Daniel Larison vents the kind of moral outrage I like in my foreign policy.
After the last decade of unnecessary and disastrous warfare, the idea that U.S. foreign policy needs more “moral fervor” in the form of a greater willingness to plunge into new conflicts, including Syria, is madness. Our foreign policy might benefit from some genuine moral fervor, but moralistic rhetoric in foreign policy debate is always little more than a cover for claiming the right to dictate political outcomes in other countries, to inflict massive damage on other nations with no regard for the costs or consequences, and to rationalize whatever misdeeds and crimes our government happens to commit along the way.
A little less “interventionism”, a lot less attitude.
No surprise, David Brooks also wants a little less “fervor” in his Secretary of State.
I think she’s at many times at the U.N. been quite effective, but she does have more of a political aura than we are used to in our diplomats. And the only thing I would say is, the job of the secretary of state is to go into a room with somebody, have a meeting and get somewhere.
As Mark Shields later quipped, “Susan Rice is partisan as a U.N. diplomat, unlike statesmen like John Bolton, who preceded her there, who was just such a total…[insert your own epithet].
Why can’t we just put McCain and Rice in the same room, and see if they both explode? Maybe, John Kerry can get them to make up, but then he’d muddy the water – would his diplomatic skills be better served in the Senate or around the world? The partisan hijinks this lame-duck Congress, whether it’s fiscal or foreign policy, are fit only to give pundits ample material.