Monday, December 04, 2006
Apologies
We're in the final stages of getting the January/February 2007 issue of The National Interest ready for the printers.
I think it will be a good issue. Richard Haass and Kim Holmes--both former Bush Administration officials and now at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Heritage Foundation, respectively, offer their opinions as to what president Bush should be doing in foreign policy for his last two years of office. Dimitri Simes will weigh in with an appeal to "end the crusade"; John Yoo and Roger Delahunty will make the case for the U.S. to move away from always upholding territorial integrity of states as a starting point for policy; Dan Drezner gives us a review essay on "vox populi and foreign policy"; Ian Bremmer makes his case for engagement over isolation as the best way to deal with rogue states; Congressman Saxton worries about our lack of worst-case scenario planning for dealing with Iran and Hizballah. I'm writing from the "top of my head" and so don't want to slight other contributors to this issue--John Voll, Michael O'Hanlon, Dan Benjamin, Brendan Conway and others.
Will be out at the beginning of the year.
I think it will be a good issue. Richard Haass and Kim Holmes--both former Bush Administration officials and now at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Heritage Foundation, respectively, offer their opinions as to what president Bush should be doing in foreign policy for his last two years of office. Dimitri Simes will weigh in with an appeal to "end the crusade"; John Yoo and Roger Delahunty will make the case for the U.S. to move away from always upholding territorial integrity of states as a starting point for policy; Dan Drezner gives us a review essay on "vox populi and foreign policy"; Ian Bremmer makes his case for engagement over isolation as the best way to deal with rogue states; Congressman Saxton worries about our lack of worst-case scenario planning for dealing with Iran and Hizballah. I'm writing from the "top of my head" and so don't want to slight other contributors to this issue--John Voll, Michael O'Hanlon, Dan Benjamin, Brendan Conway and others.
Will be out at the beginning of the year.
Comments:
<< Home
copy editor:
Why do we need to "start thinking very hard about Hezbollah"?
Is it a threat to US? I believe not.
What is in it for us in confronting them?
What is at stake for US (and us) in Lebanon?
The answer is clear to all: Notghing!
Why do we need to "start thinking very hard about Hezbollah"?
Is it a threat to US? I believe not.
What is in it for us in confronting them?
What is at stake for US (and us) in Lebanon?
The answer is clear to all: Notghing!
# posted by 
: 12:56 PM
: 12:56 PM
If anything I'd say we need to get Nasrallah to remain as nationalistic as we can. Keep Israel from launching another stupid war for three square meters of hill.
That kind of stuff, anonymous.
That kind of stuff, anonymous.
Just so there's no confusion, the Saxton beef about Hizballah is that while the US has plans to deal with all sorts of contigencies vis a vis China, we haven't really thought through or projected how we might deal with Hizballah (or Hizballah might deal with us) should we increase pressure on Iran.
# posted by : 4:52 PM
: 4:52 PM
Oh goody, John "Torture Memo" Yoo writing that we don't need to be quite so serious about the territorial integrity of other States. Just what we need to improve our international standing and increase the trust other nations have in us.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 3:52 AM
: 3:52 AM << Home
