Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A Dr. Strangelove for the 21st Century (Steve Breyman May 9, 2014)
This focuses on Anne-Marie Slaughter "...first woman Director of Policy Planning at the State Department (2009-2011)..."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/09/a-dr-strangelove-for-the-21st-century
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
On a deeper level, the ‘better off’ question is not the right one, especially for international lawyers. Her flippant attitude—‘regardless of illegitimacy or illegality, let’s wait till the dust settles and the blood dries before passing judgment’—is a common theme in Slaughter’s popular foreign policy analyses. It betrays an unprincipled ruthlessness prized in Washington that explains her rise to and continued prominence. Transparently imperial US international policy, whether in Iraq, Libya or Ukraine, requires dressing up. Slaughter is a leading member of a class of professional apologists: the imperial costumers.
The “real choice” in Libya was between letting Libyans solve their own problems and great power intervention on behalf of domestic elites soon overrun by forces NATO could not control. There was no “illusion of control:” it’s precisely because the West could not control Gaddafi that he had to go (recall Reagan’s bombing of the despot’s desert tents in 1986), Tripoli’s rendition of the Arab Spring provided the opportunity and excuse. Note the absence of similar interventions in Egypt, Bahrain or Tunisia. NATO’s “ability to influence events driven by much larger forces” is today close to zero.
The “real choice” in Libya was between letting Libyans solve their own problems and great power intervention on behalf of domestic elites soon overrun by forces NATO could not control. There was no “illusion of control:” it’s precisely because the West could not control Gaddafi that he had to go (recall Reagan’s bombing of the despot’s desert tents in 1986), Tripoli’s rendition of the Arab Spring provided the opportunity and excuse. Note the absence of similar interventions in Egypt, Bahrain or Tunisia. NATO’s “ability to influence events driven by much larger forces” is today close to zero.
Something to look forward to if Clinton wins a pro-interventionist Democratic Presidency.
and a psuedo-nonapology about backing bush's Iraq invasion.
Re-Roll the Film
On the tenth anniversary of the George W. Bush’s aggression against Iraq, Slaughter was party to one of several loathsome public displays of ersatz contrition (or worse) by pundits and policymakers.
Looking back, it is hard to remember just how convinced many of us were that weapons of mass destruction would be found. . . . I now see the decision to invade Iraq as cynical, tragic, immoral, and irresponsible to the point of folly. I do not think that the thousands of U.S. and allied lives lost were lost in vain: Only time can tell what Iraq will become; how the Iraqi people will look back on the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the ensuing ten years of violence; and what role Iraq will play in the larger Middle East. It is very difficult to imagine any transition from Saddam to post-Saddam without some violence and political upheaval in a nation as fractured religiously and ethnically as Iraq. But in hindsight, the U.S. decision to spend tens of billions of U.S. dollars; to ignore all knowledge, planning, and expertise about Iraq with regard to what should happen when the bullets stopped flying; and to ignore the opposition of many of our closest allies in deciding when and how to take action is virtually indefensible. And I could not in good conscience look an Iraqi widow, parent, or child in the eye and tell them that the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost served a larger purpose, which is a burden that every American who did not actively demonstrate against the war must carry.
In the end, Iraq served as my political coming of age in the way that the Vietnam War was a coming of age for the generation ten to fifteen years ahead of me. Never again will I trust a single government’s interpretation of data when lives are at stake, perhaps especially my own government. And I will not support the international use of force in a war of choice rather than necessity without the approval of some multilateral body, one that includes countries that are directly affected by both the circumstances in the target country and by the planned intervention. If the situation on the ground in a country is not bad enough to mobilize at least some of its neighbors to action, then it should not mobilize far away military powers.
On the tenth anniversary of the George W. Bush’s aggression against Iraq, Slaughter was party to one of several loathsome public displays of ersatz contrition (or worse) by pundits and policymakers.
Looking back, it is hard to remember just how convinced many of us were that weapons of mass destruction would be found. . . . I now see the decision to invade Iraq as cynical, tragic, immoral, and irresponsible to the point of folly. I do not think that the thousands of U.S. and allied lives lost were lost in vain: Only time can tell what Iraq will become; how the Iraqi people will look back on the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the ensuing ten years of violence; and what role Iraq will play in the larger Middle East. It is very difficult to imagine any transition from Saddam to post-Saddam without some violence and political upheaval in a nation as fractured religiously and ethnically as Iraq. But in hindsight, the U.S. decision to spend tens of billions of U.S. dollars; to ignore all knowledge, planning, and expertise about Iraq with regard to what should happen when the bullets stopped flying; and to ignore the opposition of many of our closest allies in deciding when and how to take action is virtually indefensible. And I could not in good conscience look an Iraqi widow, parent, or child in the eye and tell them that the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost served a larger purpose, which is a burden that every American who did not actively demonstrate against the war must carry.
In the end, Iraq served as my political coming of age in the way that the Vietnam War was a coming of age for the generation ten to fifteen years ahead of me. Never again will I trust a single government’s interpretation of data when lives are at stake, perhaps especially my own government. And I will not support the international use of force in a war of choice rather than necessity without the approval of some multilateral body, one that includes countries that are directly affected by both the circumstances in the target country and by the planned intervention. If the situation on the ground in a country is not bad enough to mobilize at least some of its neighbors to action, then it should not mobilize far away military powers.
Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote an article titled "Why Women Still Can't Have it All" appeared in the July/August 2012 issue of The Atlantic. Clinton apparently did not approve. HRC seems to have LBJ's views about loyalty. Slaughter obliged with some epic groveling via email.(“I am really devastated.” “Is she really talking about me? I have been 500 percent supportive and loyal in every possible way I can be? Can I at least talk to her?” she pleaded. “I AM advocating for women!!”)
After leaving State to be closer with her family, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s former director of policy planning at State, penned a highly-read July/August 2012 Atlantic cover story, claiming that “juggling high-level governmental work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible” — and that she left her dream job to help her family. It argued that the workplace still needed to be more supportive of women, and that mothers who can “do it all” — rise to the top of the ladder and be mothers and caretakers — are often either superhuman or wealthy.
Clinton responded to her piece in an Oct. 18 interview published in Marie Claire, expressing what the author called “palpable” disapproval at Slaughter’s article. Clinton said Slaughter’s problems were her own and that “some women are not comfortable working at the pace and intensity you have to work at in these jobs ... Other women don't break a sweat,” according to the story.
The story also suggested that Clinton claimed she has “very little patience for those whose privilege offers them a myriad of choices but who fail to take advantage of them. ‘I can't stand whining,’ she says. ‘I can't stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they're not happy with the choices they've made..... Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don't even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself .... Do something!’”
Clinton's aides, however, disputed that she was claiming that Slaughter was “whining” — and new emails also show Clinton’s spokesman Philippe Reines took the magazine to task for the way it framed the article.
Clinton responded to her piece in an Oct. 18 interview published in Marie Claire, expressing what the author called “palpable” disapproval at Slaughter’s article. Clinton said Slaughter’s problems were her own and that “some women are not comfortable working at the pace and intensity you have to work at in these jobs ... Other women don't break a sweat,” according to the story.
The story also suggested that Clinton claimed she has “very little patience for those whose privilege offers them a myriad of choices but who fail to take advantage of them. ‘I can't stand whining,’ she says. ‘I can't stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they're not happy with the choices they've made..... Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don't even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself .... Do something!’”
Clinton's aides, however, disputed that she was claiming that Slaughter was “whining” — and new emails also show Clinton’s spokesman Philippe Reines took the magazine to task for the way it framed the article.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-emails-slaughter-216285#ixzz480Jocv25
jobs..." Kick.
