that has scholars scratching their heads.
Citing the Cold War's denouement as context for today's bloodshed and tumult may seem far-fetched to some. But Ms. Rice uses the analogy both to beg for patience -- the Cold War, after all, consumed decades -- and to try to elucidate a diplomatic strategy that is increasingly assailed for its lack of assertiveness.
While traveling this week through the Middle East and Europe, Ms. Rice engaged in several long historical tutorials with reporters in tow. Her point in referring back to the Cold War, she said, isn't to argue that history repeats itself or that the analogy is exact.
"The reason that I cite some of these other times, like Europe, is that it is so clear in everybody's mind that the United States and its allies came out victorious at the end of the Cold War," she said in Kuwait. "But if you...look at the events that ultimately lead to that, you would have thought that this was failing every single day between 1945-1946 and probably 1987 or 1988."
Her contention is while things may look bad now in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, history is on the administration's side. She pushed a similar argument to reporters last month.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I keep pointing out.........we were in Germany for fifty years...........
Those who clamor for sitting down with Syria and Iran are out of touch with what Ms. Rice calls "the underlying forces."
"There's a tendency to think about diplomacy as something that is done untethered to the conditions underlying it or the balance underlying it," she said. "In fact, that's not the way that it works. You aren't going to be successful as a diplomat if you don't understand the strategic context in which you are actually negotiating. It is not deal-making."
...
I find it refreshing that she compares this with the long period of Cold War (with several "hot" spots, like Iraq and Iran right now), and can differentiate between tactics and strategy.
In other words, it sounds far fetched to the writer.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to cite the cold war, or Korea as examples of ongoing foreign policy challenges that in some cases are yet to be resolved completely.
IMHO, I don't think so... I know she gets a bad rep here sometimes, but though as SoS she has to make the "right noises" to Arabs/Muslims in the Middle East and has done so on numerous occasions, unlike Clinton administration or Powell's suggestions, she didn't press Israel to give up any territories for the sake of "peace", and gave Olmert more than enough time to do something more meaningful against Hizballah in Lebanon than, unfortunately, he was willing to do. Just few days ago there was a complaint from Muslims that Condi is trying "to sedate the Palestinians". Nodding her head in "understanding the poor condition of Palestinians" hardly qualifies as "treason" that she's been accused of, most of it is just al-Media's attempts to undermine her with pro-Israel contingent here at home.
She is treating Israel like Czechoslovakia.
I am sure that, from her history perspective, she understands 1938-1939 and Czechoslovakia / Sudeten role in beginning of WWII.
I would be happy to see her as VP on 2008 ticket.
BTW, from the noises that Powell made recently about Iraq and other issues, and role he may have played in "Plamegate", among other things, I fully expect Hillary to have him as VP on her ticket (first woman President, first black VP, and he would give her "gravitas" neutralizing the doubts about her CIC role). Condi as VP on the ticket could help neutralize much of that.
Just food for thought.
It wasn't Bush/Condi's pressing, decision was made inside Israel by Sharon around the time he was forming Kadima party. Besides, settlements there were not sustainable / defensible in that form, it was either getting out or taking all of Gaza. It didn't stop them from using Gaza as rocket-launching pad then... Now Palis showed that they can't govern "their own" small strip of land and would rather kill each other than share power with each other, let alone living "in peace" with Israelis - who could ask for more? The pretenses, the masks are off their "problems", their "peace".
With who? Jackson/Sharpton black bloc considers her a bigger oreo than Powell.
Good, if Jackson/Sharpton endorsed her then I'd be concerned.
"yeah, we'll take care of the iranians for you, YOU absorb the the so-called palistinians and exterminate your jihadis."
We should take out Iran for ourselves, Sunnis will be more likely to help us out with that now that we destabilized their little desert paradise. That will take care of a lot of problems with Hizballah, Hamas, Syria, inside Iraq... Sure Sunnis made a "Hail Mary" plea to do that "in exchange" for peace of Israel, which got promptly and politely ignored by that same Condi. She spoke very well in this interview about what "diplomacy" means in her dictionary. :-)
You make alot of good points. One of the yardsticks I use to gauge someones effectiveness is to see who is against them. The more folks like Jackson/Sharpton and others deride Condi, the more I know she is on the right track.
Glad to hear it. That's why I thought this small interview was valuable enough to post it.
She is constrained in what she can say and do as Secretary of State and "diplomat". Judge her on her actions and what she says about her philosophy, lessons of history... outside of her "official" capacity.
One thing I've noticed about the Bush administration is that they may speak well, complementary even, about their enemys, but behind the scenes they keep doing what they believe needs to be done. They don't seem to seek out recognition for the work they are doing. That's why I don't believe they are really political people, but citizens doing a job that needs to be done. Does that make any sense to you?
You nailed it. That's the policy of "new tone in Washington". Unfortunately, sometimes - well, too often - to a fault... in the sense that Bush (like his father, likely a family trait), in particular, not being very articulate and politically active by nature has not used "bully pulpit" as he should have to reach and engage people because by virtue of his position he's the only one on our side who has it.
He understands the civic duty and civic leadership, but neglected to maintain political leadership, which means toot his own horn sometimes, and megaphone just is not a tool he likes to use or can use well. That's my biggest disappointment with him.
People need to feel engaged and to feel attached to leaders or they lose interest and sense of connection, willing to attach themselves to someone else who tells them what sounds plausible, especially if they keep hearing it elsewhere (the media). Bushes seem detached (remember Bush Sr. 'watch' episode during the debates in 1992).
Reagan made us feel his successes like they were ours. He often said "It's amazing what can be accomplished when it doesn't matter who gets the credit" and then gave the credit to us, the people. Clinton always took credit for anything positive that happened, and always blamed people or his political enemies for anything negative.
This is a long read, but you'll probably appreciate this recent article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110009532
Not even close to Powell/Armitage...
They help arm Fatah (conditionally) to counteract Hamas (supplied by Iran), not much different than when we supported Saddam against Iran - let them fight it out instead of uniting under "Death to America"/"Death to Israel" slogans (the only time they don't kill each other for power and money). Powell would never support Israel in Lebanon like Condi did, until Olmert decided he didn't have the stomach for a real fight she gave him all the time he wanted.
Placating Putin? Like how? They've clashed with Putin many times recently and actually Condi was quite open about that on several occasions, but it doesn't mean that she has to be bashing him in public every chance she gets - she is quite clear about that.
Her nonsupport for Bolton? He was Condi's and Bush's choice to be renominated, but they can't do much about Senate and idiots like Voinovich and Hagel and some others who put hold on him. When Voinovich woke up it was too late, but even then Bush/Condi were trying to get him through until it became obvious he wouldn't.
Considering the entrenched vultures that permeate our State Dept, she is doing the best she can and better than most SoS in a long time, certainly including Powell and Baker.
You only see the misleading headlines and excerpts from what she has said, and sometimes she does say soothing things to Arabs or Europeans which make it into the press, but make no mistake - these do not translate into action or policies. It's just diplo-speak. Palis and other Arabs characterized her style recently as "sedating Arabs". Look deeper into her actions when she has control of the events, not having to cut losses created somewhere else, by someone else. She is certainly a better spokesman for tough Bush policies than Bush is himself.
She understands history and knows the difference between long term strategical and short term tactical thinking. Due to her post as SoS, and not as NSA, she often can only hint at something to indicate her understanding and position while saying something else (not necessarily different, but emphasized as such by the media). Try getting her speech and Q&A at Princeton couple of years ago, you'll see her own knowledge and understanding of politics and lessons of history and clear-spoken style.
I'd be very happy with her as VP on Republican ticket.
I hope you are right about Condi Rice....
What do you think of Condi Rice's NoKo negotiations? Are you still....very happy with her(Rice)as VP on Republican ticket...? Thanks for the tip, I hope to read her speech and Q&A at Princeton 2 years ago...I'm just not impressed by her results as NSA and especially as SoS. i can only hope that she is as good strategically as you imply!
She was great as NSA, and in that role provided counterbalance to Powell at State and sometimes to Tenet at CIA, she relied more often on NSA, NRO and DIA and was more flexible with regards to foreign intelligence than CIA (due to prevalent NIH syndrome of the agency).
As far as her role as SoS, it's entirely different - she has huge limitations in what things and how and in which context she can say them publicly and what she actually does about the issue (often just lets "issue" to die down), what the results of some policies are (she doesn't make the final decisions, she executes them perfectly, though), who the foreign "partners" are sometimes (Olmert, Saudi Arabia France, Russia, China) and treating them as Godfather ("keep your friends close and your enemies closer"), and then there is also a State bureaucrats that, not unlike some in CIA, are not exactly happy with Republican policies and do things to deliberately impede them.
There is a tendency that I have seen (at least among conservatives on talk radio and here on FR) to jump on a person or an issue without thinking it through or sometimes without understanding what all the options are, or the difference between "diplomacy" (tactics) and real strategic actions. We want everything that said in public by "our guys" to be ideologically pure and clean and unambiguous, and that may not always be the best way to get where you want with "diplomacy". I love John Bolton and he was and would be still perfect at the UN, but were he a SoS, you would see some change of style as well, because it's a situation-dependent job.
Re NoKo, I think she and Bush handled it brilliantly. They ignored Kim's antics and tantrums (which worked well on Clintons and Dems) and pushed the full weight of Kim's burden on the only player that had leverage over him - China. Once it became clearly understood by all involved that NoKo is becoming a real and bigger problem for China and that Rice and Bush will not be thrown off-balance by Kim's childish tricks to get attention (failed rockets and nuclear tests), they pressed him in the background to make the best deal he can WHILE he still can. Chinese tested if Bush/Rice will want to give in to take NoKo off the table while we're busy cleaning up ME and with problems at home, but they said "it's your problem, not ours". Rice dealt from position of strength with Kim - the only way to get diplomacy work in your favor - using the only friend Kim has to turn the tables around on him.
What did anybody think the desired outcome with NoKo was going to be? Only two options - either bomb NoKo if Kim went nuts (he isn't) and decided to go nuclear full bore (he could only do that with cooperation of China), or get the combination of carrots and sticks to verifiable, step by verified step before giving more carrots, dismantlement of nuclear military capacity, with several other countries watching, not just us and UN-reliable IAEA. There was never going to be an option of NoKo surrender signing ceremony on USS Reagan, this is about as close the equivalent to that as you could realistically hope to get. They got it, now it just needs proper execution from other parts of our government sharing the burden together with other partners who are now invested in this going well and who now have the tools they didn't have before to make sure it does, or no more carrots.
Now the media will play it as repeat of Clinton-Albright surrender to NoKo, but just about any agreement would - it's substantively not anywhere near it. It's like comparing Plamegate no-leak "leak" to numerous Clinton's crimes and obstructions, yet media makes it sound worse.
Iran is entirely different from NoKo (oil, not as isolated yet, Ahmadinejad is certifiable...), so diplomacy there should be and is different, with a possibility of military action ever-present.
BTW, since you're interested in researching her, check out the "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" (2003, TV), it's a TV movie with actors, but it's very close to documentary of events immediately after 9/11. See where all the "players" stood then, especially in light of what transpired and as we learned more about Powell, Tenet and others since 2003.
Condi understands "nuances" far better than people who use the word only to make themselves feel more important than they really are and to make everybody who disagree with them look smaller and stupid by comparison.
Wow, that's a long post... Well, I guess, the short answer for now is "yes, I'd be very happy to see her as VP since she is not running for President". If she does something significant, that's in her control, that changes my mind, I will easily admit that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.