Tweet
I can't see why this is so incredible. Litsen.
Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the Washington foreign policy elite are all highly trained academics in the Realist school, or at least have such people working for them. Part of the basic structure of this school is that domestic policy is secondary in ensuring the survival of the state to foreign policy, and that States should only do what is in their self-interest to survive in a competetive IR environment.
Therefore the "saving the Iraqi people" excuse is clearly entirely irrelevant. Also, most foreign-policy analysts would agree that Iraq poses no immediate threat to the US itself. Only long-tern, regional strategic interests are at stake.
The only reason anyone could want to ensure US strategic interests are achieved in the infertile, low-population tactically unimportant appendix that is the middle east is Oil. Certainly every time a major power in the 20th century has made a grab for the middle east it's been about getting to the Oil*, and even if the US doesn't need it they certainly don't want potential future enemies getting to it.
What's strange about that? It makes perfectly clear sense, and sure they're cutting a few corners here and there to make it sound snappier but it's hardly worse than many other euphemisms, from Affirmative Action to Pro-Life.
*Except that one time it was about the Suez canal. Um.
Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the Washington foreign policy elite are all highly trained academics in the Realist school, or at least have such people working for them. Part of the basic structure of this school is that domestic policy is secondary in ensuring the survival of the state to foreign policy, and that States should only do what is in their self-interest to survive in a competetive IR environment.
Therefore the "saving the Iraqi people" excuse is clearly entirely irrelevant. Also, most foreign-policy analysts would agree that Iraq poses no immediate threat to the US itself. Only long-tern, regional strategic interests are at stake.
The only reason anyone could want to ensure US strategic interests are achieved in the infertile, low-population tactically unimportant appendix that is the middle east is Oil. Certainly every time a major power in the 20th century has made a grab for the middle east it's been about getting to the Oil*, and even if the US doesn't need it they certainly don't want potential future enemies getting to it.
What's strange about that? It makes perfectly clear sense, and sure they're cutting a few corners here and there to make it sound snappier but it's hardly worse than many other euphemisms, from Affirmative Action to Pro-Life.
*Except that one time it was about the Suez canal. Um.
Comment