As my father used to say, diplomats are very good at marrying rich women and making polite conversation at cocktail parties, but don’t ever expect them actually to do something.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 13th, 2004 |
 2 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I recall the difference between Rumsfeld and Powell leading up to the Iraq conflict. One, is perhaps a take charge sort, and might be a bit too bullish, while the other, as a diplomat, could rationalize away anything into ultimate inaction (Powell has always been seen as a good candidate as a reasonable fellow, all I’ve ever seen him do is talk).
Unfortunately I don’t know if either is fully what one would hope for in leadership, a “shoot first and ask questions later mentality” or a “maybe if we just understood better we’d find a way to resolve the issues” with a few weak threats tossed in that nobody takes too seriously. Unfortunately Bush succeeded in heeding both, not in a pleasant, blended balance, but in a herk-jerky mode of drum beating rhetoric, then asking mother may I to the UN. It created all sorts of issues.
But back on point, all I can recall of the State Department in general leading up the start of the Iraq conflict was their ire at the situation that it was soon to be out of their hands. I didn’t necessarily feel that it was on idealogical grounds per se, just that their day in the sun would be over. They, as diplomats, would not have the ability to do scouting tours, and fact finding missions, and have conferences, and meet with other foreign leaders and have nice luncheons while they chewed over the same cud of the issues of the day, and write and file nice reports in triplicate. When the time comes to fight, they become mostly irrelevant, and all their doings become voided of value. Like most bureaucrats they have a turf to protect, and their function is to NOT do something but find a way to maintain the same old same old. Anything else is failure.
While I can see where you might get that idea, the truth seems to be that the State Department is there to carry the ball as far as they can. When they realize that they can carry it no further, then you get a speech like the one Powell made at the UN where he basically told France to stuff it. Then it is time for Rummy to take over and do his thing. There is a period where there is an overlap, but with people like Powell and Rummy that is doable. Both are actually pretty reasonable men until you get to their gag reflex.