Click for larger image
Good Versus Evil Isn’t A Strategy
by Madeleine AlbrightThe Bush administration’s newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled “The Irony of Iran.” Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase “axis of evil,” the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran — whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.
It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world’s most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration’s penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.
The top leaders in the new Iraq — chosen in elections that George W. Bush called “a magic moment in the history of liberty” — are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex.
The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; hence, last week’s long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq — a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues.
You know. That map pretty much sums things up. Try as I might, I cannot find anything inconsistant, thought it is very simplified. Unfortunately, most kids coming up in our “World Class” schools and colleges are so much more concerned about feelings and diversity that they couldn’t point out particular countries on a map if they tried.
Albright is a bit off base with her “theology”. If you discount Good and Evil, then by what standard do you make desicions? Eventually, you find yourself arguing small points for long periods of time, yet doing nothing, like the Treants of LOTR.
But what do I know, Albright and Clinton did such a good job with Kosovo and North Korea(blatent sarcasm)…
Nukeculer winter here we come!
In short. King George the Worst, The Great Uniter, Emperor of all the Americas, Supreme Ruler of the Middle Eastern Territories, and Leader of the Free World and the Ort Cloud, blew it. His policies are based upon idealoguous ideas that are proving all too uncomfortable to implement.
The problem is that Dubya cannot handle complex concepts. He cannot handle nuance or subtlety. Unfortunately for us the world just ain’t that simple. We need leaders who see all the grey levels and are not fixed on just good or bad. We are way past the point where we can classify people and countries by whether they are wearing “black” or “white” hats. This man’s simplistic and narrow world view has gotten us into enough trouble already. Dubya maybe a good guy to have in your fraternity but he isn’t leader of the free world material.
Albright not an expert on international affairs? A career diplomat, PhD from Columbia, former Sec-State and ambassador the the UN doesn’t rate an opinion? I would like to see your bleeding list of experts.
Christopher–read the original article again. Albright actually understands the situation–good for her! Our allies in Iraq (with the exception of the Kurds) are mostly Shiites, the same as Iran. They are religious allies, and therefore are political allies. Now if she could only get Dubya and his cohorts to understand…
Bush and company only care about keeping power and benefiting their small group of Saudi backed buddies. Anything thing else is window dressing. This gives them way too much credit.
Why complexificate things more than necessary? The map looks accurate.
As if Albright has credibility. She actually made a speech saying that America has to preprare for the day when It’s not the most powerful nation on Earth. Any administration&legislature that allows that to happen shuold be shot for treason. The number one job of all our leader to ensure no one becomes more powerful than America. Better to have the Earth destroyed than have that happen.
Bush is far from perfect but in addition to everything else he could start eating people live on television and he’d still be an immeasurably better President than Kerry or Gore would have been.
Chris – I wouldn’t use Good vs. Evil as a standard for making political decisions. Good and evil are human concepts and can differ depending on what side you’re on. Your definition is likely very different than a terrorist’s (or, in their minds, freedom fighters).
If you don’t use Good and Evil, on what basis do you make decisions? How do you define Right and Wrong? On what basis do you define right? Theologically? Evolutionary? Might? Genetically? Politically?
I’m merely saying that there must be a basis on which to make decisions. Yes, the world is more complicated than Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White. But, Decisions must be made, and you cannot sit around and look at all sides all day long. Nothing would ever get done.
Perhaps we should just build the walls and close the borders. Lock ourselves into our little isolationist world, becuase, obviously, we do things to better ourselves and hurt others all too often. If we can’t get oil, or fruit, or sugar, or steel, or whatever we may need, tough.
You can’t have it both ways, you cannot say the U.S., or Bush, or U.S. Corporations are evil, you complain about policy based on Good and Evil. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
The problem when you oversimplify the world is that you don’t understand it and you make dumb mistakes, like going into a war in Iraq. You cannot look at a complex situation like the middle east in simplistic terms and make a good decision. Dubya is way over his head and we are paying for it.
The biggest problem with many neo-conseratives — including Bush — is that everything is EITHER good or evil, black or white. “you’re either for us or against us, ” etc.
The world is just not that simp
More angry liberals not making sense. Good job guys.
While the map is over simplistic, it does make a point: The world can be broken down into only a few groups: True friends, friends, and enemies.
It’s easier than that. You can classify it as places like the US and places that suck.
What I’d really like to see on that map are more red dots.
Its not that we don’t make sense, its that you are too dumb to understand us.
” True friends, friends, and enemies.”
yo james,
good choice of words — that is how it is supposed to be — good and evil have nothing to do with survival.
but, calling your enemies makes it more conscionable for you to kill them (if not by your own hands, then by your vote)
if you think about the fact that there are millions of people in the middle east who love their children too, you might hesitate when it comes time to pull the trigger.
the shark stays at the top of the food chain by dividing everything into “food” and “not food” and not stopping to ask why.
that’s all
Alex, way to go back to the fifth grade for that comeback. Of course, that was only a year ago for you, right?
Todd, I think the idea of trying to divide everything into good vs. evil is a waste of time. However, the idea that there are a thousand shades of gray is an equal waste of time. There are a finite number of catagories our neighbors around the world fall in to.
You’re right that using a label makes killing, even killing the innocent, easy. I don’t think our government acts without thinking about this, and I think we all understand the end game: If you hit us, we’ll hit you back harder.
Albright had said “we think the price is worth it” when asked about the half million Iraqi children dead from sanctions. She admitted it was a hard choice, but now she just wants to bash Bush all the time. If the Bush team was so black and white, don’t you think they’d have invaded Iran years ago when it was clear they were supporting fighters in Iraq?
I don’t think we’ve bombed Hainan island, southwest of Hong Kong.
Though our reconn plane did an emergency landing there in spring of 2001. Who remembers that “crisis” now?
I think that dot should be 1/2 an inch to the left, over Hanoi.
———————–
How much does the average person need to know about the rest of the world. How much do they actually know. In ANY country?
Consider if we made maps this simple, just as a part of the lesson plan, the average “Jay walking” person might actually remember stuff about the world. (While this may apply to this president, Presidents should be held to a higher standard.)
———————
Invading Iraq was a “Yes” or “No” issue. A simple evil vs. good view, versus all the understanding in the world, would both boil down to a tough decision.
Bush’s real problem is with the execution. Not adapting. Stifling debate. Picking arrogant people who made bad decisions, and then continuing to stand by them.
But good leaders make decisions as much on gut as on careful, lengthy analysis. In the end, (Alex,) you’re just griping because his gut and analysis disagreed with yours.
There is so much hay to be made about the bad execution of the war. As a strategic matter, Democrats should just drop the invasion question, and concentrate on the incompetence. Otherwise, the “morality” of the MoveOn crowd is going to shoot the Demos in the foot, AGAIN.