Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Note to Dems. If the message is "don't use force unless you have a plan that will work and that you can explain", then say it more clearly. As an electoral ploy, I think it will resonate with many (see earlier National Guard/Reserve posts).
In fact, as talking points, I think you would resonate well by focusing on:
1.) Don't use force unless its against a dangerous enemy who threatens our peace; and
2.) Don't use force unless you have the plan that will work and that you can explain.
|
Totally agree. That's why I had such high hopes for Clark; I thought with his experience in the Balkans he could find a way to talk straight to the average Joe Twelvepack about how best to structure our military interventions in the new age of our unparallelled dominance. But he hasn't really gotten there yet, at least not that I have seen. He's been a disappointment for me in this regard.
Btw, I'm currently reading David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace, which is a great analysis of the US foreign policy in the 90s. Very interesting stuff about the evolution of the Powell doctrine and the interaction between the military and the civilian foreign policy apparatus as they planned for and executed the US response during the Balkan crises. FYI, the book is very well done and is not as slanted as my usual Frankenesque fare, so I'd recommend it for folks on both sides of the "Clinton is the antiChrist" question.
