Albright: Good Versus Evil Isn’t a Strategy

Email    Print    Share

Posted on Mar 25, 2006

The former secretary of state writes that the White House’s “penchant for painting its perceived adversaries” with a “sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences” in the Middle East.

L.A. Times Op-Ed:

The 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.

Link

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: adversaries albright evil good invasion iran white house

Related Entries

• 

  Mission Accomplished for Big Oil?

• 

  What Obama’s Nuclear Weapons Conference Missed

• 

  Georgia Wags the Dog

• 

  The Pictures of War You Aren’t Supposed to See

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: America: Iraq on Its Own to Rebuild

Next item: Bound, Blindfolded and Dead: The Face of Atrocity in Baghdad

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By JP, March 26, 2006 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Communism then, terrorism now—what’s the difference? 

Terror vs. Terrorism—what’s the difference?

Report this