“It was one of the most unfortunate weeks of his [Obama’s] presidency,” moaned Nicholas Burns, former State Department official (under George Bush), now at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to intrepid Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and David Nather, referring to that shocking occasion when President Obama actually consulted with Congress before launching an assault on a foreign country. “I think it’s a week the administration would not want to repeat on the question of ISIS” Nick continued. “The president needs to lead.”
By “the president needs to lead,” of course, Nick means “the president should feel free to attack foreign countries willy-nilly without giving a damn about what anyone thinks.”
Actually, I thought that “most unfortunate week” was rather fabulous, a week in which the American people, rather than Acela-land big shots like Nick Burns, actually made U.S. foreign policy, and actually decided that not killing people was better than, you know, killing them.
It is massively depressing that people like Nick continue to represent the conventional wisdom of the U.S. foreign policy elite, that force always works, when our recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya suggest the direct opposite, that it never works. Shockingly, shock and awe has not proven an effective way to win friends and influence people. Instead, it tends to create a social vacuum that serves as a breeding ground for extremists of varying stripes, none of whom prove to be the least bit “grateful” for all that we have done for them. Such is the perversity of human nature, and such also is the perversity of people like Nick Burns, who wish that no one would notice the grievous consequences of their grievous errors.
Afterwords
Burns served under both Bushes and Clinton, leaving when Obama took over. In a brief interview here, he comes off as a “thoughtful” hawk. Regarding Iran, he says “My strong sense is that we need to keep all options on the table. But, we should make a very strong effort to get to the negotiating table with Iran. We have not had a serious discussion with them since 1979. I do not believe war with Iran is inevitable. The next President should exhaust the diplomatic options. If Iran fails to stop its nuclear research, we will then be in a stronger position to argue for substantially stronger economic sanctions.”
What sort of “negotiation” is involved when you announce in advance that the other party must agree to your terms—that, in this case, Iran must stop its nuclear research? And what if we “exhaust the diplomatic options,” ask for “substantially stronger economic sanctions,” and get them, and they don’t work? What other “option” do we have? Oh, yeah, war. But it wasn’t our idea. So Nick Burns isn’t advocating all-out war—at least, not without first adding the base alloy of hypocrisy.
