On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 06:38:30PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > Why does he need to be a brilliant political strategist, if he can get > one to work for him?
True. Although I wonder how good his strategists are at foreign policy. Do you think the Axis of Evil speech was based on a good foreign policy strategy? I can't see how making general threats to Iraq, North Korea, and Iran all at once was or is likely to accomplish anything good. I think it is clear that threats are completely worthless in the case of Iraq and North Korea, and it hasn't helped in Iran yet (although I can possibly see a better strategist accomplishing something by threatening Iran and concentrating attention there). At best, it could be argued that making a threat against a single regime can be a good strategy if the threat immediately precedes focusing your attention and power on that single regime to force change. But it seems ludicrous to simultaneously threaten 3 countries. Why not go after them one by one, and refrain from tipping your hand to the others thus giving them the chance to prepare for your assault? Bush also has directly or indirectly appointed a number of people who are really poor choices for the job. I'll refrain from listing them, but Marvin sig makes a good start... -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
