Foreign policy is as much about grabbing foreign natural resources and markets as it is about national security - or more so.
14
It's interesting that on the anniversary of Kent State and the illegal bombing of Cambodia that pictured here are two of the most notorious War Criminals of our history. I could not read further than the picture.
26
Rather than focus on Trump I remind myself that Obama has little time for the same "elite." The current crop of foreign policy professionals has not exactly covered themselves with glory....
13
The track record for the elite isn't so great. Eisenhower's elite recommended not giving military aid to Afghanistan. That decision was so wrong. What it did was send them straight to Khrushchev, who was happy to build a close relationship with them. Since the military and government were the biggest employers of educated Afghans in the 60s, that decision meant that the entire demographic of educated youth wound up being trained in Marxism. Many were sent to attend college at Moscow State University.
With almost every young educated Afghan turned into some variety of Marxist, the country polarized politically, there was a civil war with the religious south, and the rest we know all too well because that war is still being fought in some form today.
Sometimes in foreign policy, too much education can get in the way of good decision-making. It's not like we control the world. I wonder sometimes if just flipping a coin would guide our policy better.
A coin flip would have given us a 50% chance of avoiding the mess in the Ukraine, for example. And it might have changed everything for Afghanistan if Dulles had called "tails" and the coin came up heads instead.
With almost every young educated Afghan turned into some variety of Marxist, the country polarized politically, there was a civil war with the religious south, and the rest we know all too well because that war is still being fought in some form today.
Sometimes in foreign policy, too much education can get in the way of good decision-making. It's not like we control the world. I wonder sometimes if just flipping a coin would guide our policy better.
A coin flip would have given us a 50% chance of avoiding the mess in the Ukraine, for example. And it might have changed everything for Afghanistan if Dulles had called "tails" and the coin came up heads instead.
12
Trump needs advice from smart people with a world view, not smart people who only have a view of Harvard Square.
I learned my history from the same texts that every other American did and we come out looking like all through the 20th century we rode in on our white horses saving the world. But read a British textbook and you get a different perspective, same for French, German, Italian, Japanese, Saudi, and on and on.
Trump's supporters and Sanders' for that matter should make every elite question their sets of economic and social beliefs. Perhaps it is not okay to have a liberal facade while taking advantage of the masses. Being an elite doesn't make a person morally or ethically superior. Sec of State Dulles' policies were the seeds of our troubles in the middle east and the build up of our mighty military industrial complex he profited from.
Trump needs to come out of his billionaire bubble not get deeper into it. Get away from Sessions and corrupt greedy Christie and not be lured by the Mitch McConnell types to fall in with their side.
Some part of me thinks that if he does become president, our foreign policy problems can't really get much worse can they? I certainly feel that the ball is already rolling towards WWIII. I am not sure anyone can really stop it and Trump is just a symptom not the cause of what is to come.
I learned my history from the same texts that every other American did and we come out looking like all through the 20th century we rode in on our white horses saving the world. But read a British textbook and you get a different perspective, same for French, German, Italian, Japanese, Saudi, and on and on.
Trump's supporters and Sanders' for that matter should make every elite question their sets of economic and social beliefs. Perhaps it is not okay to have a liberal facade while taking advantage of the masses. Being an elite doesn't make a person morally or ethically superior. Sec of State Dulles' policies were the seeds of our troubles in the middle east and the build up of our mighty military industrial complex he profited from.
Trump needs to come out of his billionaire bubble not get deeper into it. Get away from Sessions and corrupt greedy Christie and not be lured by the Mitch McConnell types to fall in with their side.
Some part of me thinks that if he does become president, our foreign policy problems can't really get much worse can they? I certainly feel that the ball is already rolling towards WWIII. I am not sure anyone can really stop it and Trump is just a symptom not the cause of what is to come.
25
Foreign policy is little understood by those without training in it. It's good now that foreign policy training is no longer dominated by the Ivy League - many universities throughout the country now excel in teaching it. But it clearly needs policy guidance from an elected President but don't leave it to the amateurs any more than you'd leave rocket science to amateurs.
5
The "elites" that Thomas lauds in this piece are the people responsible for debacles in Vietnam, Cambodia, Central and South America, Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of these deeply flawed adventures furthered the interests of the 99% or made them safer in the 21st century. Witness Vietnam: 10 years of killing and now it is a trading partner. What a waste of blood and treasure. The central weakness of these "elites" is that they cannot resist using the immense military power this country has amassed. And, every time they do they cost lives, money and sap the strength of a still great nation. Give me a principled man, an honesty man, a man committed for 4 decades to the interests of all the people he serves. Give me Bernie.
22
A writer who considers criminals like John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger to be models has no credibility.
The foreign-policy "elite" is not elite in any meaningful way. It is merely hide-bound, close-minded, stupid, and dangerous.
The foreign-policy "elite" is not elite in any meaningful way. It is merely hide-bound, close-minded, stupid, and dangerous.
26
Trump's disdain for the foreign policy elite is only part of his larger disregard for any opinion other than his own. A man who claims to believe what he reads on the Internet or in the National Enquirer isn't going to have a coherent policy on anything. All he has is a set of mob-pleasing one-liners. That said, and as many posters have pointed out, the foreign policy elite has not been stellar in the last three decades. American foreign policy consists in lofty, inflated rhetoric and a principle-free realpolitik. (Consider the unholy alliance with the Saudis, the holy one with Israel.) I would personally take President Obama's caution against his predecessor's recklessness, but the results have been horrendous in Syria and throughout the ME. But Trump..., we would go from a certain incoherence to utter chaos.
7
Who cares if the Commander in Chief is also the Diplomat in Chief? Who cares about all that foreign stuff?
The essence of knowledge is to know how little you (or any of us) actually know. The vastness of the internet is only a tiny speck of all that could be known.
The absence of this essence leaves one going through life smugly thinking he knows a great deal and seeking others who share his limited vision. Such people do not grasp that one's ignorance always vastly exceeds one's knowledge, and they see the intellectual humility of those who grasp this principle as wishy-washy weakness. So, he will charge through life winning some and bankrupting others, sure that he knows so much more than anyone else he knows, and that this proves he is smart.
Modern research suggests that an expert is someone smart who spends about 10,000 hours learning some area deeply. But never mind that. Politics is reality TV, and anybody and be a huge, really great winner if they say they are loudly enough.
The essence of knowledge is to know how little you (or any of us) actually know. The vastness of the internet is only a tiny speck of all that could be known.
The absence of this essence leaves one going through life smugly thinking he knows a great deal and seeking others who share his limited vision. Such people do not grasp that one's ignorance always vastly exceeds one's knowledge, and they see the intellectual humility of those who grasp this principle as wishy-washy weakness. So, he will charge through life winning some and bankrupting others, sure that he knows so much more than anyone else he knows, and that this proves he is smart.
Modern research suggests that an expert is someone smart who spends about 10,000 hours learning some area deeply. But never mind that. Politics is reality TV, and anybody and be a huge, really great winner if they say they are loudly enough.
2
You know what a success Nixon was, don'tcha?
5
The military industrial complex and the foreign policy elite have gotten us mired down in failed foreign adventures from Vietnam to the current Middle East fiasco. How and why anyone would want to continue current policy is astounding except that it's another Washington turf battle that vacillates between women in combat and bathroom privileges and boots or no boots on the ground.
14
Commentary, the monthly magazine on politics, religion, Israel, literature, the arts, Judaism and social and cultural issues, now a major voice of the neoconservative right, but which was once an important voice of Jewish liberals, has devoted its entire May issue to Donald Trump with articles on what America can expect from him on trade, taxes, health care, Israel, the wall, NATO and Asia.
I read the issue straight through from cover-to-cover last night and would like to recommend it to all Times readers who mistakenly believe that they have already discovered from the Times all the good reasons not to vote for Trump; especially those among you who wouldn’t ordinarily touch a copy of Commentary magazine without first donning a pair of asbestos gloves.
The guys and women at Commentary are smart and know a lot of things that liberals aren’t informed of. I should know because I once was an ignorant liberal and Commentary straightened me out.
I read the issue straight through from cover-to-cover last night and would like to recommend it to all Times readers who mistakenly believe that they have already discovered from the Times all the good reasons not to vote for Trump; especially those among you who wouldn’t ordinarily touch a copy of Commentary magazine without first donning a pair of asbestos gloves.
The guys and women at Commentary are smart and know a lot of things that liberals aren’t informed of. I should know because I once was an ignorant liberal and Commentary straightened me out.
1
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;..."
The evil that men do lives after them;..."
9
Our current foreign policy is let by a Nero like President who golfs while the world burns.
3
The designation of "Elite" is purely based on their status as Puppets -
if they are not puppets then they are either denigrated or in the case of JFK assassinated.
if they are not puppets then they are either denigrated or in the case of JFK assassinated.
3
The author of this op-ed takes the phrase "Come home, America" out of context. George McGovern was anything but an isolationist. McGovern was campaigning against the war in Vietnam as a tragic waste of lives and resources, and that there were serious domestic problems that needed to be addressed. History has proven McGovern correct. Vietnam and the US are now allied economically and militarily, in spite of Vietnam being controlled by the same regime that we fought so hard and sacrificed so much to destroy. When was the last time an American politician raised "Communism" as an issue?
19
First of all, the author should write for "The Onion."
Second - Kissinger?? Seriously, please see Christopher Hitchens' book on that reprehensible war criminal.
Third - we've had decades of smarmy, hyperinterventionist Ivy Leaguers running foreign policy and the economy - how about people from schools where grade inflation doesn't run rampant and where a tiny wealthy minority is heavily over-represented?
Second - Kissinger?? Seriously, please see Christopher Hitchens' book on that reprehensible war criminal.
Third - we've had decades of smarmy, hyperinterventionist Ivy Leaguers running foreign policy and the economy - how about people from schools where grade inflation doesn't run rampant and where a tiny wealthy minority is heavily over-represented?
28
The picture leading into this article tells me a lot about the foreign policy elite. Nixon campaigned on his "secret" plan to end the Vietnam War which Kissinger managed to extend past Nixon's first term....Not a great example! Then we have the CIA and State Department and all those Neocons cheer leading for the Iraq invasion--which is ending up as the worst foreign policy debacle in our history--note the mid-east situation 13 years post invasion. The author attended Phillips Academy, Harvard and UVA law School
8
One could reasonable argue that the failures of all the men you mention in this article outweigh the successes. While it might be cathartic to reminisce about "the good old days", a closer and more unvarnished look might reveal the subtexts for today's global challenges.
5
And all this time I thought Kissinger represented the prop up right wing dictators, cut an illegal deal with the South Vietnamese to prevent a peace deal in 1968, facilitate a coup in Chile, war criminal establishment. Who knew he wS the epitome of the East Coast foreign policy elite.
5
"As even Nixon recognized, since its emergence as a global power in the late 19th century, America has relied on a highly trained corps of diplomats, worldly financiers and academics to steer it straight."
'Steer it straight'? The arrogance of the statement is not only astounding, it isn't true.
'Steer it straight'? The arrogance of the statement is not only astounding, it isn't true.
6
The definition of "elite" could mean:
a super-achiever,
the best of an academic class,
or those representing the highest social class and power
Why does this elite think it is their proper right to gamble and waste the lives of millions throughout the world in the reckless and irresponsible way that that they have been doing? Does "elite" mean the best guardianship? Obviously not. We do need real "elites" of great wisdom & character, but due to this blithe & terrible manner of playing god with the lives of millions, this "elite" betrays its pretense of being the 1st or 2nd type, and reveals itself to be the 3rd type, with an arrogant attitude towards others' lives and an addiction to control and power.
And it is obvious that this elite wishes to enforce a continuity of foreign policy that outlives and extends through Presidents and all political parties.
a super-achiever,
the best of an academic class,
or those representing the highest social class and power
Why does this elite think it is their proper right to gamble and waste the lives of millions throughout the world in the reckless and irresponsible way that that they have been doing? Does "elite" mean the best guardianship? Obviously not. We do need real "elites" of great wisdom & character, but due to this blithe & terrible manner of playing god with the lives of millions, this "elite" betrays its pretense of being the 1st or 2nd type, and reveals itself to be the 3rd type, with an arrogant attitude towards others' lives and an addiction to control and power.
And it is obvious that this elite wishes to enforce a continuity of foreign policy that outlives and extends through Presidents and all political parties.
4
The problem, in fact, is that only people from Harvard and Yale and certain other schools regarded as "elite." There is no diversity of opinion and they seem to be in a somewhat incestuous intellectual bubble. It's not that they are not qualified, but other schools are automatically given short shrift. That's detrimental in the long run.
9
The international community is worried about Trump because up to now they have gotten quite a free ride. We are the largest market in the world after China and yet we act like we have no negotiating power. Our middle class and minorities have suffered terribly while the rest of the world has only improved at our expense. The elite group of college professors in our government will say that is OK and is what should happen. Tell that to our jobless! I am not a Trump supporter but people want change and Hillary better start to bring her A game or Trump may be our next President.
3
"To ignore [sophisticated foreign policy experts] and their counsel is foolish."
Yes, but ignoring facts and wise counsel is now the hallmark of the Republican Party which is motivated exclusively by "Anybody but Hillary." In this sense, Trump is a perfect fit for his latest suit of clothes - the GOP. But I'm warning Republicans, if Trump is elected President, he will switch suits as easily as he switches his rhetoric. President Trump will shake up Washington alright but it won't be Republicans' definition of making America great again.
Yes, but ignoring facts and wise counsel is now the hallmark of the Republican Party which is motivated exclusively by "Anybody but Hillary." In this sense, Trump is a perfect fit for his latest suit of clothes - the GOP. But I'm warning Republicans, if Trump is elected President, he will switch suits as easily as he switches his rhetoric. President Trump will shake up Washington alright but it won't be Republicans' definition of making America great again.
1
I am currently reading Evan Thomas' and Walter Isaacson's "The Wise Men" about the six men who helped guide American foreign policy at the end of WW II and the Truman years (Harriman, Kennan, Acheson, Lovett, John McCloy, Chp Bohlen). The book was written in 1986 but is extremely topical in 2016 because once again America is having to redefine its role in the world with regard to the Greater Middle East, a revanchist Russia, and a rising China.This foreign policy reconfiguration is being done against a backdrop of American public opinion wanting to focus on renovating the American economy. Parallels between then and now and sharp insights leap off almost every page.
But where the Truman administration benefited from the emergence of a consensus shaped by pragmatic internationalists, Eisenhower went with the two Dulles brothers in 1953, who may have had origins in the establishment but became very malign influences on American foreign policy. Allen Dulles got the US into the regime change business, a disastrous legacy, while John Foster Dulles brought evangelical beliefs and black-and-white thinking to foreign policy. Ultimately, the Dulles's legacies were very negative and much like the legacies of today's neoconservatives who they resembled.
The problem with today's foreign policy establishment is that it is riddled with neoconservatives and interventionists and thinkers beholden to Middle East interests. It is often parochial rather than internationalist.
But where the Truman administration benefited from the emergence of a consensus shaped by pragmatic internationalists, Eisenhower went with the two Dulles brothers in 1953, who may have had origins in the establishment but became very malign influences on American foreign policy. Allen Dulles got the US into the regime change business, a disastrous legacy, while John Foster Dulles brought evangelical beliefs and black-and-white thinking to foreign policy. Ultimately, the Dulles's legacies were very negative and much like the legacies of today's neoconservatives who they resembled.
The problem with today's foreign policy establishment is that it is riddled with neoconservatives and interventionists and thinkers beholden to Middle East interests. It is often parochial rather than internationalist.
5
Just like we needed a respected physicist to be involved with the Iran Nuclear Deal, we needed economists at the FED to help the country dig-out from The Great Recession (4Q07-1Q09), and top medical scientists at the Centers for Disease Control. And likewise, we need a group of intellectuals who are well-versed in Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy.
Our capabilities with nuclear weaponry, technological advantages over China, Iran and Russia, and our considerably stronger, and more diverse, reduce the potential for head-to-head warfare between super-powers. But, that also necessitates the need for military strategists to wage, or enable regional allies to carry-out, unconventional--guerilla, insurgent, Jihad--warfare.
However advanced America becomes, we must continually be adapting to: new types of warfare; economic tools; medical advances, or technologies.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Our capabilities with nuclear weaponry, technological advantages over China, Iran and Russia, and our considerably stronger, and more diverse, reduce the potential for head-to-head warfare between super-powers. But, that also necessitates the need for military strategists to wage, or enable regional allies to carry-out, unconventional--guerilla, insurgent, Jihad--warfare.
However advanced America becomes, we must continually be adapting to: new types of warfare; economic tools; medical advances, or technologies.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
The author neglects to remember that "Harvard" Kissinger counseled Nixon deep into Vietnam and completely fails to comprehend that America, today, is hobbled and less powerful, in large part because the counsel of "elites", who are generally a collection of corporate-sponsored non-workers, and children of formerly powerful people, who sit in think tanks and serve the interests of their corporate sponsors. The corporate sponsors want to ship their labor overseas and open up new markets with tanks, if necessary.
At best, they are a collection of ignorant mercantilists who hide behind a vague and often feigned understanding of foreign cultures. I say that as someone who has spent large swaths of my life living overseas. It's easy to spot the charlatans.
At best, they are a collection of ignorant mercantilists who hide behind a vague and often feigned understanding of foreign cultures. I say that as someone who has spent large swaths of my life living overseas. It's easy to spot the charlatans.
33
It's not that we don't need foreign policy (and economic policy and educational policy, etc.) smart men and women, it's the automatic assumption that an Ivy-league education automatically equals expertise or intelligence. The only thing anyone can say with absolute certainly about any Ivy grad is that they could do something to gain admission to to those schools. That's it. Everything else is conjecture. If someone like Bill Gates (albeit a drop out) went to CUNY, would he be considered less intelligent? Probably not. As I've seen and told folks many times: some of the stupidest people I know went to Harvard. No hate, just reality.
27
Foreign policy is easy. Find out what Paul Wolfowitz recommends, and then do the opposite.
9
The Eastern establishment must be very nervous to have this printed even before Trump wins the nomination. The foreign policy apparatus of the USA, created in the aftermath of WWII, did serve an important role in defining the strategy to contain the USSR. The model was based on conventional political and military paradigms but it all went wrong in Southeast Asia because the best and brightest didn't understand how to fight a popular guerilla insurgency. And it hasn't had a very good track record in the middles east over the past 50 years because all that Ivy League education and breeding doesn't mean much when you are strategizing against suicide bombers who don't play the game like you do. If the foreign policy establishment can formulate a plan to stabilize the middle east they might regain their former status but most people have no faith that they can do this. Trump's victory is partly based on this realization by the electorate and they are willing to let him try something different-right or wrong.
1
I'm inclined to add that the lesson of the ineffectiveness of the McNamara stewardship @ DofD was that nation building is a fools errand without the support of the populace. Also, there wasn't enough U.S. blood to prop up these types of govt.
I'm in disagreement with some of your assessments and in agreement with some. Overall, it's inciteful.
I'm in disagreement with some of your assessments and in agreement with some. Overall, it's inciteful.
2
That's another good reason for universal national service, in my opinion. Who knows better the price for diplomatic failure than people who have actually served?
No more following chicken-hawks into war.
No more following chicken-hawks into war.
5
How is it that "elite" has become an epithet when applied to government officials when it is otherwise revered? We worship elite athletes, brag about our elite doctor, deify our elite corporate leaders and venerate elite artists but somehow, being an elite expert in government is an undesirable flaw in which "elite" means "out of touch."
In fact, as this piece points out, it is a phony appeal designed to make candidates seem more like the voters they seek to attract. But Donald 'I Love the Poorly Educated' Trump went to Fordham University and the Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania, not exactly a proletarian pedigree. Ted Cruz (like the reviled Barack Obama) went to Harvard Law School and folksy George W. Bush went to Harvard AND Yale.
The denigration of elites in government is nothing but hollow rhetoric. Unfortunately, that flavor seems to be this season's best seller.
In fact, as this piece points out, it is a phony appeal designed to make candidates seem more like the voters they seek to attract. But Donald 'I Love the Poorly Educated' Trump went to Fordham University and the Wharton School of University of Pennsylvania, not exactly a proletarian pedigree. Ted Cruz (like the reviled Barack Obama) went to Harvard Law School and folksy George W. Bush went to Harvard AND Yale.
The denigration of elites in government is nothing but hollow rhetoric. Unfortunately, that flavor seems to be this season's best seller.
35
My son has a Harvard MBA but that doesn't keep me from agreeing with Nixon. Harvard is responsible for a great many of the failures this country has experienced during my lifetime. The school is good in some areas but it's isolated and always has been from its founding. No, we don't need a "foreign policy elite," we need a government that is truly representative of the nation as a whole. Incidentally, although Henry Kissinger was on the Harvard faculty, he wasn't a typical product of the school. Rather than being from a prominent New England family, he was a German Jew who was initially educated at City College in New York and enrolled at Harvard after a stint in the Army as an intelligence NCO and had experience working with German administrators after Germany's defeat in World War II.
13
"it is Mr. Trump’s anti-establishment stance that most threatens international security"
That is a half truth that misses the most important point. We do need a responsible foreign policy establishment, but we don't have one, and haven't for quite some time.
The American foreign policy establishment since Bush went nuts has been utterly irresponsible, and has threatened international security.
Obama tried to mend that, with only limited success, largely because he did not entirely stand up to the extremists who had taken over the DC power bubble's consensus of what is responsible.
The rest of the world, and now American voters too, have rejected that idea of "responsible" as proven irresponsible.
Now of course it also threatens international security when some fear Trump may go off in unknown directions making no real sense. But that does not mean that they support what has been the American foreign policy establishment either. In fact, most welcomed the parts they could understand of Trump's first foray into explaining himself, precisely because it was NOT the foreign policy establishment that has done so much damage.
The international community waits to see what comes next. They are NOT hoping for more of the same from our Bush-leftover establishment. They're nervous, but it is not in hopes of seeing another Iraq. NOT hoping for an attack on Iran, for example, or for further destruction of Syria by American "boots on the ground" there.
That is a half truth that misses the most important point. We do need a responsible foreign policy establishment, but we don't have one, and haven't for quite some time.
The American foreign policy establishment since Bush went nuts has been utterly irresponsible, and has threatened international security.
Obama tried to mend that, with only limited success, largely because he did not entirely stand up to the extremists who had taken over the DC power bubble's consensus of what is responsible.
The rest of the world, and now American voters too, have rejected that idea of "responsible" as proven irresponsible.
Now of course it also threatens international security when some fear Trump may go off in unknown directions making no real sense. But that does not mean that they support what has been the American foreign policy establishment either. In fact, most welcomed the parts they could understand of Trump's first foray into explaining himself, precisely because it was NOT the foreign policy establishment that has done so much damage.
The international community waits to see what comes next. They are NOT hoping for more of the same from our Bush-leftover establishment. They're nervous, but it is not in hopes of seeing another Iraq. NOT hoping for an attack on Iran, for example, or for further destruction of Syria by American "boots on the ground" there.
11
NO We do not need a policy elite, when that "elite" becomes an echo chamber of "yes" man and women. Especially when that policy elite is wrong and the elite bases their analyses on consensus among others of the elite used to justify their decisions.
NO one ever questions their assumptions. No one has been held accountable for the disaster that is the Middle East. Pollack among many others are STILL making the rounds on the talking head shows and your Newspaper as if they are somehow gifted and deep thinkers.
NO one ever questions their assumptions. No one has been held accountable for the disaster that is the Middle East. Pollack among many others are STILL making the rounds on the talking head shows and your Newspaper as if they are somehow gifted and deep thinkers.
13
Smells like elitist desperation to me. (Again. Thank you Donald Trump!)
"Yet when it came time to pick a national security adviser, he chose Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor who today embodies the East Coast foreign policy establishment."
Who today???
So what??
"He understood that the world was a complicated place..."
But is it? I don't think there's anything complicated about it -- it goes like this: you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. To everyone but the Zionists, and neocons (ahem, policy elites) the truth of this couldn't be more obvious and has been since kindergarten.
Looking at a globe, looking at the world's largest ocean on one side of America, the world's second-largest on the other, one really big, cold country on top -- only someone who wishes to make foreign policy complicated, for his own gain, or the gain of others, whether they be people or countries, would do so. The rest of us: stay out of other peoples' business!!
Let's close those overseas bases. THAT'S what terrifies the policy elites -- not Trump's evil, his threatened common sense.
"Yet when it came time to pick a national security adviser, he chose Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor who today embodies the East Coast foreign policy establishment."
Who today???
So what??
"He understood that the world was a complicated place..."
But is it? I don't think there's anything complicated about it -- it goes like this: you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. To everyone but the Zionists, and neocons (ahem, policy elites) the truth of this couldn't be more obvious and has been since kindergarten.
Looking at a globe, looking at the world's largest ocean on one side of America, the world's second-largest on the other, one really big, cold country on top -- only someone who wishes to make foreign policy complicated, for his own gain, or the gain of others, whether they be people or countries, would do so. The rest of us: stay out of other peoples' business!!
Let's close those overseas bases. THAT'S what terrifies the policy elites -- not Trump's evil, his threatened common sense.
14
Kissinger = good, McGovern = bad? I find this article's paean to American Empire to be ludicrous at best.
22
Exactly, Kissinger helped open up Russia and China - McGovern, like Bernie Sanders was great at giving, light on actual policy, anti government speeches. Neither was a mainstream legislator, neither accomplished much. By the way, for all of the perpetual focus on the 60s political movement, the Republicans won by landslides in 68 and 72.
Call it whatever you want, but a good dose of isolationism sounds pretty good right about now. And while we're at it, maybe - you know - start rolling back the surveillance state apparatus as well. Look how great a job the past two presidents have done with foreign policy and tell me how Trump would be worse.
9
Is this farce? Certainly the article can't be serious to claim that we need more of the people who brought us Vietnam, Laos, Chile, Grenada, Iraq, Lybia, the Contras, and on without end. Why do we need an elite of killing and destroying?
12
" ...Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy stance operates on two levels: America First isolationism in content, slotted within an ardent anti-establishment, anti-expert frame. The two are inextricable ..."
Which, in a nutshell, is the essence of US foreign politics for the past 60 years, regardless of the party or the president that occupied the White House and or the Hill.
So Drumpf in fact is mainstream in at least this area.
Which, in a nutshell, is the essence of US foreign politics for the past 60 years, regardless of the party or the president that occupied the White House and or the Hill.
So Drumpf in fact is mainstream in at least this area.
1
Foreign policy for Donald Trump as president?
Only by choices made to advise him.....choices made by a man who has no clue about foreign policy, Donald Trump. He wouldn't even have Congressional members to depend on, because they don't really like him either. The closest person he might depend on in government, Chris Christie......yikes!
Although John McCain has offered his consulting services. Now that's generous forgiveness, after the nasties Trump muttered last fall about McCain, Vietnam vet, and long time Arizona Senator. Ah, and in the same breath Donald points out how the veterans have been treated harrrrribly. Ummmm.
President Obama hit the nail on the head Saturday night at the correspondents' dinner. Trump's idea of meeting with foreign leaders, per Mr. President?
Trump's lovely get togethers with Miss Sweden and Miss Argentina.
Oh, our Republican "forsaken" Party. What you have created!
Only by choices made to advise him.....choices made by a man who has no clue about foreign policy, Donald Trump. He wouldn't even have Congressional members to depend on, because they don't really like him either. The closest person he might depend on in government, Chris Christie......yikes!
Although John McCain has offered his consulting services. Now that's generous forgiveness, after the nasties Trump muttered last fall about McCain, Vietnam vet, and long time Arizona Senator. Ah, and in the same breath Donald points out how the veterans have been treated harrrrribly. Ummmm.
President Obama hit the nail on the head Saturday night at the correspondents' dinner. Trump's idea of meeting with foreign leaders, per Mr. President?
Trump's lovely get togethers with Miss Sweden and Miss Argentina.
Oh, our Republican "forsaken" Party. What you have created!
2
You forgot to mention Chris Hitchens who campaigned for trying Henry Kissinger for crimes against humanity in International Court.
12
Why We Need a "New" Foreign Policy Elite
[ Because the foreign policy elite we have had have presided over such a self-defeating and ruinous foreign policy for so many for so long. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen...
Deliver us from the foreign policy elite we have had. ]
[ Because the foreign policy elite we have had have presided over such a self-defeating and ruinous foreign policy for so many for so long. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen...
Deliver us from the foreign policy elite we have had. ]
16
Wait. Wait. WAIT!!!!
Isn't Donald Trump the child of the "East Coast Elite?"
Trump is the wealthy son of a wealthy East Coast family.
Trump is a graduate of Penn.
Trump defines preppy in his tennis and golf "outfits."
Trump has the EGO of the East Coast Elite. HE KNOWS BETTER.
Give me a breaaaaaaak! Just maybe the rest of the country will one day wake up to the problem we have with all EAST COAST ELITES. And we may have Donald Trump to thank for placing the wake up call?
Isn't Donald Trump the child of the "East Coast Elite?"
Trump is the wealthy son of a wealthy East Coast family.
Trump is a graduate of Penn.
Trump defines preppy in his tennis and golf "outfits."
Trump has the EGO of the East Coast Elite. HE KNOWS BETTER.
Give me a breaaaaaaak! Just maybe the rest of the country will one day wake up to the problem we have with all EAST COAST ELITES. And we may have Donald Trump to thank for placing the wake up call?
5
Yes, OF COURSE Trumps has it backwards. Only the hallowed NYT elite knows what's best for us. I'm sure he'll do fine.
5
How about Paul Wolfowitz? Dude really knows the ME. ;)
6
From CNN: "Trump's team of foreign policy advisers, led by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, consists of counter-terrorism expert Walid Phares, energy consultant George Papadopoulos, former Defense Department inspector general Joe Schmitz, managing partner of Global Energy Capital Carter Page and former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg."
Now, THERE'S a foreign policy brain trust you can believe in.
Right? Right? Hello! Anyone there?
Nope, guess not.
Oh, America is in a world of hurt if TheDonald is elected President.
Now, THERE'S a foreign policy brain trust you can believe in.
Right? Right? Hello! Anyone there?
Nope, guess not.
Oh, America is in a world of hurt if TheDonald is elected President.
2
I guess there were no pictures of Kissinger with Cheney available? Now THAT would perfectly capture the soul of US foreign policy over the last 50 years.
Truly, a missed opportunity.
Truly, a missed opportunity.
16
And you put Henry Kissinger as the example?
Dear NYT, you really want us all to die. Just remember, if we follow your advises - more psych drugs, Hillary as pres, Henry Kissinger as 'expert adviser', we all die, and your readership will drop even further.
Dear NYT, you really want us all to die. Just remember, if we follow your advises - more psych drugs, Hillary as pres, Henry Kissinger as 'expert adviser', we all die, and your readership will drop even further.
4
Is this a joke?
12
More garbage from this admittedly liberal "news" paper.
Nothing but subtle --or not so subtle--pinning for the Hillary--the woman who helped destroy any remaining stability in the Middle East. If you think things will get better, recall the DEFINITION of INSANITY "doing the same things over again and expecting different results" THIS WOMAN and The Current resident of Pennsylvania Ave. are complete and utter disasters....
Nothing but subtle --or not so subtle--pinning for the Hillary--the woman who helped destroy any remaining stability in the Middle East. If you think things will get better, recall the DEFINITION of INSANITY "doing the same things over again and expecting different results" THIS WOMAN and The Current resident of Pennsylvania Ave. are complete and utter disasters....
8
Sir, Mr Nixon has not been president for forty years, invoke him, and invoke Watergate and the young Ms Clinton, who got fired trying to impeach him, and from impeachment we get to the other Clinton, also associated with impeachment
Hmm per Faulkner, the past is not dead it is not even past
* The US foreign policy for the last 7.5 years has had ONE general purpose , diagnosis of evil Amerikkka, and destruction of Amerikka - as POLICY
aka, US as heir to post colonial malaise and colonial era deviltry
The implementation of this (conspiracy alert) is our election/ glorification of our Manchurian Muslim from Marx-ico, and the entire Red (Marxist),Green (Islamism and ecofascism), and Black (tribalist identity politics, ie racist demonization of The White Other) (Red Green Black, is 1960s colors of African nationalism)
THE major accomplishment, is advance of medieval Islamism
=
'foreign policy elites' says there is a permanent interest, unrelated to democracy, viz 'democracy' gave us the 1930s
Me? I take my chances with We The People, we won a war on that 1776. Democracy had a hard time 1860 when half the country said democracy meant DisUnion ( aka secession)
One magnificent accomplishment of the Trumpacalypse Tsunami is to smoke out, winkle out, from under their rocks, these not so latent Platonic Republicans, Philosopher Kings, benevolent fascist elites, who down-nose sniff at the vulgarians , short fingered or no
So let us refight Vietnam, 1960s nostalgia , ZZzz
Hmm per Faulkner, the past is not dead it is not even past
* The US foreign policy for the last 7.5 years has had ONE general purpose , diagnosis of evil Amerikkka, and destruction of Amerikka - as POLICY
aka, US as heir to post colonial malaise and colonial era deviltry
The implementation of this (conspiracy alert) is our election/ glorification of our Manchurian Muslim from Marx-ico, and the entire Red (Marxist),Green (Islamism and ecofascism), and Black (tribalist identity politics, ie racist demonization of The White Other) (Red Green Black, is 1960s colors of African nationalism)
THE major accomplishment, is advance of medieval Islamism
=
'foreign policy elites' says there is a permanent interest, unrelated to democracy, viz 'democracy' gave us the 1930s
Me? I take my chances with We The People, we won a war on that 1776. Democracy had a hard time 1860 when half the country said democracy meant DisUnion ( aka secession)
One magnificent accomplishment of the Trumpacalypse Tsunami is to smoke out, winkle out, from under their rocks, these not so latent Platonic Republicans, Philosopher Kings, benevolent fascist elites, who down-nose sniff at the vulgarians , short fingered or no
So let us refight Vietnam, 1960s nostalgia , ZZzz
Step outside your ivory tower once in a while.
America tried your way...the elitist way...and realized it benefited only the elitists.
America tried your way...the elitist way...and realized it benefited only the elitists.
7
It only helped those who never will have value. Check the data of those who tried the failed policies brought on by the evil racist Democrats/Socialist Communists.
Nothing better illustrates the failure of U.S. elites than Hillary Clinton's recent speech to AIPAC in which she pledged loyalty to Likud and the utter destruction of Iran. Vietnam, Iraq, the Middle East in flames, a Supreme
Court that gives us plutocracy and diminished voting rights, 800 military bases around the world, the deaths and maiming of thousands of American youth.....Trump, of course, is not the answer either.
Court that gives us plutocracy and diminished voting rights, 800 military bases around the world, the deaths and maiming of thousands of American youth.....Trump, of course, is not the answer either.
16
Like many of his class and era, the revered Henry Stimpson had a WASP's distaste for jews. While not rabidly ant-semitic, this Harvard man did what he could, which was considerable, to prevent Jews from emigrating to the US and Palestine during WWII. He was also opposed to the creation of the state of Israel. Other than that, he was a fine chap.
2
the problem is not the existence of an elite but its membership too many ivory tower dwellers shallow journalists and ignorant humanitarians in the foreign policy elite in the west
in Israel the right to send men to battle is reserved to those with battle scars and medals of valor
if you never stood before death you don't get to send others
in Israel the right to send men to battle is reserved to those with battle scars and medals of valor
if you never stood before death you don't get to send others
38
"Why We Need a Foreign Policy Elite"? We needed elites like Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Cheney and Ms. Clinton so we could splatter body parts of millions of women and children on the walls of Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Iraq and the Middle-east.
5
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Samantha Powers, Ben Rhodes, Sidney Blumenthal, and Susan Rice may be elitists, but they are certainly not elite.
We need a new foreign policy elite. The current ones are frauds and failures.
We need a new foreign policy elite. The current ones are frauds and failures.
2
After reading this, I am so glad that I left my subscription to the NYT Opinion section expire.
4
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but the photo of Nixon and Kissinger together appears in your May 4 edition -- the 46th anniversary of the Kent State shootings.
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio.
10
So the writer is comfortable with giving power to the likes of Dulles and Kissinger? That tells us something about him. Arrogance has no bounds, and look at what happened to Nixon. Is the writer a fan of Cheney, too, I wonder.
8
" ... America has relied on a highly trained corps of diplomats, worldly financiers and academics to steer it straight. Get rid of them, as Mr. Trump seems intent on doing, and chaos will follow." Hahaha. The money train is coming to a stop, boys. I guess reading the writing on the wall wasn't taught at Havard.
3
Perfect - you depict a war criminal whom can't fly out of the country and tricky dick? That's elite all right. An elite group of criminals and thugs using politics and their positions to further their own interests. Elite. Nice.
14
Incredible article. Neo-isolationism, that's a cute label. Because even a thousand military bases everywhere is not enough. Oh, now The New Deal contributed to the great depression. We really just needed to cut tariffs some more says NYT. Hate to break it to you, but the 'East coast elite' supported Hitler to fight socialism all the way up until Poland. Praise for Kissinger, America's greatest war criminal. Okay, now let's go after George McGovern. Why? Because he wanted to end the Vietnam war. *facepalm*
8
This is such a weak article! Like someone trying to explain why s/he is in love with someone and s/he does not know why...
5
Mr. Thomas could have written a better editorial since he wrote a book on Nixon recently. In fact, Kissinger was pandering to both Nixon and Humphrey in 1968, hoping to end up in an important position. When he did, he and Nixon flailed fecklessly to end the Vietnam war from their first days in office, and failed miserably. How clueless and pathetic their efforts were is extensively documented in a fine recent book, "Nixon's Nuclear Specter" by William Burr and Jeffrey P. Kimball.
The myth that Nixon and Kissinger were foreign policy geniuses was swiftly destroyed by the Arab oil embargo, which both men utterly failed to foresee. The embargo resulted in the humiliation of the United States, as millions of Americans were forced to line up at gas pumps month after month in order to get $2 worth of gas.
As for Elliott Richardson, he was that most rare commodity, a sensible, principled, moderate Republican. Teased for being "The Man for All Positions," his career reflects how flailing and fecklessness dominated the Nixon administration. Yes, Nixon made him Secretary of Defense - but that was after he made him Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and before he made him Attorney General - a job from which Richardson resigned when Nixon ordered him to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
If we need a foreign policy elite, there are better examples to cite than the doleful, corrupt Nixon White House.
The myth that Nixon and Kissinger were foreign policy geniuses was swiftly destroyed by the Arab oil embargo, which both men utterly failed to foresee. The embargo resulted in the humiliation of the United States, as millions of Americans were forced to line up at gas pumps month after month in order to get $2 worth of gas.
As for Elliott Richardson, he was that most rare commodity, a sensible, principled, moderate Republican. Teased for being "The Man for All Positions," his career reflects how flailing and fecklessness dominated the Nixon administration. Yes, Nixon made him Secretary of Defense - but that was after he made him Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and before he made him Attorney General - a job from which Richardson resigned when Nixon ordered him to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
If we need a foreign policy elite, there are better examples to cite than the doleful, corrupt Nixon White House.
6
This op-ed mentions that Nixon railed against people from Harvard. So did LBJ. He constantly referred to "the Harvards" and expressed his scorn, even while his administration was peopled with large numbers of hold overs from Kennedy's, a "Harvard man" himself.
Here's the irony: Nixon and Johnson were two of the smartest, insightful political tacticians in America's 20th century. Nixon was the evil genius of American politics in his era and Johnson was the "master of the Senate" and much more. These two men, brilliant in their own ways, were made to feel inferior to people who had elite degrees even though both possessed capacities that no Harvard degree could ensure or confer.
Doug Terry
Here's the irony: Nixon and Johnson were two of the smartest, insightful political tacticians in America's 20th century. Nixon was the evil genius of American politics in his era and Johnson was the "master of the Senate" and much more. These two men, brilliant in their own ways, were made to feel inferior to people who had elite degrees even though both possessed capacities that no Harvard degree could ensure or confer.
Doug Terry
7
One reason that both Nixon and Johnson felt inferior to the "Harvard men" is that through much of the 20th century, at least into the 1970s, the Ivy League schools were essentially taken as the normal path for rich kids. Those who came from wealth were admitted more or less automatically, ushered into the top schools by elite prep schools that made certain, whenever possible, that its students were ready. In some cases, more than 90% of the graduates of these prep schools went on to the Ivy League. Growing up in Pennsylvania, I lived near one, The Hill School of Pottstown, that was known as a "feeder school" for Yale. These practices have broken down somewhat, but somehow the sons and daughters of the wealthy make it into the Ivy League in much higher numbers than other socio-economic groups.
25
Foreign policy establishment shouldn't be guided by political correctness, safe spaces or appointment 'quotas' but, by those most knowledgeable so as to afford all the intangibles we enjoy in the free society.
3
Henry Kissinger in any other country would be a war criminal. In America he is partied the elite. Is it any wonder why we are loathed around the world?
3
Of course we need people who understand the US is not the center of the universe. But Nixon got that one wrong too! He picked a man who by any reasonable measure is a war criminal.
2
Calling George McGovern an isolationist, much less one on par with Robert Taft, is so ludicrous that The Times should be embarrassed to allow any one to publish it in its pages.
During the Kennedy administration, McGovern was director of a major international initiative, Food for Peace. And throughout his career in Congress he was an internationalist.
if Mr. Thomas knew his history or wasn't trying to distort, he'd know that McGovern was trying to bring America home from a Vietnam War that the Nixon administration, including that great foreign policy expert Henry
Kissinger, admitted secretly that they knew had been lost years before but were willing to continue for political reasons.
During the Kennedy administration, McGovern was director of a major international initiative, Food for Peace. And throughout his career in Congress he was an internationalist.
if Mr. Thomas knew his history or wasn't trying to distort, he'd know that McGovern was trying to bring America home from a Vietnam War that the Nixon administration, including that great foreign policy expert Henry
Kissinger, admitted secretly that they knew had been lost years before but were willing to continue for political reasons.
5
The Times has yet to get one thing correct about Trump. We have a failed foreign policy, or no policy in some cases, and it is largely tired to HRC. Donald hasn't started on her yet and when it is all dragged out into the light of day, the polls will start to reflect a desire for a new approach.
You've just witnessed the ultimate version of survivor -- 17 people on an island, only one winner. HRC has no chance.
You've just witnessed the ultimate version of survivor -- 17 people on an island, only one winner. HRC has no chance.
1
Our allies are worried about our potential "isolation", under Trump?
Yeah, worried they're going to have to find another chump to pay the bill.
Yeah, worried they're going to have to find another chump to pay the bill.
3
Spare me the "elite" who brought America rule from Tel Aviv, Cairo, Riyadh, Berlin, London, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Wall Street and the Pentagon.
"Genius" that led to Palestine, Vietnam, 9/11/01, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, the Arab Spring, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Indonesia, Zaire, Brazil, Russia, China and Thailand.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military uniform of any American armed force. America spends more on it's military than the next eight nations combined. Including 8x Russia and 3x China. Along with ten nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle groups, America has 45% of the planets nuclear war heads. Yet we are not saved nor secure nor beloved nor respected. Perhaps diplomacy, commerce and humanitarian aid would provide a much better cost benefit impact by furthering American values followed by fulfillment of American interests.
About a billion human beings have no access to clean fresh drinking water. Another billion persons do not have sanitary storm sewer and garbage disposal. About 800 million humans are malnourished or starving. Along with succumbing to the impact of climate, millions of humans die each year from the effects of infectious and chronic disease. There is no military solution to these problems. But science, empathy and humility plus practicing the Golden Rule is what we need.
"Genius" that led to Palestine, Vietnam, 9/11/01, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, the Arab Spring, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Indonesia, Zaire, Brazil, Russia, China and Thailand.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military uniform of any American armed force. America spends more on it's military than the next eight nations combined. Including 8x Russia and 3x China. Along with ten nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle groups, America has 45% of the planets nuclear war heads. Yet we are not saved nor secure nor beloved nor respected. Perhaps diplomacy, commerce and humanitarian aid would provide a much better cost benefit impact by furthering American values followed by fulfillment of American interests.
About a billion human beings have no access to clean fresh drinking water. Another billion persons do not have sanitary storm sewer and garbage disposal. About 800 million humans are malnourished or starving. Along with succumbing to the impact of climate, millions of humans die each year from the effects of infectious and chronic disease. There is no military solution to these problems. But science, empathy and humility plus practicing the Golden Rule is what we need.
6
Is the foreign policy elite competent? Derek Leebaert, a Georgetown professor, does not think so. He claims: "the American foreign policy establishment is not up to the task of world leadership as posed by the country's far-flung political and military involvements."
He claims that McGeorge Bundy, Kissinger, and Paul Wolfowitz often recommended plunging into situations without adequate research or an exit strategy. Bundy had never been to Vietnam but he pushed for the war. Later reflection indicated that what these "experts" recommended was often doomed to fail. But, they were supremely self-confident.
Leebaert called Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bremmer "masters of mayhem." Cheney promised that "the (Iraqi) people will be so happy with their freedoms (after a US invasion) that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two." This proved to be completely wrong.
Leebaert complains that Americans often don't bother to learn about countries whose histories, cultures and traditions have little in common with their own. None of the architects of the Iraq war spoke Arabic or had lived in the Middle East. Bremmer, who disbanded the Iraqi Army and banned the Ba'ath Party, admitted he knew nothing about Iraq before his arrival in the country. Adam Garfinkle, who worked as a speechwriter for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said in 2007, "No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history."
He claims that McGeorge Bundy, Kissinger, and Paul Wolfowitz often recommended plunging into situations without adequate research or an exit strategy. Bundy had never been to Vietnam but he pushed for the war. Later reflection indicated that what these "experts" recommended was often doomed to fail. But, they were supremely self-confident.
Leebaert called Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bremmer "masters of mayhem." Cheney promised that "the (Iraqi) people will be so happy with their freedoms (after a US invasion) that we'll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two." This proved to be completely wrong.
Leebaert complains that Americans often don't bother to learn about countries whose histories, cultures and traditions have little in common with their own. None of the architects of the Iraq war spoke Arabic or had lived in the Middle East. Bremmer, who disbanded the Iraqi Army and banned the Ba'ath Party, admitted he knew nothing about Iraq before his arrival in the country. Adam Garfinkle, who worked as a speechwriter for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said in 2007, "No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history."
5
The trouble with relying on a foreign policy elite is that it tends to be self-reinforcing and to double down on mistakes, while marginalizing dissenting voices and views. We saw this in the Vietnam episode and then in Iraq. Perhaps foreign policy elites should have their 'batting averages' published as a warning to 'consumers' of their advice. People who thought invading Iraq or bombing Libya were good ideas should be humbled and go back to learn more and think harder before styling themselves as experts again.
5
No one seems to be able to admit that America is simply not ready to accept a Jewish president. (There are many reasons for this that go beyond American politics to the current media demonization of Israel). Bernie Sanders is unelectable, despite his advocating arguably the most forward-thinking and enlightened politics of all the candidates in both parties. A black president, been there, done that; a woman president, coming up; a Jewish president, no chance for now.
This is a weak oped. What is this theory that if the foreign policy establishment would have been heeded, we wouldn't have had to invade Normandy in WWII??? That's a huge stretch, and not terribly serious. Beyond that, I think Mr. Thomas simply does not sell the need for a foreign policy elite well enough. What is that elite's foreign policy thinking with regard to policies like the Iran Nuclear Deal, which has met so much resistance? Our intervention in Libya? The Iraq crisis? The fact that all these interventions later seem to reveal the folly of intervening. I don't know that you can write such an article in 1000 words.
2
I do not see the slightest similarity or relationship between Robert Taft's Fortress America and George McGovern's principled anti-Vietnam war stance.
3
The author's whole name is Evan Welling Thomas III. He went to Phillips Academy and Harvard.
The changing demographics of America must be a constant conversation at cocktail hour on his veranda.
The changing demographics of America must be a constant conversation at cocktail hour on his veranda.
4
Evan Thomas gets to write an advert pushing his employer brand at the top of the New York Times editorial page. In a long winded glossing over he makes the case for Brand to Power. How Trumpish.
1
The author needs to read "The Best and the Brightest," David Halberstam's book about how the national security and foreign policy "elite" got us into the quagmire that was Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger may have gotten us out of Vietnam, but that alone isn't justification for relying upon any elite group for decisions. Didn't someone say war is too important to be left up to the generals? The same applies to foreign policy.
To showcase Kissinger as a expert on global matters is to forget some of his grand errors. Most notably the Bangladesh disaster in US foreign policy. Here we had a genocide going on and yet Nixon and Kissinger in particular, were more in line with supporting the brutal Pakistani military in their suppression of a democratically elected government. If it wasn't for the very singular focus of Indira Gandhi, and the Indian military, we would have yet another debacle in that region. Kissinger should be ashamed of his behavior in retrospect.
2
I'm not opposed to foreign-policy elites in all circumstances. I'm opposed to dumb foreign-policy elites.
6
If anyone lives who is even more narcissistic than Donald Trump, it could Henry Kissinger.
7
Agreed but the bigger difference is in brains which allowed the one to temper his ego.
" America has relied on a highly trained corps of diplomats, worldly financiers and academics to steer it straight. Get rid of them, as Mr. Trump seems intent on doing, and chaos will follow."
The perspective provided by Mr. Thomas has it backwards. What the foreign policy establishment has provided is chaos. I could provide a long list, but to make my point let me point out only the results of the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government, which resulted in the chaos in Iraq, Syria, etc., and the rise of ISIS (would Mr. Thomas deny that the Anglo/American invasion of Iraq led to ISIS?), and the destabilization of Libya, which resulted in a general destabilization in West and Northwest Africa, spreading into Mali and other countries. Wonder why so many people in the world have a negative impression of the U.S.? They recognize the pernicious effects of American meddling around the world in support of profit seeking.
Spreading democracy? The U.S. is just as likely to bring dictatorships to countries when the foreign policy elites think that American economic interests are best served by doing so. No, the elite of which Mr. Thomas writes are more likely to spread chaos than to reign it in.
The perspective provided by Mr. Thomas has it backwards. What the foreign policy establishment has provided is chaos. I could provide a long list, but to make my point let me point out only the results of the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of the Libyan government, which resulted in the chaos in Iraq, Syria, etc., and the rise of ISIS (would Mr. Thomas deny that the Anglo/American invasion of Iraq led to ISIS?), and the destabilization of Libya, which resulted in a general destabilization in West and Northwest Africa, spreading into Mali and other countries. Wonder why so many people in the world have a negative impression of the U.S.? They recognize the pernicious effects of American meddling around the world in support of profit seeking.
Spreading democracy? The U.S. is just as likely to bring dictatorships to countries when the foreign policy elites think that American economic interests are best served by doing so. No, the elite of which Mr. Thomas writes are more likely to spread chaos than to reign it in.
4
What will become of us without "experts" like John Kerry negotiating to let Iran have nuclear weapons in exchange for nothing? Or the free traders who work to gradually merge our economy with that of Mexico and any number of other failed Third World countries? Or the analysts who advised George W. Bush that Iraq, if not the entire Muslim world, was ready for democracy and a quick, cheap military operation was all that was needed to get things going?
If that's what Evan Thomas deems "sophisticated knowledge", I will take crude ignorance any day.
If that's what Evan Thomas deems "sophisticated knowledge", I will take crude ignorance any day.
Trump can pick General Mattis, and the NYT can stop spinning articles to infer Hillary is anything close to "elite" in foreign policy. That would be helpful if the NYT could name a foreign policy success, or explain away her plethora of failures.
Being 100% knowledgeable and 100% wrong does not make one elite, but permanently unqualified. At least the guy that doesn't know everything has a chance to learn, the learned that always makes the wrong decisions is inherently flawed.
Being 100% knowledgeable and 100% wrong does not make one elite, but permanently unqualified. At least the guy that doesn't know everything has a chance to learn, the learned that always makes the wrong decisions is inherently flawed.
3
I wonder if Mr. Trump - whose personal wealth makes him immume to lobbyist influence - will retract financial aid from Isreal, Egypt, NATO, etc.. To date he continues to flip-flop on these issues. His lack of consistency on both domestic and foreign policy has, and will, lead to dangerous confusion and fear through out the entire world.
This so called foreign policy elite pursued terrible policies. John Foster Dulles involved us in a mess in Iran by imposing the Shah on the Iranian people. We live with the terrible results today. Kissinger and Nixon extended the Vietnam war needlessly. It cost more American and Vietnamese lives. The invasion of Cambodia had dire consequences for the Cambodian people. Our support of the Islamists or frankensteins in Afghanistan against Russian occupation still haunts us today. We have made a mess in the Middle East with our invasion of Iraq. This is some "elite." Now we may elect a president who has no knowledge of foreign relations.
4
Henry Kissenger is a monster and a war criminal. If that's the example of foreign policy elite, good riddance.
2
Kind of surprised that Mr. Thomas didn't mention that elitist of the elite, Breckinridge Long, the assistant secretary of state during the FDR administration, who personally defended this country against the horde of Jews who were trying to escape Nazi Germany and gain admission to the U.S. Image the damage they might have done to this country if they had been admitted. Far better they were gassed.
And he might have gone back further to another member of the foreign policy elite, William Seward, who, when the south challenged the north over Fort Sumter, tried to convince Lincoln to go to war against Great Britain or find some other foreign country to challenge in order to prevent the U.S. from breaking up. Lincoln, who had absolutely no foreign policy experience except for his isolationist position of voting against the war with Mexico, wisely ignored Seward's recommendation.
And he might have gone back further to another member of the foreign policy elite, William Seward, who, when the south challenged the north over Fort Sumter, tried to convince Lincoln to go to war against Great Britain or find some other foreign country to challenge in order to prevent the U.S. from breaking up. Lincoln, who had absolutely no foreign policy experience except for his isolationist position of voting against the war with Mexico, wisely ignored Seward's recommendation.
2
Typical Times: "We, the establishment, remain relevant regardless of our lack of connectivity to the ignorant electorate." Let's review some facts:
1. Harvard/East Coast Elites failed miserably on how the US must enable (and pay for) the 'peaceful rise of China'.
2. The same elites got Iraq wrong not once, but twice (thank you Ms. Clinton!), leaving us with an unprecedented mess.
3. Micro-sanctions and photo ops have consistently failed to deter a rampant Russia.
In fact, go back to Obama's widely lauded 2008 Foreign Policy speech and see how much many diplomacy failures these elites have brought us. Time for a change.
1. Harvard/East Coast Elites failed miserably on how the US must enable (and pay for) the 'peaceful rise of China'.
2. The same elites got Iraq wrong not once, but twice (thank you Ms. Clinton!), leaving us with an unprecedented mess.
3. Micro-sanctions and photo ops have consistently failed to deter a rampant Russia.
In fact, go back to Obama's widely lauded 2008 Foreign Policy speech and see how much many diplomacy failures these elites have brought us. Time for a change.
3
Compare the accumulated knowledge and unsullied reputations of Mr. Sanders' advisors to Mrs. Clinton's notorious crew of Henry Kissinger and his ilk. The older, huge numbers of independents and new generation of younger voters who will decide this election, by going Green or going home if their only choice is Mrs. Clinton, loathe Mrs. Clinton's lineup of war-mongering, law-skirting foreign policy elites.
And P.S. Anybody with enough of daddy's money can go to an Ivy League school, from Chinese dictators' daughters to George Bush Jr.
And P.S. Anybody with enough of daddy's money can go to an Ivy League school, from Chinese dictators' daughters to George Bush Jr.
5
Mr. Thomas,
I'm not sure your Kissinger counterexample will go over big in this venue.
Perhaps the direct example of Obama-Clinton eschewing the advice of the foreign policy elite would be more convincingly on point.
Look around. Surely you notice the mess.
According the reports of assorted Secretaries of Defense, Generals and others in the know, the advice of the experts was not heeded by Obama-Clinton.
The two deluded authoritarians and incompetents, blinded by their own imagined brilliance, together with a bunch of backbenchers, conducted foreign policy from the White House and a home-brew server… (Note: Unlike Obama delusion, Clinton delusion is mitigated not only by legacy, but by quid pro quo.)
The results were not pretty: Libya, Syria, Benghazi, "the Russia reset," a second irrational, nuke-proliferating, legacy-driven deal with insane, apocalyptic signatories, (the first being Clinton-Clinton with N. Korea), hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents, incalculable future deaths, the unleashing of ISIS, the destabilization of four continents, the Armageddon the pope, the generals and King Abdullah call WWIII.
And now you, with this op-ed, and the rest of The "Elites" are scheming to put this proven dangerously corrupt and incompetent fool back in the White House.
Are you all mad?
(Insert Einstein's definition of insanity here.)
I'm not sure your Kissinger counterexample will go over big in this venue.
Perhaps the direct example of Obama-Clinton eschewing the advice of the foreign policy elite would be more convincingly on point.
Look around. Surely you notice the mess.
According the reports of assorted Secretaries of Defense, Generals and others in the know, the advice of the experts was not heeded by Obama-Clinton.
The two deluded authoritarians and incompetents, blinded by their own imagined brilliance, together with a bunch of backbenchers, conducted foreign policy from the White House and a home-brew server… (Note: Unlike Obama delusion, Clinton delusion is mitigated not only by legacy, but by quid pro quo.)
The results were not pretty: Libya, Syria, Benghazi, "the Russia reset," a second irrational, nuke-proliferating, legacy-driven deal with insane, apocalyptic signatories, (the first being Clinton-Clinton with N. Korea), hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents, incalculable future deaths, the unleashing of ISIS, the destabilization of four continents, the Armageddon the pope, the generals and King Abdullah call WWIII.
And now you, with this op-ed, and the rest of The "Elites" are scheming to put this proven dangerously corrupt and incompetent fool back in the White House.
Are you all mad?
(Insert Einstein's definition of insanity here.)
5
Huh?
1
Yes, the best and the brightest, in service of their paymasters' interests - which may or may not be America's interest.
8
Mr. Thomas: Are you shilling for Harvard? And why do we have a picture of Nixon and Kissinger, the man who still celebrates Otto von Bismark's birthday? How about a picture of Harry Truman and George C. Marshall, his Secretary of State and primary author of the Marshall Plan? Perhaps you've heard of it?
Smarts doesn't reside in a particular school or geographic region. Read Dorothy Kearnes Goodwin's "Team of Rivals," and learn how a real President (Lincoln) pulled together some of the greatest minds of his day for his cabinet, including political rivals and some who openly despised him. Lincoln wanted strong views, and opposing views, so he would have all sides of an argument to consider, whether pleasant to hear or not.
That's what real Presidents do. They don't say "What did the guy before me do?" Think Trump is up to the task? Lest I sound too partisan, let me say that comparing former Secretaries of State George C. Marshall and Hillary Clinton makes one realize she is scarcely qualified to bring him a cup of coffee. On the one hand, utter selflessness, a lifetime of public service making the critical decisions, always correct, a disdain for the limelight vs. a lifetime of naked ambition and shameless self-promotion: the contrast couldn't be starker.
Smarts doesn't reside in a particular school or geographic region. Read Dorothy Kearnes Goodwin's "Team of Rivals," and learn how a real President (Lincoln) pulled together some of the greatest minds of his day for his cabinet, including political rivals and some who openly despised him. Lincoln wanted strong views, and opposing views, so he would have all sides of an argument to consider, whether pleasant to hear or not.
That's what real Presidents do. They don't say "What did the guy before me do?" Think Trump is up to the task? Lest I sound too partisan, let me say that comparing former Secretaries of State George C. Marshall and Hillary Clinton makes one realize she is scarcely qualified to bring him a cup of coffee. On the one hand, utter selflessness, a lifetime of public service making the critical decisions, always correct, a disdain for the limelight vs. a lifetime of naked ambition and shameless self-promotion: the contrast couldn't be starker.
4
Our foreign policy "elite" are considered war criminals in many parts of the world. They have not served this nation well, and to sweep their disasters under the rug simply sets the country up for more of the same.
5
Bit confused - are you really comparing McGovern to isolationists? There is a difference between being anti-war, anti-violence, anti-imperialist (all stances supported by the foreign policy establishment of his time) as McGovern was and being an isolationist, which all too often lapses into rhetoric that is racist or sneers at our global brothers and sisters who are either in need or willing to stand with us for peace and prosperity.
The central plank of any foreign policy must be an international solidarity movement that does not lapse into either isolationism, nor into the warmongering of the foreign policy elite you here celebrate.
The central plank of any foreign policy must be an international solidarity movement that does not lapse into either isolationism, nor into the warmongering of the foreign policy elite you here celebrate.
10
Unfortunately, because of the enormous influence of the military/industrial complex, these wars, wherever they are fought, have never had a real purpose and are usually without any end game. Vietnam happened under the ruse that a domino affect of communism would befall Southeast Asia, it never happened and for this totally fruitless endeavor, over 50,000 American troops died in the process. Hubert Humphrey was installed as the democratic presidential nominee in 1968 because he was the only candidate whom supported the war. McGovern and Robert Kennedy did not and the result was, as we say, a very sad history.
Iraq was started under the false pretenses of them having WMD and how did that work out and the list goes on. When does it all stop? 900 bases around the world and endless wars. Wake up America, history has shown that empires who continue to think that extending spheres of influence around the world, fighting endless wars and not being successful, ultimately bankrupts the empire and it eventually collapses. Choosing this same set of so-called establishment elite foreign policy advisers will just hasten the process.
Iraq was started under the false pretenses of them having WMD and how did that work out and the list goes on. When does it all stop? 900 bases around the world and endless wars. Wake up America, history has shown that empires who continue to think that extending spheres of influence around the world, fighting endless wars and not being successful, ultimately bankrupts the empire and it eventually collapses. Choosing this same set of so-called establishment elite foreign policy advisers will just hasten the process.
3
While I agree with the overall argument, I cringed a bit when Nixon/Kissinger was used as an example. Together they indeed did great things, but also did horrible things (and not just in Indochina).
2
Cutting right to the chase here, Donald Trump is a stupid man buttressed by his inherited wealth. He keeps no counsel but his own. He fails to understand that the world is neither white not black, not rich nor poor. He is a stranger to nuance. He is steeped in ignorance and indifference. His ignorance of historical movements in Japan or Germany or Latin America in the 20th Century, to cite three recent examples, have no hold on his mind, such as that is, as he searches for sexual gratification. He will worsen America, not burnish its "greatness," by governing in ignorance. Who will side him on the ticket? Sarah Palin?
2
Everything we need to know about the wisdom of this piece is summed up in this sentence: Over the years, voters wisely turned away from naïve beckoning to create “Fortress America,” as Senator Robert Taft advertised in the early 1950s, or to “Come Home, America,” George McGovern’s presidential campaign slogan in 1972.
While the Taft example may be true, the McGovern example is so egregious as to be laughable. Apparently Evan Thomas believes that American voters were wise to put a lying sociopath like Richard Nixon into the White House instead of McGovern, a man of unquestioned integrity and honor.
Thanks for so clearly stating the validity of your ideas, Mr. Thomas. You had me at 'Nixon was a wise voter choice.'
While the Taft example may be true, the McGovern example is so egregious as to be laughable. Apparently Evan Thomas believes that American voters were wise to put a lying sociopath like Richard Nixon into the White House instead of McGovern, a man of unquestioned integrity and honor.
Thanks for so clearly stating the validity of your ideas, Mr. Thomas. You had me at 'Nixon was a wise voter choice.'
5
Mr. Thomas, you say about the power\ brokers of the 60s and 70s, "They expanded trade, deepened alliances and underwrote billions in foreign aid. None of this was cheap, but they understood — as Mr. Trump seems not to — that the global stability bought with such efforts is worth far more." I can't remember a time when there was MORE chaos in the world than now and the cause is PREDATORY, UNREGULATED CAPITALISM RUN AMOK around the world. It is destroying democracy in America, using OUR money, and destroying the lives of average people around the world. These men were no heroes to average Americans.
4
Gentle terminology for reckless and sociopathic behavior. I guess no one is ever truly evil or culpable as long as they are a graduate of the Ivy League.
1
The title of this piece show exactly what's wrong with American governance.
Elites, almost by definition, see everything in the light of their own best interests, not the best interests of the rest of us slobs. The realization of this fact has propelled both Trump and Sanders.
Elites, almost by definition, see everything in the light of their own best interests, not the best interests of the rest of us slobs. The realization of this fact has propelled both Trump and Sanders.
4
Smart people can make dumb decisions. President Obama and Hillary Clinton have great intellectual capability, yet together made one of the all time dumbest foreign policy decisions to overthrow the government in Libya.
2
You're conflating anti-establishment with anti-elite. We absolutely do need a foreign policy elite, but we also need to cast out our current foreign policy establishment because they have failed us so completely over the years. Most importantly the foreign policy elite cannot come from or represent the economic elite of the country, as they will always turn the policies of the nation to their own interests, usually to the detriment of most other Americans as well as everyone else on the planet. Kissinger and Nixon should have shared a cell together.
2
Let's see; where did Mr. Thomas get his education. It looks like Andover and Harvard. Maybe that explains his affection for Harvard grads with passing reference to Yale and of all places, the Century Club in New York. Until 1990, the Century Club refused to admit women, and Henry Kissinger, that "Jewish refugee" would hardly have fit in. And what about Condoleezza Rice who bore the burden of only being educated at the University of Denver and Notre Dame.
Mr. Thomas should lighten his load. With Trump's degree from the University of Pennsylvania it is safe to assume that he, like the rest of the Ivy League pack, he has heard about things like World War II and Viet Nam; I'll bet he's even heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. To dismiss Trump because he doesn't fit into the mold of what was a white, anglo-saxon, male political elite, and to assume that only that elite and its adherents can save the world is absurd.
Mr. Thomas should lighten his load. With Trump's degree from the University of Pennsylvania it is safe to assume that he, like the rest of the Ivy League pack, he has heard about things like World War II and Viet Nam; I'll bet he's even heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. To dismiss Trump because he doesn't fit into the mold of what was a white, anglo-saxon, male political elite, and to assume that only that elite and its adherents can save the world is absurd.
2
If they had a track record worthy of being followed, the so-called foreign policy elites would be necessary. Unfortunately for America - and the world - they do not. In fact, they have been a disaster in almost every respect. America has been greatly weakened by its foreign policy adventurism and a wholly unrealistic idea of America's position, power and relations with the rest of the world.
I would go so far as to say that if there is one area where the devil incarnate, Trump, would score against Clinton it is in the area of foreign policy. He is ignorant and knows it.
I would go so far as to say that if there is one area where the devil incarnate, Trump, would score against Clinton it is in the area of foreign policy. He is ignorant and knows it.
3
I believe that a foreign policy elite is necessary to conduct America's business.
However, when then the elite act like a cabal of rapacious predators and act in the interest in their fellow elitists first and the American People second, the American People have a right to recall and replace them.
The elite govern at the behest of the people. Something that the Times never, ever remembers. Or is that they just don't want to lose access?
However, when then the elite act like a cabal of rapacious predators and act in the interest in their fellow elitists first and the American People second, the American People have a right to recall and replace them.
The elite govern at the behest of the people. Something that the Times never, ever remembers. Or is that they just don't want to lose access?
2
Very unconvincing. I'm sure there are many establishment "elites" who would love to throw democracy out the window and govern with their self proclaimed superior skill and knowledge. Trump and Sanders are both doing well because, across the spectrum, the American people feel betrayed by the elite Establishment. And there is good reason for feeling this way.
5
My first reactions was agreement with this article, my second (after reading the many comments) maybe the Elites are not all knowing and wise. What is known is that the world in very complex with many different Governments and policies, what we require is someone who can listen and compromise.
Thanks NYTimes for opening this discussion.
Thanks NYTimes for opening this discussion.
1
Henry Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam War for years of carpet bombing and invasion of neighboring countries. A million or more Vietnamese died as a result of his policies. He is a war criminal. We lost the Vietnam War as a prelude to losing the Iraq war and the Afganistan war. At least Robert McNamara had enough conscience and shame to admit these crimes in his old age. Read "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam to de-bunk the myth of "A Foreigh Policy Elite."
3
Please, get this straight: "the best and the brightest" was intended as an ironical title, not as a flat statement of fact. David Halberstam used it for his book on the Vietnam war as a way of saying, "How could this be? How could all these smart people mess up so thoroughly?"
The elite foreign policy establishment, those from old money and older colleges, was a creation of the 20th century. The "Ivy League boys" saw foreign policy as their natural milieu and they basically took it over. Wherever you find money and/or power in America, this pattern is repeated, but not quite so thoroughly as in foreign policy.
The bolster their claim, this group of theorists turned thinking and writing about foreign affairs into a kind of imitation of all modern academic disciplines: it must be written about in such a way that it appears to be so complex that ONLY WE can understand what we are saying. They turned out the book size magazine, Foreign Policy, into a thicket of jargon and complexity that only a professor could love.
This is not to say that managing America's affairs around the world is not complex or difficult, but even the highest theories backed by the greatest depth of knowledge often come down to fair simple choices.
The foreign policy establishment has served America very badly. We have gone into disastrous wars and have squandered lives and trillions of dollars. We need smart people, but not people who think they are 100 times smarter than everyone else.
Doug Terry
The elite foreign policy establishment, those from old money and older colleges, was a creation of the 20th century. The "Ivy League boys" saw foreign policy as their natural milieu and they basically took it over. Wherever you find money and/or power in America, this pattern is repeated, but not quite so thoroughly as in foreign policy.
The bolster their claim, this group of theorists turned thinking and writing about foreign affairs into a kind of imitation of all modern academic disciplines: it must be written about in such a way that it appears to be so complex that ONLY WE can understand what we are saying. They turned out the book size magazine, Foreign Policy, into a thicket of jargon and complexity that only a professor could love.
This is not to say that managing America's affairs around the world is not complex or difficult, but even the highest theories backed by the greatest depth of knowledge often come down to fair simple choices.
The foreign policy establishment has served America very badly. We have gone into disastrous wars and have squandered lives and trillions of dollars. We need smart people, but not people who think they are 100 times smarter than everyone else.
Doug Terry
3
Correcting:
"The best and the brightest" was intended as an ironical title, not as a flat statement of fact. David Halberstam used it for his book on the Vietnam war as a way of saying, "How could all these smart people mess up so thoroughly?"
The elite foreign policy establishment, those from old money and older colleges, was a creation of the 20th century. The "Ivy League boys" saw foreign policy as their natural milieu and they basically took it over. Wherever you find money and/or power in America, this pattern is repeated, but not quite so thoroughly as in foreign policy.
To bolster their claim, this group of theorists turned writing about foreign affairs into a kind of imitation of all modern academic disciplines: it must be written about in such a way that it appears to be so complex that ONLY WE can understand what we are saying. They turned the book size magazine, Foreign Policy, into a thicket of jargon and complexity that only a professor could love.
This is not to say that managing America's affairs around the world is not complex or difficult, but even the highest theories backed by the greatest depth of knowledge often come down to basic choices.
The foreign policy establishment has served America very badly. We have gone into disastrous wars and have squandered lives and trillions of dollars. We need smart people, but not people who think they are 100 times smarter than everyone else.
We might need a policy elite, but not the one we have now.
Doug Terry
"The best and the brightest" was intended as an ironical title, not as a flat statement of fact. David Halberstam used it for his book on the Vietnam war as a way of saying, "How could all these smart people mess up so thoroughly?"
The elite foreign policy establishment, those from old money and older colleges, was a creation of the 20th century. The "Ivy League boys" saw foreign policy as their natural milieu and they basically took it over. Wherever you find money and/or power in America, this pattern is repeated, but not quite so thoroughly as in foreign policy.
To bolster their claim, this group of theorists turned writing about foreign affairs into a kind of imitation of all modern academic disciplines: it must be written about in such a way that it appears to be so complex that ONLY WE can understand what we are saying. They turned the book size magazine, Foreign Policy, into a thicket of jargon and complexity that only a professor could love.
This is not to say that managing America's affairs around the world is not complex or difficult, but even the highest theories backed by the greatest depth of knowledge often come down to basic choices.
The foreign policy establishment has served America very badly. We have gone into disastrous wars and have squandered lives and trillions of dollars. We need smart people, but not people who think they are 100 times smarter than everyone else.
We might need a policy elite, but not the one we have now.
Doug Terry
6
The elite are hamstrung by their elite opinions! Secularist can defeat secularist like the Soviet Union. We are in a theocratic war which is different. The East Coast scholars have an inadequate matrix to deal with this new threat.
Second, our great experts found WMD in Iraq, were unable to calm the sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shia in the aftermath of dethroning Hussain, upset dictatorships in the Middle East creating a huge loss of life to the average person who lives in the War zones, gave Iran a pass on nuclear weapons, and generally have destabilized the world in a very negative way.
If Harvard and Yale graduates were getting a grade on Foreign Policy 101, they would either fail or receive a "D." Our men and women in the military are worn out and tired of cleaning up the mess by the "elites" from the East Coast Universities.
I am not a Trump supporter but would find it hard to imagine a worse policy than that of the last 15 years.
Second, our great experts found WMD in Iraq, were unable to calm the sectarian war between the Sunnis and Shia in the aftermath of dethroning Hussain, upset dictatorships in the Middle East creating a huge loss of life to the average person who lives in the War zones, gave Iran a pass on nuclear weapons, and generally have destabilized the world in a very negative way.
If Harvard and Yale graduates were getting a grade on Foreign Policy 101, they would either fail or receive a "D." Our men and women in the military are worn out and tired of cleaning up the mess by the "elites" from the East Coast Universities.
I am not a Trump supporter but would find it hard to imagine a worse policy than that of the last 15 years.
2
What a premise. We NEED these people? I'm no isolationist and that's far from the only choice other than the imperial America that the elites see as a necessary prerequisite for our engagement with the rest of the world. Isolationism is a strawman to distract from having to defend a world order based on military dominance and systematic war crimes.
If anything, the greatest achievement of men like McNamara and Kissinger has been their ability to keep their role as leading war criminals from rebounding on them personally. Instead, they've convinced Americans that embracing the role of world bully is what makes "America Great" in the words of Donald Trump. For all the complaining about Trump's naked ambition, the only significant difference from it and what's been going on since WWII is that he's bold enough to admit it.
McNamara himself admitted that bombing civilians made Gen. Curtis LeMay's staff, on which he served towards the end of WWII, war criminals - even before the atom bombs were used. Kissinger's egregious justifications for bombing and burning Vietnamese killed millions - and half of all Americans who died there after Nixon's election on the basis of his "secret peace plan." That we haven't suffered the war to end all wars - a nuclear war they know no one can "win" - is more a matter of dumb luck than skill.
Having concentrated on world dominance, the only clearcut advantage our nation has is military might - something that's proven rather useless of late.
If anything, the greatest achievement of men like McNamara and Kissinger has been their ability to keep their role as leading war criminals from rebounding on them personally. Instead, they've convinced Americans that embracing the role of world bully is what makes "America Great" in the words of Donald Trump. For all the complaining about Trump's naked ambition, the only significant difference from it and what's been going on since WWII is that he's bold enough to admit it.
McNamara himself admitted that bombing civilians made Gen. Curtis LeMay's staff, on which he served towards the end of WWII, war criminals - even before the atom bombs were used. Kissinger's egregious justifications for bombing and burning Vietnamese killed millions - and half of all Americans who died there after Nixon's election on the basis of his "secret peace plan." That we haven't suffered the war to end all wars - a nuclear war they know no one can "win" - is more a matter of dumb luck than skill.
Having concentrated on world dominance, the only clearcut advantage our nation has is military might - something that's proven rather useless of late.
5
The US foreign policy Ivy League elites have always promoted a US exceptionalism white man's world view. The elite schools educate well but underlying their message to students of do good in the world is also the subtle message of we know what is best for the world. A student leaves these institutions believing that American values are the only correct values. In other words they leave with blinders on and rarely do they fall away.
The Secretaries of State and other diplomatic advisers made some very poor decisions that have lead us to the mess the world is in today. Is WWII the only example available of when American might saved the West. We give ourselves too much credit. Nazi Germany rose out of terrible decisions the German elites made after WWI thinking they could take this nobody Hitler and manipulate him while they secretly built a powerful army.
The Marshall Plan was a brilliant plan after WWII and George Marshall was educated at a Virginia public military college not an Ivy League college.
We do not need more elitism in our diplomatic corp, we need more diversity.
Trump will be a mess and the government is a mess but often out of a mess often scrambles a leader.
The Secretaries of State and other diplomatic advisers made some very poor decisions that have lead us to the mess the world is in today. Is WWII the only example available of when American might saved the West. We give ourselves too much credit. Nazi Germany rose out of terrible decisions the German elites made after WWI thinking they could take this nobody Hitler and manipulate him while they secretly built a powerful army.
The Marshall Plan was a brilliant plan after WWII and George Marshall was educated at a Virginia public military college not an Ivy League college.
We do not need more elitism in our diplomatic corp, we need more diversity.
Trump will be a mess and the government is a mess but often out of a mess often scrambles a leader.
One wonders whether seventy years of reliance on the Council on Foreign Relations - with all its experts who know everything - hasn't proven to be a mistake. All they've done is promote, support, and prop up unpopular leaders whose overthrows have created generations of costly unnecessary blow-back.
3
Arguably the two greatest foreign policy actions of the 20th century were the creations of Texans who never touched the East Coast establishment. Wilson's top advisor, Col.Edward M. House, was the author of the Charter of the League of Nations which became, in large part, the Charter of the United Nations. The Marshall Plan was authored largely by Will Clayton, a Houston, Texas cotton trader. Kissinger's and McNamara's body counts make them evil, not just "far from perfect". One might as well claim that Hitler was far from perfect but that he did bring Germany out of a horrible depression with hyper inflation and put it back on strong economic and military footing.
2
The U.S foreign policy elites gave us the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin, the overthrow of Allende in Chile, the Iran-Contra scandals, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to list just a few of greatest hits of the past half century or so. These are not passing trifles; they cannot be dismissed as small mistakes built on a bedrock of US-provided global security, as Evan Thomas wants to argue. I agree with Thomas that there are many good US academics who have much to say about the US role in the world. However the sharpest critics do not have the ear of the US foreign policy elite. And the intellectuals and global thinkers of Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia -- great minds who channel the voices of the victims of US foreign policy blunders, some who hold or have held positions in leading US universities -- are also systematically ignored and marginalized. No Mr. Thomas. Enough of the Council of Relations foreign policy elite. Enough of Henry Kissinger and his ilk. Let's bring new voices into the foreign policy debate. Not the America First know-nothing, anti- intellectual stance of Trump. But also not the same old, regurgitated foreign policy establishment of yore that is lining up to join the Hillary Clinton administration.
6
Mr Evans took on quite a difficult chore here, and failed. In the post WWII era among those mentioned, Kissinger, McNamara and the Dulles brothers were collectively responsible for some of the worst foreign policy decisions and tactics in our country's history. It is not an exaggeration to say they were also responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Most of the other "heavy weights" were no better. Does the Iraq war ring a bell?
To his credit Pres. Obama, though surrounded by the elites, charted more of his own course. As a result, we have abandoned a decades long failed policy in Cuba, made progress with Iran, killed bin-Laden, and taken a far more rational approach to terrorism and the Middle East in general. (There have been failures, e.g. Libya.) This is the result of sound judgment and a realistic approach to the world's situation and the US role in it.
This is no defense of Trump. His problem is more fundamental and profound. He is unfit for public office, regardless of who his hypothetical advisors might be.
To his credit Pres. Obama, though surrounded by the elites, charted more of his own course. As a result, we have abandoned a decades long failed policy in Cuba, made progress with Iran, killed bin-Laden, and taken a far more rational approach to terrorism and the Middle East in general. (There have been failures, e.g. Libya.) This is the result of sound judgment and a realistic approach to the world's situation and the US role in it.
This is no defense of Trump. His problem is more fundamental and profound. He is unfit for public office, regardless of who his hypothetical advisors might be.
7
This is a clever but deeply anti-democratic argument. In domestic affairs, we have a two-party system in which important issues--health care, taxes, spending, education--are debated, discussed, and fought over, with the public involved. In foreign affairs, an establishment elite holds sway. Elite lawyers, bankers, and academics from Robert Lovett, Dean Acheson, and Paul Nitze to Kissinger, Brezinski, and the Bundys have shuffled between high government posts and universities, think tanks, and law firms as Administrations follow one another. The public has had little say over matters of war, peace, invasions, weapons development. No matter who is president, the policies of the elite--interventionism, alliances with and aid for often nasty dictators, military bases in Europe, the middle east, and Asia--have not wavered in 70 years. American business follows with subsidiary companies and direct investment in many of these countries.
The conduct of American foreign policy has been further insulated from the public by the new tradition of presidents initiating invasions and wars without asking Congress for a declaration of war and by ending conscription in favor of a volunteer, mercenary army.
Donald Trump represents many of the people whose sons and daughters fought, died, and were maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever happens in the election, he has done a valuable service by giving voice to these people.
We must democratize the making of foreign policy.
The conduct of American foreign policy has been further insulated from the public by the new tradition of presidents initiating invasions and wars without asking Congress for a declaration of war and by ending conscription in favor of a volunteer, mercenary army.
Donald Trump represents many of the people whose sons and daughters fought, died, and were maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever happens in the election, he has done a valuable service by giving voice to these people.
We must democratize the making of foreign policy.
1
The author is confused about Trump's attitude toward the foreign policy elite. He has been explicit that he will hire based on talent, drive, and results rather than based on the dusty credentials cherished by senior diplomats and lawyers. Of course this will infuriate the "elites" who have spent their careers burnishing their credentials while accomplishing little of substance, but the nation will be better for it. I'd much rather see an administration pick unknown talent from mid- or early - career foreign service professionals than anoint decrepit, uncreative men only because they considered themselves next in line for a hereditary throne.
1
My problem with our foreign policy "elites" is that they have traditionally had a very limited understanding of economics and business -- and have usually been willing to trade away economic advantage (or absorb economic disadvantage) in order to further some other favored foreign policy goal (anti-communism, Middle East stability, etc.). As an example, we allowed the Japanese and Koreans to have massive trade advantages for decades (including allowed currency manipulation) because we wanted to make sure that they moved away from communism -- and then we did the same with the Chinese. The problem is that the bills eventually become due and the former employees of a destroyed manufacturing base eventually rise-up and vote against all forms of international engagement. The U.S. needs a new foreign policy that -- like that of France or China -- is geared primarily toward achieving the long-term economic needs of the U.S.
1
What is called our foreign policy elite, needs a house cleaning, a purge, a turnover. Lazy thinking, ya' think? They are wedded to the idea that the U.S. needs one big enemy are just debating whether it's Russia or China. The idea that the world consists of many entities acting in their own best interests is too complex for them. Trump is actually ahead of the curve on this one.
Our Russian experts are nothing more than Russian haters. Russian analysts that try to be objective or even think from their point of view, like Stephen Cohen, are dismissed as apologists. Actually, this type of thinking applies to any country that is a traditional adversary or ally. What happened to the British statesman who said that 'there are no perpetual allies or enemies, just interests'?
We do need elites but we need new ones. Our foreign policy establishment is broken.
Our Russian experts are nothing more than Russian haters. Russian analysts that try to be objective or even think from their point of view, like Stephen Cohen, are dismissed as apologists. Actually, this type of thinking applies to any country that is a traditional adversary or ally. What happened to the British statesman who said that 'there are no perpetual allies or enemies, just interests'?
We do need elites but we need new ones. Our foreign policy establishment is broken.
2
I think we need something completely different: community and economic development-oriented people with long-time experience living directly in the communities we relate to internationally with an understanding of how to strengthen and interface with peace-minded people on the ground in other nations. Our State bureaucrats have supported all kinds of foolhardy and wasteful wars and utterly failed at assisting the vital civil society-building that is necessary to find sustainable solutions to problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, South Asia, and Latin America. We need to be developing community peace-building, empowering women, and using our astronomical national wealth to implement a new global Marshall Plan. We need a competent foreign policy elite that actually accomplishes our goals.
If you want to read about people who actually have the tools to meet the challenges of our century, go here:
http://www.emu.edu/cjp/
If you want to read about people who actually have the tools to meet the challenges of our century, go here:
http://www.emu.edu/cjp/
3
Somehow Evan Thomas missed the most odious parts of Henry Kissinger's "service" to the country: the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who had coordinated the Christmas bombing of Cambodia, a war crime unauthorized by Congress or anyone other than Nixon.
And his most infamous quote, after helping to precipitate the coup in which a democratically elected head of state ended up dead: "I don't see why we need to sit by while a country goes communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are too important for the Chilean people to decide." This led to actual legislation making "regime change abroad" an illegal act. That illegality was simply ignored by Junior Bush regarding Saddam Hussein, and by President Obama regarding Qaddafi.
Given our "elites" continuously making a dreadful hash out of the middle east, dating back to Mossadegh in 1953, I'd say that we need less testosterone fueled Ivy Leaguers, and more foreign policy experts willing to use their heads.
Eisenhower (Mossadegh coup) had Secretaries of State drawn from the Council on Foreign Relations, the modern day neocons who thought that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was a swell idea.
I could never vote for Trumplestiltskin, but the idea that Hillary and Kissinger enjoy a mutual respect, that she's an unrepentant warhawk, her mistaken advocacy for the Iraq and Libya disasters notwithstanding, and unsuitably unchastened, terrifies me.
And his most infamous quote, after helping to precipitate the coup in which a democratically elected head of state ended up dead: "I don't see why we need to sit by while a country goes communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are too important for the Chilean people to decide." This led to actual legislation making "regime change abroad" an illegal act. That illegality was simply ignored by Junior Bush regarding Saddam Hussein, and by President Obama regarding Qaddafi.
Given our "elites" continuously making a dreadful hash out of the middle east, dating back to Mossadegh in 1953, I'd say that we need less testosterone fueled Ivy Leaguers, and more foreign policy experts willing to use their heads.
Eisenhower (Mossadegh coup) had Secretaries of State drawn from the Council on Foreign Relations, the modern day neocons who thought that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was a swell idea.
I could never vote for Trumplestiltskin, but the idea that Hillary and Kissinger enjoy a mutual respect, that she's an unrepentant warhawk, her mistaken advocacy for the Iraq and Libya disasters notwithstanding, and unsuitably unchastened, terrifies me.
2
All of the commentators have aptly described the failures of the elite foreign policy intellectuals that have advised Presidents over the last 60 years. Well educate, well informed, deeply involved in whatever crisis they faced daily, they all, nevertheless believed in their ideas or positions so strongly that the real facts "on the ground" were beyond their recognition. And then narcissism took over so many, Kissinger a prime example, blinded them from understanding what ordinary people do and suffer from and want. And, further, paid little to no attention to emerging social and economic conditions, based on a history of European and American imperialism that has transformed into violent rebellion by the very people they could not see and gave credence to. Power and position always corrupts the best of minds. And those are the given limitations of any elite.
2
The myth of American foreign policy would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Basically we took the wrong turn at nearly every step of the way and we continue to. What we are is a blind reactionary force unable to see the obvious or the big picture. And we continue down this dead end street. Electing Hillary who is completely sold on the lets be dumb mindset will likely be a foreign policy disaster.
2
"The Smoot-Hawley tariff contributed to the Great Depression, and the failure of the League of Nations allowed the rise of fascism and global war."
Are either of these statements true? Is this what the elite think? I hope they have more insight than these cliches suggest.
This column makes an interesting point: the military plays an outsized role in formulating US foreign policy.
It also misses an interesting point: the recurring failure of the several US intelligence agencies to identify emerging trends that effect US interests.
Mr. Thomas' elites play major roles in the total foreign policy establishment. There is no getting away from this reality. However, they have failed in these roles often enough raise questions about their competence.
Are either of these statements true? Is this what the elite think? I hope they have more insight than these cliches suggest.
This column makes an interesting point: the military plays an outsized role in formulating US foreign policy.
It also misses an interesting point: the recurring failure of the several US intelligence agencies to identify emerging trends that effect US interests.
Mr. Thomas' elites play major roles in the total foreign policy establishment. There is no getting away from this reality. However, they have failed in these roles often enough raise questions about their competence.
1
There is no problem with the United States having people who are professionally dedicated to foreign policy -- providing negotiation expertise, intelligence, and guidance to policy makers on these incredibly complex issues. However, using Henry Kissinger as an example of a "success" in this area discounts the role of morality and legality in this conversation. His actions as Secretary of State are well documented, and the judgement on the merits is universally bad -- he has rightfully been condemned as a war criminal by anyone who has seriously studied his legacy. I would only add that calling for a professional foreign policy "elite" has, in the past, given a wink and a nod to illegal behavior. Let's leave out the word "elite" and not give a pass to the hard working professionals who dedicate their life in this area to their obligation to work within the framework of American and international law.
2
A scientific or mathematical elite can be recognized by their intellectual accomplishments (theorems proved, discoveries made).
I fear that gaining entry into the "Foreign Policy Elite" is more about conforming to the conventional "wisdom" than any great intellectual achievement.
I fear that gaining entry into the "Foreign Policy Elite" is more about conforming to the conventional "wisdom" than any great intellectual achievement.
2
Seventh paragraph says that Robert McNamara, Walt Rostow and Kenry Kissinger "bear the blame for Vietnam." If I remembe right, Lyndon Johnson was president when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress, and by the time Richard Nixon became president, the U.S. had 500,000- (plus or minus) troops on the ground in Vietnam. Dwight Eisenhower did little or nothing when Dienbienphu was lost by the French to North Vietnam, and John F. Kennedy (another Harvard grad, by the way) sent the first "advisors" to South Vietnam. Henry Kissinger received a Nobel Peace Prize for (failed) efforts to end the war there. Nixon deserves the blame for adding Cambodia to the war.
Incidentally, two of America's first five presidents, namely Adams Pere et Fils, were also Harvard grads --- before the period to which Egan alludes.
Incidentally, two of America's first five presidents, namely Adams Pere et Fils, were also Harvard grads --- before the period to which Egan alludes.
The Eastern establishment has always favored war. Until recently the war economy stimulated wealth...for a few. The rest of us paid the price in the loss of property, loved ones, and self-esteem If members of the Military made it home, they came home changed and damaged.
So we now have 2 heirs apparant to the Presidency . One wants to throw every one out of the USA who doesn't look like him, and build a wall to keep them out, while the other one wants to take the war abroad, disrupting Regimes she doesn't like. She causes her victims to jump into leaky boats, or beg at our borders in the clothes they stand up in, or die. The polls are now saying that the wall-builder will probably win, while the only one who will bring neither of these horrors into our lives, Bernie Sanders, is ignored when he takes the majority of votes in Indiana.
If Bernie gets the Nomination, then all the Independents, who have been locked out of the Primary voting, will bring him to the White House where he will restore peace and prosperity for all. Someone has to put a stop to the destruction of our world! and it won't be Trump or Clinton!
So we now have 2 heirs apparant to the Presidency . One wants to throw every one out of the USA who doesn't look like him, and build a wall to keep them out, while the other one wants to take the war abroad, disrupting Regimes she doesn't like. She causes her victims to jump into leaky boats, or beg at our borders in the clothes they stand up in, or die. The polls are now saying that the wall-builder will probably win, while the only one who will bring neither of these horrors into our lives, Bernie Sanders, is ignored when he takes the majority of votes in Indiana.
If Bernie gets the Nomination, then all the Independents, who have been locked out of the Primary voting, will bring him to the White House where he will restore peace and prosperity for all. Someone has to put a stop to the destruction of our world! and it won't be Trump or Clinton!
1
It never fails to amaze me. What would you think of a man who chose his plumber to do his open-heart surgery, or a seven-year-old Brownie Scout to repair his transmission, or a random stranger to argue his lawsuit, because after all, they're 'outsiders' not tainted by association with the 'establishment'? Yet the cult of the amateur dominates politics, though government - especially foreign policy - is far more complicated and tricky than heart surgery, auto repair, or even law. Far more moving parts, all of which have priorities and quirks of their own. Yet in this one profession, politics, inexperience and a paucity of knowledge are deemed virtues.
The founders were all experienced politicians, and although they abolished titles, in no sense did they expect the 'common man' to take the reins of government. In fact, they put a great deal of effort into keeping the hand of Markham's man firmly on his hoe.
The strongest criticism of the experts is that they're always fighting the last war. The lessons learned from an experience may not be transferable. e.g., The Domino Theory was valid in the run-up to WW II and the postwar expansion of Stalin's USSR, but wasn't applicable to the special circumstances of Vietnam. A voice from outside the echo chamber is needed to challenge the experts' certainty, but it shouldn't outweigh experience.
The founders were all experienced politicians, and although they abolished titles, in no sense did they expect the 'common man' to take the reins of government. In fact, they put a great deal of effort into keeping the hand of Markham's man firmly on his hoe.
The strongest criticism of the experts is that they're always fighting the last war. The lessons learned from an experience may not be transferable. e.g., The Domino Theory was valid in the run-up to WW II and the postwar expansion of Stalin's USSR, but wasn't applicable to the special circumstances of Vietnam. A voice from outside the echo chamber is needed to challenge the experts' certainty, but it shouldn't outweigh experience.
1
I am probably a dummy in the area of international political and power dynamics. I assume this, because I have to ask if the world is really this complicated that it needs malignant wizards like Kissinger to fine-tune it -- or if it may be their malignancies that have complicated it in the first place. Isolation versus abstruse megalomania? While Trump is, psychologically speaking, an actual empty suit -- the narcissistic veneer over a blindly angry core -- I have to wonder if his simple-minded idea of regression from the world stage may be best.
Negotiation is the "how" of diplomacy, and commenters here seem rather reluctant to acknowledge Mr. Trump's whole-hearted, career-defining zeal for the deal. Foreign policy can be construed as negotiations that lessen conflict, and conflicts around the globe seem to stem from groups of people who feel they are getting a bad deal (of course they manage to get good deals on weapons). The "what" of negotiation is the bigger concern: What is American self-interest? Is it simply advancing the fortunes of American corporations via war or threat? What does it mean to advance the interests of the American people? We have surely learned over the past century that wars tend to expropriate billions of dollars from citizens and funnel them to a few foul industries. American foreign policy looks to have made the vast majority of us poorer and more poorly regarded by our foreign friends. Mrs. Clinton seems to have no clue as to the distinction between American citizens and American corporations, and of course is beholden to the latter. Mr. Trump is not equally co-opted, nor proven clueless about what the American citizenry--not corporate interests--actually desires. He has the "how" down, now he has the chance to deliver the "what" to the American people. If you find him a little vulgar in his means, just compare that to the vulgarity of the wars created by our very polite elites.
3
"They bear the blame for Vietnam and the 50,000 American soldiers who died there, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese."
A number like 50,000 and mention of "millions of Vietnamese" deaths does no justice to the young Americans that died and the interruption of a people's revolution in Vietnam.
This is the problem with foreign policy experts and elites. War, security, economic development, and growth is all a numbers game. The people that got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the least disturbed and impacted by the costs of war. They sit on their boards, make life or death decisions behind their desks, and were educated by the "greatest thinkers" in foreign policy, while in practice finding the best ways to avoid following international law.
I don't like The Donald, but his lack of substance in foreign policy doesn't absolve the crimes committed by our so called foreign policy elites.
A number like 50,000 and mention of "millions of Vietnamese" deaths does no justice to the young Americans that died and the interruption of a people's revolution in Vietnam.
This is the problem with foreign policy experts and elites. War, security, economic development, and growth is all a numbers game. The people that got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the least disturbed and impacted by the costs of war. They sit on their boards, make life or death decisions behind their desks, and were educated by the "greatest thinkers" in foreign policy, while in practice finding the best ways to avoid following international law.
I don't like The Donald, but his lack of substance in foreign policy doesn't absolve the crimes committed by our so called foreign policy elites.
1
While ignoring "many men and women with a sophisticated knowledge of the world" is foolish just what havs been accomplished when following their advice?
They, unlike their forbears, have been brought into the elite fold of our established and entrenched leadership in order to convince those who have been, are and will continue to be exploited, to exercise a bit more patience. This is done for one reason alone which is to maintain a long established pecking order.
We have been run by a con that would warm any old school grifter's heart.
There is no appreciable difference between either major political party and while this is clear as well washed glass to some of us, it remains a mystery to most who cast votes in our "democracy".
How much longer can the ball be kept in the air?
They, unlike their forbears, have been brought into the elite fold of our established and entrenched leadership in order to convince those who have been, are and will continue to be exploited, to exercise a bit more patience. This is done for one reason alone which is to maintain a long established pecking order.
We have been run by a con that would warm any old school grifter's heart.
There is no appreciable difference between either major political party and while this is clear as well washed glass to some of us, it remains a mystery to most who cast votes in our "democracy".
How much longer can the ball be kept in the air?
2
We live in a complex world. To preserve our American way of life, our leadership must avoid the twin temptations of global empire or isolationist withdrawal. Without question, doing this well requires a “sophisticated knowledge of the world.” There is no better example of the talent required to do this than George Kennan, American diplomat, political scientist, historian and Princeton University graduate. The U.S prevailed in the Cold War by applying Kennan’s policy prescriptions.
Without question, the country needs a foreign policy “elite” populated with more people like George Kennan.
Without question, the country needs a foreign policy “elite” populated with more people like George Kennan.
23
I agree that we could use more people like Kennan who have unparalleled knowledge of their foreign policy subject area. However, Kennan did not agree that we won the Cold War by applying his policy prescriptions. He felt his ideas on containment had been misinterpreted and overly militarized. He suggested the Cold War might have ended sooner if his ideas had been given more close attention. I think this serves to strengthen your overall point that complex foreign policy problems require serious, informed thought.
George F. Kennan may be the single brightest foreign policy thinker in American history, certainly in modern American history. What is even more extraordinary than his insights is that there was a bipartisan political consensus formed around those ideas during the Cold War period. Along with the Berlin Wall, one thing that fell after the Cold War was that foreign policy consensus.
Mr. Thomas's piece is not so much a warning about Trump the neophyte but another attempt to rehabilitate Kissinger and McNamara for Vietnam, et al, and implicitly, their ideological successors in the George W. Bush administration who adopted the same robust "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy in Iraq.
What's most objectionable is "we know better" paternalism that Thomas espouses. That if America reverted to a more isolationist stance there'd be another Hitler or Depression. It is far too simplistic to claim that Hitler and WW2 happened because the US did not belong to the League. Also Smoot Hawley was enacted after the crash, and may have exacerbated the Depression but did not cause it.
Finally, there is what Thomas implies, but never overtly mentions: this article is an implicit endorsement of that darling of the Establishment, Hillary Clinton. Every paragraph describes a situation where the country or a leader turned away from Establishment norms and that situation either cried out for or was saved by an Establishment figure. In setting up Trump as anti-Establishment (and all the horrors that implies), Thomas subtlety leads us to ask, "who will be our savior now?". And of course the answer is Hillary.
What's most objectionable is "we know better" paternalism that Thomas espouses. That if America reverted to a more isolationist stance there'd be another Hitler or Depression. It is far too simplistic to claim that Hitler and WW2 happened because the US did not belong to the League. Also Smoot Hawley was enacted after the crash, and may have exacerbated the Depression but did not cause it.
Finally, there is what Thomas implies, but never overtly mentions: this article is an implicit endorsement of that darling of the Establishment, Hillary Clinton. Every paragraph describes a situation where the country or a leader turned away from Establishment norms and that situation either cried out for or was saved by an Establishment figure. In setting up Trump as anti-Establishment (and all the horrors that implies), Thomas subtlety leads us to ask, "who will be our savior now?". And of course the answer is Hillary.
47
what isn the purpose of an Ambassador other than as a political patronage reward? It appears to require no foreign policy knowledge or expertise. is the ambassador just the official 'face' of the US? Is that why ambassadors are considered expendable?
3
Most ambassadors are career foreign service officers. Political appointees usually go to low maintenance posts in Europe and other stable countries.
4
I wouldn't call today's GOP anti-establishment, for they are quite established. Anti-intelligent is the word I would use instead.
13
Trump says he will beat the world into submission and, like the Masked Buffoon at a WWF 'fight', he gets cheers.
But foreign policy is a real fight. The competitors are really smart, really tough, and have real interests. Diplomacy is the art of foreign policy. No one gets 'beat' into submission... but they do get beat. And there are no bystanders. If America loses, we all lose.
But Trump might make a good Jester !!! He says things that have a smidgen of truth, and we get a moment of levity !! But Jesters don't make good Kings. He now needs to be ushered back stage... There's real work to be done.
But foreign policy is a real fight. The competitors are really smart, really tough, and have real interests. Diplomacy is the art of foreign policy. No one gets 'beat' into submission... but they do get beat. And there are no bystanders. If America loses, we all lose.
But Trump might make a good Jester !!! He says things that have a smidgen of truth, and we get a moment of levity !! But Jesters don't make good Kings. He now needs to be ushered back stage... There's real work to be done.
4
We need to stop giving out ambassadorships as rewards for supporting the winning candidate. We also need to understand that we spend very little money on foreign aid and probably could spend a bit more. Since this country is part of the global scene it is in our best interests to have someone in the White House who understands how diplomacy works and doesn't work. Trump's approach on his campaign, build a wall, bomb them all, and other gems, will not endear us to the global community. Electing Trump for president will be the start for a failure in diplomacy. While running for the highest office in America, Trump is unable to refrain from saying the most adolescent things about his opponents. Do we really want that sort of person in charge of anything?
Clinton has the background in diplomacy that will help America. She was Secretary of State for 4 years. There were no major scandals. The email issue is not a real issue: it's hot air until proved otherwise. In my opinion Clinton did learn and grow in that position. I'd rather see Clinton with all her experience (First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State) as president even if she's made some mistakes. I worry more about a GOP president appointing sycophants rather than qualified people to important posts in foreign policy and for the country.
Clinton has the background in diplomacy that will help America. She was Secretary of State for 4 years. There were no major scandals. The email issue is not a real issue: it's hot air until proved otherwise. In my opinion Clinton did learn and grow in that position. I'd rather see Clinton with all her experience (First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State) as president even if she's made some mistakes. I worry more about a GOP president appointing sycophants rather than qualified people to important posts in foreign policy and for the country.
5
America has had many fine diplomats; Henry Kissinger was not one of them.
His highlights are reported and his lowlights are ignored.
As Bernie Sanders said in February to Hillary Clinton about her buddy Henry Kissinger: “I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.”
Kissinger also helped plan the 1973 CIA-led coup in Chile that led to the assassination of democratically elected president Salvador Allende.
Allende was was replaced by the notorious dictator, Augusto Pinochet, whose government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000.
Combine the Kissinger debacles with the 1953 American/British/corporate coup d'état and overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh and the 2003 Bush-Cheney-Halliburton overthrow of Iraq to complete the criminal history of modern American foreign 'diplomacy'.
This country's foreign policy is a demonstrated psychopath.
It needs deep, intensive psychotherapy.
His highlights are reported and his lowlights are ignored.
As Bernie Sanders said in February to Hillary Clinton about her buddy Henry Kissinger: “I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.”
Kissinger also helped plan the 1973 CIA-led coup in Chile that led to the assassination of democratically elected president Salvador Allende.
Allende was was replaced by the notorious dictator, Augusto Pinochet, whose government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000.
Combine the Kissinger debacles with the 1953 American/British/corporate coup d'état and overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh and the 2003 Bush-Cheney-Halliburton overthrow of Iraq to complete the criminal history of modern American foreign 'diplomacy'.
This country's foreign policy is a demonstrated psychopath.
It needs deep, intensive psychotherapy.
197
When I see HK on the talk shows, even PBS, as some sort of expert or sage on foreign policy, I feel almost physically ill. He is the poster child for everything that went wrong in his time, and that we have failed to learn from as time has gone by. What I find so interesting is the myth that harvard is the IT school and thus its scions are the IT leaders. We have got to have a wider range of people leading this country-- it is big, with intellects from every region, probably excluding the confederate states. Let's include that great mix of people. We have very little to show for our FP since the Kissinger years.
3
Are we safe ? Are we reasonably well off ? Did we play a major role in the defeat of Hitler ? Did we win the Cold War ? Are we strong, successful a leading nation ?
So easy to criticize.... but we're an Empire. And in the annals of History, we would rank as a pretty fair, pretty reasonable one.
Responsibilities carry with them the necessity of decision making. From the cheap seats we can criticize bad swing of the bat, but that doesn't make us better than the real players.
Context !!! From the Dulles brothers to Kissinger to Kerry, America's batting average is pretty darned good.
Only fools and haters expect perfection... the real 'Socrates', not the glib pretender, would certainly know that....
So easy to criticize.... but we're an Empire. And in the annals of History, we would rank as a pretty fair, pretty reasonable one.
Responsibilities carry with them the necessity of decision making. From the cheap seats we can criticize bad swing of the bat, but that doesn't make us better than the real players.
Context !!! From the Dulles brothers to Kissinger to Kerry, America's batting average is pretty darned good.
Only fools and haters expect perfection... the real 'Socrates', not the glib pretender, would certainly know that....
2
You could not be more correct! I still don't know why Kissinger hasn't been indicted by the World Court for war crimes.
4
Conservative intellectuals remain unimpressed with Trump's campaign success despite his continued dominance. As influential policy advisers and strategic thinkers doubt whether he realistically can beat Hillary Clinton, they will not openly rally behind him, fearing it would hurt their image. Just like the Founding Fathers, who, being members of an elite of the rich, well-born, educated and talented, were wary of the evils resulting from an overbearing majority, today's intelligentsia despises the "Trumpen Proletariat" for the same reason.
Trump lacks a progressive worldview and enjoys support among people, who hate the establishment. They vote for him because they think Trump would bring changes and help them face challenges. They don'ot care that he is a polarising figure, who, with no political experience, has never held elected office.
A Trump presidency will be a disaster. How can he make America great again if he doesn't take it to the 21st century. The world is worried, what a unilateralist like him would do in a mulatipolar world.
Trump lacks a progressive worldview and enjoys support among people, who hate the establishment. They vote for him because they think Trump would bring changes and help them face challenges. They don'ot care that he is a polarising figure, who, with no political experience, has never held elected office.
A Trump presidency will be a disaster. How can he make America great again if he doesn't take it to the 21st century. The world is worried, what a unilateralist like him would do in a mulatipolar world.
7
"Conservative intellectuals remain unimpressed with Trump's campaign success despite his continued dominance."
Conservative intellectuals feel the same way about Republican voters. Unfortunately, they've betrayed Republican voters so many times in so many egregious ways that they've FINALLY lost the confidence of the people who used to vote for them. They've become a leadership cadre with no constituency. :-/
Conservative intellectuals feel the same way about Republican voters. Unfortunately, they've betrayed Republican voters so many times in so many egregious ways that they've FINALLY lost the confidence of the people who used to vote for them. They've become a leadership cadre with no constituency. :-/
Our foreign policy "elite" have managed to, in the last 50 years:
- Embroil us in Vietnam, getting thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed for no good reason.
- Attack Cambodia, which helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power and get millions of Cambodians killed.
- Stage numerous coups in South America, replacing fledgling democracies with brutal dictatorships and military juntas. Consequences of that include but are not limited to the Falklands War, the FARC rebellion in Columbia, the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the murder of nuns in El Salvador.
- Also stage numerous coups in Africa, leading to such wonderful characters as Idi Amin and Muammar Qaddaffi.
- Fund and train the muhajadeen fighters in Afghanistan including Osama bin Laden.
- Replace the Iranian democracy with the Shah, which is why in 1979 the theocracy was able to take power. It's no wonder they still hate us for that.
- Arm Saddam Hussein so they could fight those same Iranians, and arm the Iranians so they could fight Saddam Hussein.
- The Afghanistan War, which accomplished little except getting Unocal that pipeline they've always wanted.
- The Iraq War, leading to nice guys like ISIS.
With that kind of record for our foreign policy "elite", I think it might be worth trying letting someone else be in charge for a change.
- Embroil us in Vietnam, getting thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese killed for no good reason.
- Attack Cambodia, which helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power and get millions of Cambodians killed.
- Stage numerous coups in South America, replacing fledgling democracies with brutal dictatorships and military juntas. Consequences of that include but are not limited to the Falklands War, the FARC rebellion in Columbia, the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the murder of nuns in El Salvador.
- Also stage numerous coups in Africa, leading to such wonderful characters as Idi Amin and Muammar Qaddaffi.
- Fund and train the muhajadeen fighters in Afghanistan including Osama bin Laden.
- Replace the Iranian democracy with the Shah, which is why in 1979 the theocracy was able to take power. It's no wonder they still hate us for that.
- Arm Saddam Hussein so they could fight those same Iranians, and arm the Iranians so they could fight Saddam Hussein.
- The Afghanistan War, which accomplished little except getting Unocal that pipeline they've always wanted.
- The Iraq War, leading to nice guys like ISIS.
With that kind of record for our foreign policy "elite", I think it might be worth trying letting someone else be in charge for a change.
208
You forgot the best parts:
Offshored US manufacturing base to the third world.
Signed trade agreements that are clearly disadvantageous to US workers.
These policy elites can do much more damage with their super intelligence than just start wars. Anyone can start wars, that's for recent graduates.
Offshored US manufacturing base to the third world.
Signed trade agreements that are clearly disadvantageous to US workers.
These policy elites can do much more damage with their super intelligence than just start wars. Anyone can start wars, that's for recent graduates.
2
The elite foreign policy establishment, those from old money and older colleges, was a creation of the 20th century. The "Ivy League boys" saw foreign policy as their natural milieu and they basically took it over. Wherever you find money and/or power in America, this pattern is repeated, but not quite so thoroughly as in foreign policy.
To bolster their claim, this group of theorists turned thinking and writing about foreign affairs into a kind of imitation of all modern academic disciplines: it must be written about in such a way that it appears to be so complex that ONLY WE can understand what we are saying. They turned out the book size magazine, Foreign Policy, into a thicket of jargon and complexity that only a professor could love.
This is not to say that managing America's affairs around the world is not complex or difficult, but even the highest theories backed by the greatest depth of knowledge often come down to fairly simple choices.
As you indicate, the foreign policy establishment has served America very badly. We have gone into disastrous wars and have squandered lives and trillions of dollars. We need smart people, but not people who think they are 100 times smarter than everyone else.
The establishment essentially used what was perceived to be their brain power and superior educations to push aside other views and, repeatedly, take us into disaster. Theoretical thinking should must be balanced with the core values we hold dear as a nation.
Doug Terry
2
Foreign policy mistakes are easy to see. Foreign policy successes less so. We still have a country, rather than a nuclear wasteland. That's a foreign policy success. Europe is, for the most part, free of governments imposed by the presence of foreign troops. That's a foreign policy success. The extent to which we have fair free trade agreements with other nations is a foreign policy success.
Donald Trump might be qualified to be president...of a small mostly white country that nobody else depends on. Not THIS country. And most of the countries that fit the bill wouldn't have him.
Trump's dictum is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's. Instead of "speak softly and carry a big stick", Trump is all about shout, bully and bluster and then fold. That may work for 6 - 12 months, while ticking everyone off. It won't work for even one presidential term. This is the exact reason that Putin likes Trump. He knows a pushover when he sees one.
Donald Trump might be qualified to be president...of a small mostly white country that nobody else depends on. Not THIS country. And most of the countries that fit the bill wouldn't have him.
Trump's dictum is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's. Instead of "speak softly and carry a big stick", Trump is all about shout, bully and bluster and then fold. That may work for 6 - 12 months, while ticking everyone off. It won't work for even one presidential term. This is the exact reason that Putin likes Trump. He knows a pushover when he sees one.
1
The difference between Nixon and Donald Trump is that RN had a pretty sharp mind for foreign policy but still recognized the need for expert assistance. Trump's positions are practically incoherent, some of the most grossly wrong-headed counterproductive tripe ever propounded by any major party candidate. As a Republican, Barack Obama's policy preferences have frequently horrified me, yet I fear Trump's will be far worse, highly likely to cast us still further into a downward spiraling into global chaos and squandering a century of bipartisan achievements and goodwill for nothing other than ego and pique. And the thing to remember is that when Trump is pushing these foolish policies, he touts himself as his biggest foreign policy advisor. RN knew what he was doing but accepted expert advice - Trump does not know what he is doing yet doesn't see the need for such help.
Another difference between the two is that RN was able to draw to himself some pretty top flight talent while already many in the foreign policy and security establishment are making it clear they would not work for Trump, The advisors Trump has announced are either relative unknowns or known wackos, neither of which bodes well. Nor does it speak well for his assurance that he will "hire the best people."
Another difference between the two is that RN was able to draw to himself some pretty top flight talent while already many in the foreign policy and security establishment are making it clear they would not work for Trump, The advisors Trump has announced are either relative unknowns or known wackos, neither of which bodes well. Nor does it speak well for his assurance that he will "hire the best people."
9
And RN did although even though he was as crazy as a bed bug..
I applaud the author for his rousing defense of classmates and peers.
127
"I applaud the author for his rousing defense of classmates and peers."
I suppose you would prefer a grunt man to negotiate with heads of state. Someone whose attention to school was limited to football teams. Don't know nothing about history or science books, eh?
At the very least, can't we have people in government who know how to behave -- and to refrain from the sort of language and gestures they use on reality-TV shows?
I suppose you would prefer a grunt man to negotiate with heads of state. Someone whose attention to school was limited to football teams. Don't know nothing about history or science books, eh?
At the very least, can't we have people in government who know how to behave -- and to refrain from the sort of language and gestures they use on reality-TV shows?
1
As always, "the Best and the Brightest" among us dumb unwashed. We should be grateful.
Harvard is not the mark of capability or intelligence.
Evidence:
George W Bush (first & worst appointed President), Ted Cruz (tyrant wannabe), Henry Kissinger (War Criminal), Steve Ballmer (laughed at the iPhone), Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt (moving GE to China one business line at a time), Rick Wagoner (Bankrupted GM), Antonin Scalia (worst Supreme Court Justice in modern times), Robert McNamara (second worst Secretary of Defense ever), Larry Summers (poster boy for screw up and move up), Tom Cotton (Senator from Koch Industries), Willard "Mitt" Romney (corporate destroyer for profit), John Yoo (enabler of torture, war criminal). There are plenty more.
We could use a little less Harvard, actually a lot less.
Evidence:
George W Bush (first & worst appointed President), Ted Cruz (tyrant wannabe), Henry Kissinger (War Criminal), Steve Ballmer (laughed at the iPhone), Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt (moving GE to China one business line at a time), Rick Wagoner (Bankrupted GM), Antonin Scalia (worst Supreme Court Justice in modern times), Robert McNamara (second worst Secretary of Defense ever), Larry Summers (poster boy for screw up and move up), Tom Cotton (Senator from Koch Industries), Willard "Mitt" Romney (corporate destroyer for profit), John Yoo (enabler of torture, war criminal). There are plenty more.
We could use a little less Harvard, actually a lot less.
295
George W Bush was Yale, not Harvard.
5
And replace them with Southwest State U? Thanks, but I'd still rather keep the Harvard than these barely literate kids.
Summers, for whatever his fault, is still one of the most brilliant economist (and the most brilliant I've met, because I've never met the others).
Summers, for whatever his fault, is still one of the most brilliant economist (and the most brilliant I've met, because I've never met the others).
1
Still one of the Eastern Elites.
The headline photograph of Nixon and Kissinger - probably not the best argument for the need for a foreign policy elite.
107
So to understand international relations you need to have gone to Harvard? I get it. Bomb Libya and take out the dictator and you'll see enlightened men take the helm.
It doesn't take a Yale or Harvard degree to see that trade between nations promotes peace. Statism and alliances between statist countries really hasn't been shown to prevent war. In fact, it makes it more likely.
It doesn't take a Yale or Harvard degree to see that trade between nations promotes peace. Statism and alliances between statist countries really hasn't been shown to prevent war. In fact, it makes it more likely.
25
Yes, we need a foreign policy elite--and elites in a whole variety of areas of governance. Truman relied on George Kennan's analysis of the USSR and unleashed the Cold War. Ike stumbled when he blocked the agreed plebiscite in Vietnam. McNamara brought his statistical analysis from FoMoCo to the bombing of Vietnam, and we see where that got us. The simple and obvious point is that we need our presidents to be intelligent, experienced, and knowledgeable. And even then, there is a learning curve because the world changes rapidly now.
Iraq was treated as a simple exercise in regime change, with benefits for America and Israel. The Arab Spring turned on us and left us with too many "rebel" groups to reliably predict outcomes. Only the simple minded now think ISIS is a problem with a military solution. Naïfs blundered into Benghazi and were killed, unleashing a political feeding frenzy that hasn't yet ended. (Trey Goudy lurks with a partisan "report" arising out of the longest, nastiest Congressional hearing in history.)
A Clinton presidency would face problems and make mistakes: to err is human. But no matter how many elites a buffoon may have as advisers, he remains a buffoon.
Iraq was treated as a simple exercise in regime change, with benefits for America and Israel. The Arab Spring turned on us and left us with too many "rebel" groups to reliably predict outcomes. Only the simple minded now think ISIS is a problem with a military solution. Naïfs blundered into Benghazi and were killed, unleashing a political feeding frenzy that hasn't yet ended. (Trey Goudy lurks with a partisan "report" arising out of the longest, nastiest Congressional hearing in history.)
A Clinton presidency would face problems and make mistakes: to err is human. But no matter how many elites a buffoon may have as advisers, he remains a buffoon.
21
The question that Mr. Thomas fails to answer is whether the US still has a foreign policy elite.
Many foreign policy experts are nowadays employed by "think tanks" funded by interest groups. In his Goldberg interview Obama even called some of them "Arab occupied territory".
US foreign policy is also increasingly dominated by neocons - mostly former Trotskyites who haven't given up their love of causing trouble.
For all his flaws the general idea of Kissinger's foreign policy was clear: fighting the Cold War with all means available. But there is no idea behind turning Libya and Syria into Jihadi bastions. It is just trouble making because you can. It is that vacuum of ideas that gives Trump his opening.
Many foreign policy experts are nowadays employed by "think tanks" funded by interest groups. In his Goldberg interview Obama even called some of them "Arab occupied territory".
US foreign policy is also increasingly dominated by neocons - mostly former Trotskyites who haven't given up their love of causing trouble.
For all his flaws the general idea of Kissinger's foreign policy was clear: fighting the Cold War with all means available. But there is no idea behind turning Libya and Syria into Jihadi bastions. It is just trouble making because you can. It is that vacuum of ideas that gives Trump his opening.
6
Evan Thomas offers a "fear mongering" opinion. He doesn't get that Americans don't want to fight any more senseless wars. There are plenty of "experts" who feel the same way.
47
If the past 16 years are an example of elite advice foreign policy, the answer is " no thanks". These elite policies have yielded disaster after disaster and we just don't need anymore advice from faux intellectuals.
66
"they also strengthened a world order"
No one illustrated this better ever than David Levine in "The Nation". The combination "Levine, Kissinger, the nation, cartoon" in a search engine, please.
No one illustrated this better ever than David Levine in "The Nation". The combination "Levine, Kissinger, the nation, cartoon" in a search engine, please.
3
Really, I don't understand why anyone would think that those who got us into this mess will be the ones that will get us out of this mess. Can someone explain that theory? By the way, I blame the Viet Nam war on the communists.
11
Very insightful remark regarding Viet Nam and the Communists. A little more background investigation next time please.
1
Wow. I didn't think I'd live to see the day that Henry Kissinger is rehabilitated in the NYT. Henry Kissinger who was the driving force for illegal bombing and excursions into Cambodia during the Viet Nam war. The man most responsible for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot and the resulting killing fields. Now he's just a Harvard professor; a Jewish refugee; "far from perfect" but "strengthened a world order balanced precariously on the edge of nuclear war".
A SoS hawk who never saw a war he wouldn't fight now embodies the mindset that would have stopped Hitler "before Nazi Germany became unstoppable" and maybe "American soldiers might not have needed to fight their way onto the Continent". Or maybe an increased US presence in Europe in the 30's would have lead to a single (Western) front war with no decisive victory for 10 years, just a constant line of US coffins. A WWI redux with heavier casualties due to "improved" weaponry.
I'm sure the rehabilitation of Kissinger has nothing to do with the fact that he is the stated mentor of the NY Time's candidate, and the Kissingers and the Clintons vacation every year together. Surely this column is all about Trump and the rest is just coincidence.
04:50 EST (0 comments)
A SoS hawk who never saw a war he wouldn't fight now embodies the mindset that would have stopped Hitler "before Nazi Germany became unstoppable" and maybe "American soldiers might not have needed to fight their way onto the Continent". Or maybe an increased US presence in Europe in the 30's would have lead to a single (Western) front war with no decisive victory for 10 years, just a constant line of US coffins. A WWI redux with heavier casualties due to "improved" weaponry.
I'm sure the rehabilitation of Kissinger has nothing to do with the fact that he is the stated mentor of the NY Time's candidate, and the Kissingers and the Clintons vacation every year together. Surely this column is all about Trump and the rest is just coincidence.
04:50 EST (0 comments)
168
True, and Kissinger is appalling. But don't forget to heap discredit upon him for helping facilitate the Chilean coup that endd up with the killing of a democratically elected president there.
At the time, Kissinger saw fit to say "I don't see why we need to sit back and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are too important for the Chilean people to decide." A little more wordy, but similarly appalling as Hillary Clinton's crowing about the deposing and killling of Qaddafi in Libya: "We came, we saw, he died."
Does Secretary Clinton understand that under her unacceptable rationale, that it would be possible for a foreign power to assassinate her (or any other American President) on the grounds of " regime change?"
And Clinton and Kissinger have expressed mutual admiration.
Harvard and Yale: the Vampire Squids of the Foreign Policy Elite. Thanks, Evan, but no thanks.
At the time, Kissinger saw fit to say "I don't see why we need to sit back and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are too important for the Chilean people to decide." A little more wordy, but similarly appalling as Hillary Clinton's crowing about the deposing and killling of Qaddafi in Libya: "We came, we saw, he died."
Does Secretary Clinton understand that under her unacceptable rationale, that it would be possible for a foreign power to assassinate her (or any other American President) on the grounds of " regime change?"
And Clinton and Kissinger have expressed mutual admiration.
Harvard and Yale: the Vampire Squids of the Foreign Policy Elite. Thanks, Evan, but no thanks.
3
Lets not forget that he leaked (absolute treason) the details of the truce in 1967 between Hanoi and the US to the puppet in Saigon who then killed any possibility of peace. Thereby extending the war until 1975, I dont know the figure of the dead form the additional years but it does not matter to Kissinger or his apologists who now deify him as some elder sage statesman.
2
Kissinger may be a war criminal but he's our war criminal. Just like all the architects throughout American History. The casting of who is responsible for war crimes lies in the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, in the eye of the victor.
I can assure you if Nazi Germany won it would be Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman who were put on trial. We lost Vietnam but there was no one who would dare put the US on trial. The same applies to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal who instigated a war in Iraq under false pretenses. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
US Foreign Policy has no direct equation or parallel with American democracy. Our Foreign Policy has one criteria only. Is it good for America? Whether it is legal or not is not the concern of its policymakers. To think otherwise is naivete in spades by you or any other American who thinks in simplistic definitions of good and evil. Foreign policy does not take these or other ethical suppositions into the equation. It is a cold calculating and brutal game.
I can assure you if Nazi Germany won it would be Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman who were put on trial. We lost Vietnam but there was no one who would dare put the US on trial. The same applies to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal who instigated a war in Iraq under false pretenses. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
US Foreign Policy has no direct equation or parallel with American democracy. Our Foreign Policy has one criteria only. Is it good for America? Whether it is legal or not is not the concern of its policymakers. To think otherwise is naivete in spades by you or any other American who thinks in simplistic definitions of good and evil. Foreign policy does not take these or other ethical suppositions into the equation. It is a cold calculating and brutal game.
I'm not voting for Trump, but frankly almost no matter who he chooses (should he be president), they couldn't possibly be worse than the "best and the brightest" who gave us the two absolute worst foreign policy decisions since WW2: Vietnam and Iraq. The so-called "experts" have failed. Maybe it is time for some "non-experts".
158
The experts haven't failed to give good advice. They have just been ignored and outflanked by Corporate America who now control both Democrats and Republicans.
The idea that Dr. Henry Kissinger was a foreign policy expert and a diplomat would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Kissinger was an ivory tower thinker trying to implement unproven and untested ideas and was a total, miserable failure at everything he touched, perhaps with the exception of opening up China (which has as a result replaced the USA as the manufacturer to the world). Like George W. Bush and the catastrophic neo-cons he brought into power, Kissinger cost countless thousands their lives and freedom. Dr. K made about as much sense as having an aroma therapist as your primary physician.
But just as you would not send a group of UFC fighters where you need to send Army Rangers or Navy SEALs, you don't send scholars where you need trained and experienced diplomats. Instead of firing the Joe Wilsons of the world, we need to be deploying them. April Glaspie got the blame for Iraq invading Kuwait but she was only properly following instructions from Bush I and Howard Baker, both politicians, not career diplomats.
Perhaps Mr. Thomas needs to re-define what a "Foreign Policy Elite" means.
But just as you would not send a group of UFC fighters where you need to send Army Rangers or Navy SEALs, you don't send scholars where you need trained and experienced diplomats. Instead of firing the Joe Wilsons of the world, we need to be deploying them. April Glaspie got the blame for Iraq invading Kuwait but she was only properly following instructions from Bush I and Howard Baker, both politicians, not career diplomats.
Perhaps Mr. Thomas needs to re-define what a "Foreign Policy Elite" means.
131
Mr Kissinger belongs in front of the International Criminal Court for numerous crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity. It's a travesty of justice that he remains a free man.
42
Joe Wilson was fired from government? That's a new twist to the fabricated tale.
America's "foreign policy elite" are controlled by corporate interests. They no longer work on policies to protect & support U.S. citizens. Instead, they work to promote corporations which financially benefit from military campaigns & trade deals by gutting labor, environmental & financial laws.
85
"America's "foreign policy elite" are controlled by corporate interests. They no longer work on policies to protect & support U.S. citizens."
And never really did: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. " - Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, 2-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, describing what found himself really fighting for in an article written in 1935
And never really did: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. " - Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, 2-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, describing what found himself really fighting for in an article written in 1935
23
Kissinger is nearly singlehandedly responsible for the installation of several dictatorships around the word and consequently the growth of anti-American sentiment. He has the blood of thousands of people on his hands. It is shameful to invoke his name as a historical bright spot in contrast to Trump.
104
And now we are likely to install in the Oval Office Hillary Clinton whose foreign policy idol is Kissinger.
Mr. Thomas is trying to make a point with half-truths. Richard Nixon did select two qualified members of his cabinet and then proceeded to make them irrelevant. "...William Rogers, a Wall Street lawyer, as secretary of state and Elliot Richardson, a Boston Brahmin, as secretary of defense." Nixon hated both men and refused to even acknowledge their existence. He relied almost solely on those "yes - men" who never questioned his motives or curtailed his tirades. He and Kissingers fought continuously but Nixon had to follow someone as he was so completely our of control that he had no choice.
2
The neo-cons have been attacking the state department for the last thirty years.
Our diplomacy belief system needs an overhaul.
Both parties corrupt and decaying in the in the sunshine of a new leader should get a decent burial and a new day begun.
Partisans from both sides should be swept aside for the common good.
Lets meet in the middle, zealots need not apply.
Our diplomacy belief system needs an overhaul.
Both parties corrupt and decaying in the in the sunshine of a new leader should get a decent burial and a new day begun.
Partisans from both sides should be swept aside for the common good.
Lets meet in the middle, zealots need not apply.
8
Good to learn that while the U.S. killed millions of Vietnameses and promoted unspeakably dirty wars against civilian populations in Latin America, Indonesia, East Timor and Southern Africa, at least such policies were the product of men with "sophisticated knowledge of the world".
The victims would doubtless have rejoiced, if only they had known their killers had Harvard degrees.
The victims would doubtless have rejoiced, if only they had known their killers had Harvard degrees.
103
I have no problem with a foreign policy elite. All I expect is that this elite group of people send their sons and daughters to fight their wars- not mine.
Will they? Of course not. They will never send their children to die in their wars. That honor belongs to the common people.
Instead of looking at global security our elites should be looking solely at our security. They have failed us perennially and wasted the lives of our loved ones.
Will they? Of course not. They will never send their children to die in their wars. That honor belongs to the common people.
Instead of looking at global security our elites should be looking solely at our security. They have failed us perennially and wasted the lives of our loved ones.
51
"They bear the blame for Vietnam and the 50,000 American soldiers who died there, not to mention the millions of Vietnam"
- It is shocking that this piece treats such suffering as a minor mistake by the "great men". I agree that we need intelligent and wise persons to guide foreign affairs. I would never put Kissinger or McNamara in that category.
- It is shocking that this piece treats such suffering as a minor mistake by the "great men". I agree that we need intelligent and wise persons to guide foreign affairs. I would never put Kissinger or McNamara in that category.
64
We might very well need a foreign policy elite, but not the one we have at the moment. They have made far too many mistakes, and done too much grievous harm to the world to be allowed to continue in power. President Obama has been right to eschew its advice when he has, and has regretted his missteps when he hasn't. The outlook of our F.P. elite is militaristic and imperialistic. It has put us on a permanent war footing at the service of a few corporations that rape and pillage other countries' resources, inviting violent blowback. To call it terrorism is a misnomer. To people in most of the third world, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Oceania, the terrorists are us.
A foreign policy elite, maybe. The sort of crew we've had in place since 1945? Most definitely NOT.
A foreign policy elite, maybe. The sort of crew we've had in place since 1945? Most definitely NOT.
39
The reference to Senator McGovern's phrase "Come Home America" has been completely misconstrued by you in your editorial. Senator McGovern was a Ph. D in history, a leader in American internationalism, and combined his interest in farmers with a desire to help feed people in the third world. He volunteered and fought with distinction in the Air Force against the Germans World War II. McGovern was an internationalist who supported the UN and his criticism of American policy in Vietnam was an effort to prevent the death of the 50,000 dead Americans and millions of Vietnamese that you reference.
The phrase " Come Home America" was a reference to American values as much as a reference to our involvement in a civil war that we intervened in despite our promise not to use force or the threat of force to undermine the unification of Vietnam after national elections based on the 1954 Geneva accords.
I can only surmise that your reference was an attempt to appear non- partisan and look for a Democratic example of an anti-intellectual simplistic foreign policy. Perhaps your research on Nixon has given you some basis to criticize McGovern's foreign policy approach. If so, I would like to hear it. I do not think opposition to our policy in Vietnam, Food for Peace , or his opposition to American complicity in the over- throw and murder of Allende constitute an example of an earlier variant of Trump's pseudo- nationalism.
The phrase " Come Home America" was a reference to American values as much as a reference to our involvement in a civil war that we intervened in despite our promise not to use force or the threat of force to undermine the unification of Vietnam after national elections based on the 1954 Geneva accords.
I can only surmise that your reference was an attempt to appear non- partisan and look for a Democratic example of an anti-intellectual simplistic foreign policy. Perhaps your research on Nixon has given you some basis to criticize McGovern's foreign policy approach. If so, I would like to hear it. I do not think opposition to our policy in Vietnam, Food for Peace , or his opposition to American complicity in the over- throw and murder of Allende constitute an example of an earlier variant of Trump's pseudo- nationalism.
51
Sorry we don't need foreign policy elites that are so tied in to foreign governments that American interest mean nothing to them. We don't need foreign policy elites who tell us that coddling the Saudis and the Turks and the rest of the mindless theocrats is good for Americans.
We need foreign affairs experts who know how it works and then uses the process to protect the US not feed its enemies. For too long we've picked allies who have made us look and at times be brutual and cruel because that's what they need. Enough. It's time to reasses our reliance on "elites" and start relying on experts for expertise not policy.
We need foreign affairs experts who know how it works and then uses the process to protect the US not feed its enemies. For too long we've picked allies who have made us look and at times be brutual and cruel because that's what they need. Enough. It's time to reasses our reliance on "elites" and start relying on experts for expertise not policy.
9
The ultimate FP realism for the US would be to realize and admit that we cannot be allies with countries who sanctify beheadings as part of their criminal justice system, and the genital mutilation of women as part of their faith-based national policy. Both are too repugnant to allow for the cozy alliances we have had for too long. Does that mean the Middle East countries are our enemies? Nope-- just means they are not our friends. A hands off policy and actions would be better. Let them kill each other at will. A smaller population in that god-forsaken area would be a benefit to the West, if we take the "real-politics" approach.
It is not sophisticated knowledge of the world that Kissinger lacked. It was robust values that was the problem.
In this revisionist memory of history it appears the Pentagon Papers, that was the crowning journalistic achievement of this paper, have been forgotten. Vietnam was not an intellectual failure but a moral catastrophe.
While Bernie is the intellectual equal of Hillary it is in the values area that he bests her and therefore is better prepared to face off with Donald.
In this revisionist memory of history it appears the Pentagon Papers, that was the crowning journalistic achievement of this paper, have been forgotten. Vietnam was not an intellectual failure but a moral catastrophe.
While Bernie is the intellectual equal of Hillary it is in the values area that he bests her and therefore is better prepared to face off with Donald.
42
Bernie's values are those of the late 1960s -- puerile, pie-in-the-sky, and unworkable. Living up there in Vermont, he has no idea what's happening in our cities, and why. But at least some of our troubles can be attributed to well-intended but wrong-headed policies of the 1960s.
What the US needs is an actual policy, whether isolationist or universalist, and not the vacillation of the previous 7 years. Once an actual policy is in force, reasonable modifications appropriate to specific situations can be negotiated within the framework of the policy.
Our partners will then be able to rely on us and we on them, while our enemies will know how resolute the US can be (once again).
Our partners will then be able to rely on us and we on them, while our enemies will know how resolute the US can be (once again).
3
Please consider Dr. that to a large extent, foreign policy vacillation is often a function of all things not being in our control.
The problem with the Trump-Nixon comparison is that Nixon's obsessive, razor sharp mind was devoted to foreign policy. Mr. Trump is incapable and uninterested in learning anything dealing with nuance.
During Nixon's years in the political wilderness, roughly 1962-1967, he dazzled audiences with his off the cuff knowledge of complex and intricate details of foreign policy.
...Can Mr. Trump name the last British Prime Minister?
Despite copious planning and knowledge of Asian politics, Nixon still struggled mightily to end the Vietnam war "with honor", particularly due to domestic concerns.
With Mr. Trump starting at zero, even if he had a Kissinger by his side, foreign policy would be messy. Throw in the fact that this paper would unfairly rake Kissinger over the coals on a daily basis were he in office today (credentials can't protect one from the liberal media after all) and I see a disastrous Trump-led foreign policy.
During Nixon's years in the political wilderness, roughly 1962-1967, he dazzled audiences with his off the cuff knowledge of complex and intricate details of foreign policy.
...Can Mr. Trump name the last British Prime Minister?
Despite copious planning and knowledge of Asian politics, Nixon still struggled mightily to end the Vietnam war "with honor", particularly due to domestic concerns.
With Mr. Trump starting at zero, even if he had a Kissinger by his side, foreign policy would be messy. Throw in the fact that this paper would unfairly rake Kissinger over the coals on a daily basis were he in office today (credentials can't protect one from the liberal media after all) and I see a disastrous Trump-led foreign policy.
3
Thomas is living in the past. The headline of the column under his in the online edition of today's paper states: :In Aleppo, We Are Running Out of Coffins." That is as good appraisal of what our foreign policy elite has given us. To suggest we need more of this is lunacy, plain and simple lunacy. Thomas is living in the past. Solutions that worked in the 1930s and 1960s are hardly up to making much of a difference today, which is why more coffins are needed in Aleppo and, probably, elsewhere where our elite foreign policy folks screwed up the world.
11
The foreign policy elite needs to be reined in. They think they are so smart, that they can conduct social engineering programs overseas when we can't even do them successfully in our own country where we presumably have greater command of the factors in play. They are a particularly harmful lot when they start throwing the military into the mix to carry out their grandiose plans, costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars. It's the old story of boys with their toys, and grown boys with their very expensive toys. Sure, we probably need their expertise, we just shouldn't let them run foreign policy.
9
When we opened relations with communist China, our intellectual property was pillaged and our workers compete with a centralized economy that can monopolize any market. No, we don't need another priestly caste, with inheritance rights, indifferent to our national interests.
With the diversity in our country, we can do better, but internal competition is stifled by entrenched interests. Don't overlook effective efforts because they didn't come from the privileged class.
With the diversity in our country, we can do better, but internal competition is stifled by entrenched interests. Don't overlook effective efforts because they didn't come from the privileged class.
4
I held my breath, waiting for the author to fit the Bush
administration into his framework. Oops, he's a Nixon scholar.
No wonder he doesn't venture beyond the Cold War. Neither did the
foreign policy elite; hence the Iraq invasion and other follies.
In the long run -- the really long run -- the
rule-of-law/individualistic West will prevail over the
venal/tribal Islamic and venal/autocratic Chinese civilizations.
But if we leave it to diplomats, it will be an advancing front.
But fronts generate shock waves. The Islamic State is an example
of such an outcome.
The Trumpian vision may not be a bad alternative: a multiplicity of
business interests doing "deals." Isn't that where we're going
with multinational corporations? That way, the advance of the West
would be more like a permeation, dissolving the archaic cultures,
allowing them to fade away gracefully.
administration into his framework. Oops, he's a Nixon scholar.
No wonder he doesn't venture beyond the Cold War. Neither did the
foreign policy elite; hence the Iraq invasion and other follies.
In the long run -- the really long run -- the
rule-of-law/individualistic West will prevail over the
venal/tribal Islamic and venal/autocratic Chinese civilizations.
But if we leave it to diplomats, it will be an advancing front.
But fronts generate shock waves. The Islamic State is an example
of such an outcome.
The Trumpian vision may not be a bad alternative: a multiplicity of
business interests doing "deals." Isn't that where we're going
with multinational corporations? That way, the advance of the West
would be more like a permeation, dissolving the archaic cultures,
allowing them to fade away gracefully.
2
In the long run -- the really long run -- the
rule-of-law/individualistic West will prevail over the
venal/tribal Islamic and venal/autocratic Chinese civilizations.
how do you figure that ?
rule-of-law/individualistic West will prevail over the
venal/tribal Islamic and venal/autocratic Chinese civilizations.
how do you figure that ?
“Sophisticated knowledge” has served us badly, especially in the Middle East. Fighting communism in the 1950s brought regime change that failed in Syria and succeeded in Iran, which would later haunt us. Afghanistan in the 1980s was revenge on Moscow for Vietnam. Our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan assisted in defeating the Soviets, but the failure to understand what we helped unleashed has brought us never ending war, expenditures that break budgets, and civilian and military casualties on an upward trajectory. The elite that gave us Iraq failed to anticipate the repercussions. The same elite then sought government change in Syria but produced a bitter war and a humanitarian disaster. What we have is an echo chamber that assures us that we not only have the power to change the world but the God-given right. Perhaps our elite counsel should stop all this talk about how “exceptional” we are and begin to realize that our interference does not bring Western democracy. Mr. Trump may promise foreign policy change, but it is unlikely. We have not gotten past the myopic decision making that assures us of immediate success, only to be startled by the failure of outcomes and the resulting blowback.
11
As a Vietnam veteran, I beg to defer with Mr. Thomas' essay. As a medical corpsman at a base hospital, I saw the human face of war on the wounded grunts, civilians and even on one rare occasion a VC guerrilla. They were all victims of that tragic and unnecessary war which was based upon a specious and cynical mis-interpretation of diplomat George Kennan's containment strategy during the Cold War, namely, the "domino theory" articulated by President Eisenhower and used by foreign policy elites to prosecute a proxy war against the Communists in North Vietnam. All I learned in Vietnam was: Never trust the brass and even more so the suits that sent us there. And included in that category of suits were "best and the brightest" within the foreign policy elites of New Frontiersmen in JFK's administration. They sent us on a fool's errand, and after the fall of Saigon in April, 1975, that foreign policy debacle marked the beginning of America's long and precipitous decline as a world leader and a great power which has also squandered the blood and treasure of our volunteer armed forces with the equally unnecessary Iraq War. Never in my wildest imagination did I think our foreign policy elites would commit another debacle that would rival the war I saw as a young, naive man. If these foreign policy elites praised in this simplistic panegyric had to send their own sons and daughters after the 9/11 attacks, they would have been more cautious before they impulsively marched off to war.
94
Our armed forces are not "volunteers." The dad who coaches soccer is a volunteer; the woman who works in the historic society or education foundation of her town is a volunteer; people who rush to the site of natural disasters to help are volunteers. Our military is comprised of mercenary soldiers who do corporate bidding, as directed by the military brass and political leaders Most of which are fool's errands. This has been our recipe for disaster since the end of the Vietnam War. Other than that, your points are correct.
1
If the current world is the result of foreign policy elites, then there is no better argument for trying something different.
Nixon’s elitist foreign policy advisors extended the stupid war in Vietnam and strengthened our adversary, China, by opening trade with it. We could have done so much better. There were a lot of Americans (but not nearly enough) who agreed with me back then that the Vietnam War was immoral and also an enormous waste of blood and treasure, and by the 1980s there were many of us warning about the flaws in our *free trade* ideology. But the elites pushed us further in the wrong direction, and consequently we wasted much more blood and treasure on more stupid wars, and lost millions of good jobs, causing downward pressure on wages while the elites got richer.
The elites “expanded trade, deepened alliances and underwrote billions in foreign aid. None of this was cheap”. That is why our infrastructure is crumbling, we have so many homeless, and our rates of drug addiction and suicide are so high. Thank you, elites!
“The Smoot-Hawley tariff contributed to the Great Depression, and the failure of the League of Nations allowed the rise of fascism and global war.” Not true. The gold standard – a favorite of elites – caused the Great Depression, and World War I, which was another stupid war that America should have stayed out of, plus the Depression, led to the rise of fascism and yet another world war.
5/4 @ 8 am
Nixon’s elitist foreign policy advisors extended the stupid war in Vietnam and strengthened our adversary, China, by opening trade with it. We could have done so much better. There were a lot of Americans (but not nearly enough) who agreed with me back then that the Vietnam War was immoral and also an enormous waste of blood and treasure, and by the 1980s there were many of us warning about the flaws in our *free trade* ideology. But the elites pushed us further in the wrong direction, and consequently we wasted much more blood and treasure on more stupid wars, and lost millions of good jobs, causing downward pressure on wages while the elites got richer.
The elites “expanded trade, deepened alliances and underwrote billions in foreign aid. None of this was cheap”. That is why our infrastructure is crumbling, we have so many homeless, and our rates of drug addiction and suicide are so high. Thank you, elites!
“The Smoot-Hawley tariff contributed to the Great Depression, and the failure of the League of Nations allowed the rise of fascism and global war.” Not true. The gold standard – a favorite of elites – caused the Great Depression, and World War I, which was another stupid war that America should have stayed out of, plus the Depression, led to the rise of fascism and yet another world war.
5/4 @ 8 am
9
Trump's ignorance of foreign affairs, underscored by his vacuous speech on the topic following his victory in New York, dovetails neatly with a similar incomprehension of America's domestic problems. Although devoid of any experience in shaping government policies, Trump nevertheless presents himself as one of his own key advisers on the issues confronting America.
Such unmerited arrogance bodes ill for the country, should Trump somehow manage to win the election. Wisdom begins with an understanding of one's own ignorance. Trump's lack of such self-awareness has insulated him from the astute criticisms of people like Evan Thomas. This absence of intellectual curiosity, as we learned to our own cost in the case of Bush, subjects a president to the influence of advisers whose recommendations he has no means to evaluate intelligently.
All presidents have to master their job while doing it, but Trump's background and attitudes betray an unwillingness to learn from his mistakes. While many entrepreneurs experience bankruptcy as they learn their craft, four such failures suggest an individual who treats each business venture as if it were his first. In a president, such incompetence could prove disastrous for the country.
Such unmerited arrogance bodes ill for the country, should Trump somehow manage to win the election. Wisdom begins with an understanding of one's own ignorance. Trump's lack of such self-awareness has insulated him from the astute criticisms of people like Evan Thomas. This absence of intellectual curiosity, as we learned to our own cost in the case of Bush, subjects a president to the influence of advisers whose recommendations he has no means to evaluate intelligently.
All presidents have to master their job while doing it, but Trump's background and attitudes betray an unwillingness to learn from his mistakes. While many entrepreneurs experience bankruptcy as they learn their craft, four such failures suggest an individual who treats each business venture as if it were his first. In a president, such incompetence could prove disastrous for the country.
3
I'm not sure Trump has an unwillingness so much as an inability to learn from mistakes. Trump lacks the background knowledge, and the reality-based worldview, necessary for a president. His ego will impede any admittance of mistake or failure, assuming he perceives either, which must be deeply doubted. He strikes me as someone who will neither modify nor intermit bad policy but double down.
One of the reasons—and there are many—that I myself have been so critical of Sanders is because Thomas is right. America can't discard its foreign policy gurus. Look at the comments: Kissinger is responsible for Cambodia; the Pakistani military's atrocities in the early '70s; the overthrow of that Marxist incompetent, Allende; etc.
Do these people, Sanders supporters all, really know much about these issues? In my experience, the answer is no. They're repeating what they've heard from far-left media outlets, and Sanders is the darling (when he's not considered too moderate) of intellectuals on the far-left.
I personally think Sanders is a total fool. There's no way any reasonably objective person can read the New York Daily News interview, or just listen to Sanders on any topic in which he's pressed for detail, and not conclude that he's shallow.
But I agree with your assessment as pertains Trump. If elected, Trump would be a disaster of perhaps unparalleled proportions. I felt upset last night—disturbed—in a way I don't think I have over of an election, an American election.
One of the reasons—and there are many—that I myself have been so critical of Sanders is because Thomas is right. America can't discard its foreign policy gurus. Look at the comments: Kissinger is responsible for Cambodia; the Pakistani military's atrocities in the early '70s; the overthrow of that Marxist incompetent, Allende; etc.
Do these people, Sanders supporters all, really know much about these issues? In my experience, the answer is no. They're repeating what they've heard from far-left media outlets, and Sanders is the darling (when he's not considered too moderate) of intellectuals on the far-left.
I personally think Sanders is a total fool. There's no way any reasonably objective person can read the New York Daily News interview, or just listen to Sanders on any topic in which he's pressed for detail, and not conclude that he's shallow.
But I agree with your assessment as pertains Trump. If elected, Trump would be a disaster of perhaps unparalleled proportions. I felt upset last night—disturbed—in a way I don't think I have over of an election, an American election.
1
Henry Kissinger was one of a kind, the likes of which we will probably see only once a century or so. While Mr. Trump is relatively uninformed about international relations matters, that may not be a problem were he to become president.
Trump quickly understood that he did not know enough about the electoral process he was embarking on, and quickly hired as one of his principal legal advisors a recent former chair of the Federal Election Commission, and many of his problems started to go away. Trump is well known for trying to use the best experts. If he continues to do so, were he president, we may not get the next Kissinger, but we would probably get someone who is very good.
Despite his bravado, there is a subliminal humility about Trump. He knows what he does not know and he does not hesitate to get the best people involved. No president knows everything, even about matters where there is some basic expertise. That is why presidents have cabinets and numerous advisors. Trump is not daunted by this process. In fact, he clearly thrives on it.
While many may not like Trump's broad policy strokes, the devil, as always, will be in the details, and that rarely comes from the president as advisors approach practical solutions within their areas of expertise. Much of Trump's broad policies are not that bad, if they are implemented intelligently and in moderation. Let's see what happens and hope for the best, if Trump becomes president. It might not be all that bad.
Trump quickly understood that he did not know enough about the electoral process he was embarking on, and quickly hired as one of his principal legal advisors a recent former chair of the Federal Election Commission, and many of his problems started to go away. Trump is well known for trying to use the best experts. If he continues to do so, were he president, we may not get the next Kissinger, but we would probably get someone who is very good.
Despite his bravado, there is a subliminal humility about Trump. He knows what he does not know and he does not hesitate to get the best people involved. No president knows everything, even about matters where there is some basic expertise. That is why presidents have cabinets and numerous advisors. Trump is not daunted by this process. In fact, he clearly thrives on it.
While many may not like Trump's broad policy strokes, the devil, as always, will be in the details, and that rarely comes from the president as advisors approach practical solutions within their areas of expertise. Much of Trump's broad policies are not that bad, if they are implemented intelligently and in moderation. Let's see what happens and hope for the best, if Trump becomes president. It might not be all that bad.
3
I wish Henry Kissinger was one of a kind, but people like Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney prove that he wasn't: He was the FIRST in a line of arrogant chicken-hawks whose incompetence could only be surpassed by their egos.
If you REALLY want to find extraordinarily talented Republican Secretaries of State, you need to go back to Charles Evans Hughes and Frank Kellogg. Hughes was the first SS to professionalize the Foreign Service, claiming that there should only be one politician in the State Dept, namely C.E. Hughes, and that he wasn't even a very good one!
If you REALLY want to find extraordinarily talented Republican Secretaries of State, you need to go back to Charles Evans Hughes and Frank Kellogg. Hughes was the first SS to professionalize the Foreign Service, claiming that there should only be one politician in the State Dept, namely C.E. Hughes, and that he wasn't even a very good one!
I agree we need a foreign policy elite.
The question is, when do we get a foreign policy elite, and when do we put them in charge?
The reason I ask is only the last 70 years or so of executed foreign policy. If you measure it's success by asking, Have we blown ourselves up YET, I guess you could be happy with the answer. But I see too many bad mistakes, following too many bad ideas, costing too much money, and resulting in too much international ill will. We are at best tolerated. Those who actually most need us (Israel, i.e.) most openly disdain us. Nixon didn't open China. China opened us.
Our corporations have so far profited by our foreign policy, because much of our foreign policy has been forged by corporate interests. If we had a foreign policy actually constructed to meet national interests, we might be in better shape.
What I see us doing now is what really destroyed the Soviet Union: spending money we don't have on a bloated military and wars of choice/opportunity for special interests. We have been betrayed by neo-cons from both parties.
We need not only a realist foreign policy elite, but also politicians who speak honestly to the electorate about realist foreign policy goals. Ultimately, a more peaceful world will also best serve honest corporate interests as well.
Right now, our foreign policy should be designed to address a sustainable environment, with all other issues subordinate and serving that one unavoidable existential issue.
The question is, when do we get a foreign policy elite, and when do we put them in charge?
The reason I ask is only the last 70 years or so of executed foreign policy. If you measure it's success by asking, Have we blown ourselves up YET, I guess you could be happy with the answer. But I see too many bad mistakes, following too many bad ideas, costing too much money, and resulting in too much international ill will. We are at best tolerated. Those who actually most need us (Israel, i.e.) most openly disdain us. Nixon didn't open China. China opened us.
Our corporations have so far profited by our foreign policy, because much of our foreign policy has been forged by corporate interests. If we had a foreign policy actually constructed to meet national interests, we might be in better shape.
What I see us doing now is what really destroyed the Soviet Union: spending money we don't have on a bloated military and wars of choice/opportunity for special interests. We have been betrayed by neo-cons from both parties.
We need not only a realist foreign policy elite, but also politicians who speak honestly to the electorate about realist foreign policy goals. Ultimately, a more peaceful world will also best serve honest corporate interests as well.
Right now, our foreign policy should be designed to address a sustainable environment, with all other issues subordinate and serving that one unavoidable existential issue.
10
If "Our" foreign policy results a sustainable world order, it will have been an unintended consequence. Since forever "We" have been ruthless in our drive to control resources with horrendous consequences for democracy and human rights everywhere. For the last 40 years or so "We" have been just as monstrous in "Our" drive to exploit the global labor force - with declining wages at home as an added benefit to "Our" corporate coffers.
To enrich "Ourselves" "We" have been resolute in deploying the tools of torture or terror through proxies in Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere, but "We" have never shrunk from the need to unleash fiery and chemical mass destruction to the extent "We" could sustain the financial and political costs. The most instructive case study are the strategic victories resulting from "Our" massive invasion of South Vietnam. Though a decade of terror bombing, concentration camps, massacres, chemical warfare, and millions of fatal casualties could not sustain a puppet government there, "We" were successful in distracting attention from a proxy reign of terror that protected "Our" interests in Indonesia, a country whose resources actually mattered to "US"
The blowback from "Our" current Middle East crusades will probably help "Us" channel most domestic discontent in profitable directions while justifying necessary "measures" against those who fail to fall in line.
Yes, what inspiring opportunities "We" offer to "Our" best and brightest!
To enrich "Ourselves" "We" have been resolute in deploying the tools of torture or terror through proxies in Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere, but "We" have never shrunk from the need to unleash fiery and chemical mass destruction to the extent "We" could sustain the financial and political costs. The most instructive case study are the strategic victories resulting from "Our" massive invasion of South Vietnam. Though a decade of terror bombing, concentration camps, massacres, chemical warfare, and millions of fatal casualties could not sustain a puppet government there, "We" were successful in distracting attention from a proxy reign of terror that protected "Our" interests in Indonesia, a country whose resources actually mattered to "US"
The blowback from "Our" current Middle East crusades will probably help "Us" channel most domestic discontent in profitable directions while justifying necessary "measures" against those who fail to fall in line.
Yes, what inspiring opportunities "We" offer to "Our" best and brightest!
4
So, we should rely more on the still-quite-insular (usually very wealthy and educated at the same schools) cadres of 'experts' who brought us the Iraq War and the horrors of Vietnam? No thank you.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that we should follow a Trumpian model of letting any old person waltz into positions of serious power and influence. Instead, the US simply needs to broaden the search for real talent. The I its are great, but nowhere near as special as most people seem to think. Here in the UK I've taught at middling, very poor, quite good, and top tier (Oxbridge) universities. In my experience the top 10-20% of universities churn out students of more or less of identical quality. So why do our leaders and their advisors always have to come from Harvard!?
Obviously I'm not suggesting that we should follow a Trumpian model of letting any old person waltz into positions of serious power and influence. Instead, the US simply needs to broaden the search for real talent. The I its are great, but nowhere near as special as most people seem to think. Here in the UK I've taught at middling, very poor, quite good, and top tier (Oxbridge) universities. In my experience the top 10-20% of universities churn out students of more or less of identical quality. So why do our leaders and their advisors always have to come from Harvard!?
9
some of them-come from Yale
so there
so there
Something you don't understand....WE ARE BROKE.
We cannot "underwrite" the world anymore.
We need to fix our country and it's troubles.
Yes, he needs competent people, he'll get them. What you are advocating for, though, is more of the same ole, same ole.
People are tired of it and it will change.
The USA has to come first.
We cannot "underwrite" the world anymore.
We need to fix our country and it's troubles.
Yes, he needs competent people, he'll get them. What you are advocating for, though, is more of the same ole, same ole.
People are tired of it and it will change.
The USA has to come first.
10
Trump has found a parade and jumped in front of it on foreign policy. For all of his exaggerations and boasting, his checklist looks alot like Obama Administration policy.
Push Europe to take more responsibility for their own defense against Russia and keeping Middle East oil shipping lanes through Suez open. Check.
Defeat ISIS. Check
Counter Chinese assertiveness in the East and South China Sea. Check.
Strengthen the US southern border and deport violent criminals. Check.
The difference is that Trump believes international alliances are the problem and Obama believes they are the best means for leveraging US policy interests.
Trump exudes supreme confidence in brinksmanship, while Obama looks for ways to defuse bombs. If you like the idea of a US President whose negotiating strategy starts with pulling the pin on a grenade, you'll love Trump.
Push Europe to take more responsibility for their own defense against Russia and keeping Middle East oil shipping lanes through Suez open. Check.
Defeat ISIS. Check
Counter Chinese assertiveness in the East and South China Sea. Check.
Strengthen the US southern border and deport violent criminals. Check.
The difference is that Trump believes international alliances are the problem and Obama believes they are the best means for leveraging US policy interests.
Trump exudes supreme confidence in brinksmanship, while Obama looks for ways to defuse bombs. If you like the idea of a US President whose negotiating strategy starts with pulling the pin on a grenade, you'll love Trump.
13
Evan Thomas isn’t as completely wrong as he asserts Donald Trump is, but it’s a close call.
Nixon chose Kissinger not merely because he was of the foreign policy elite but because he was brilliant, held compatible views on the world and likely would work well as a full and effective partner in shepherding the world to a more stable reality and protected American interests. He didn’t pick him because he was a Harvard nabob.
What we’ve seen over the past 7 ½ years is that without a bottom to presidential convictions in foreign affairs and a realistic vision of the world and America’s unique place in it sufficient to lead effectively, the professionalism of a foreign policy elite is about as useful as a good-looking cow to a steer. How did all that professionalism help in anticipating Arab Spring, or in helping to guide it to useful outcomes once we DID recognize it for what it was? How did all that professionalism help avoid Ukraine or Libya, an economically destabilizing China, a disintegrating South America, a Middle East fast becoming emblematic of beheadings and unchained tyranny? Why does it take that foreign policy infrastructure a month to renew a passport (although, fairly, this has improved immensely over the past few years)?
Of course we need a foreign policy elite, and good men and women who know the world; and presidents should listen to them. But far more central to effective foreign policy is that person in the Oval Office who has the right instincts.
Nixon chose Kissinger not merely because he was of the foreign policy elite but because he was brilliant, held compatible views on the world and likely would work well as a full and effective partner in shepherding the world to a more stable reality and protected American interests. He didn’t pick him because he was a Harvard nabob.
What we’ve seen over the past 7 ½ years is that without a bottom to presidential convictions in foreign affairs and a realistic vision of the world and America’s unique place in it sufficient to lead effectively, the professionalism of a foreign policy elite is about as useful as a good-looking cow to a steer. How did all that professionalism help in anticipating Arab Spring, or in helping to guide it to useful outcomes once we DID recognize it for what it was? How did all that professionalism help avoid Ukraine or Libya, an economically destabilizing China, a disintegrating South America, a Middle East fast becoming emblematic of beheadings and unchained tyranny? Why does it take that foreign policy infrastructure a month to renew a passport (although, fairly, this has improved immensely over the past few years)?
Of course we need a foreign policy elite, and good men and women who know the world; and presidents should listen to them. But far more central to effective foreign policy is that person in the Oval Office who has the right instincts.
3
You got a short memory Mr. Luettgen. Either that or you can't see beyond your loathing of President Obama. Try going back further than 7 1/2 years. Try not to ignore what President Obama has managed to accomplish even with a Congress that hates the man and has the back only of Wall Street and the military/industrial complex. That Obama accomplished anything when senators are writing letters to the Ayatollah telling him not to trust the U.S. is remarkable. Kissinger and the Harvard foreign policy elite have done nothing but pour gas on the fabricated fears they enculturated into the U.S. population for the purpose of keeping the U.S. in a perpetual state of war (benefiting the military/industrial complex and nobody else), none of which we ever win (which may be on purpose too--if we were ever to win we might have to stop).
1
Chip:
Apparently, you disagree with Thomas, as well. Unfortunate that you turn basic agreement on the actual issue under discussion into an opportunity to vent against me, and to offer a mini-rant on all with which you disagree but didn't have the votes or art to stop yourself.
Apparently, you disagree with Thomas, as well. Unfortunate that you turn basic agreement on the actual issue under discussion into an opportunity to vent against me, and to offer a mini-rant on all with which you disagree but didn't have the votes or art to stop yourself.
Our foreign policy elite was divided between making the world safe for democracy and making it safe for our interests. Anticommunism allowed the elite to sell protecting our interests as making the world safe for democracy and furthering American ideals. But there is a long list of countries where we did not protect or even accept democracy because the people wanted a path that harmed our interests.
The foreign policy elite were not the only ones with knowledge and experience of the world. What they uniquely had were close connections with our business and financial elite, so that those elite interests would be protected and served. The elite has frequently been short-sighted, sometimes incompetent, and often just plain wrong, but most importantly they have often betrayed our values for economic benefit or under cover of fighting communism or defending Western civilization and the racial policies of colonial powers. How many of our foreign policy elite were quite comfortable living in a segregated DC or Virginia where racial agitation was a sign of communist influence?
The foreign policy elite were not the only ones with knowledge and experience of the world. What they uniquely had were close connections with our business and financial elite, so that those elite interests would be protected and served. The elite has frequently been short-sighted, sometimes incompetent, and often just plain wrong, but most importantly they have often betrayed our values for economic benefit or under cover of fighting communism or defending Western civilization and the racial policies of colonial powers. How many of our foreign policy elite were quite comfortable living in a segregated DC or Virginia where racial agitation was a sign of communist influence?
53
We do need people who understand foreign policy, it's true. However, it is time that we learn to break away from the post-Kissinger mindset that it is America's duty to fix the world through war. I think we have proven quite clearly that those policies do not work. Iraq is a mess, Libya is a mess. Our closest allies, the Saudis, have been complicit in acts of terrorism against the US, and no one elected Bibi Netenyahu as our national Director of Foreign Policy. China, North Korea, Pakistan, and other trouble spots require diplomacy and fiscal strength, not just militarism.
To do this, we need a great Domestic Policy Elite. We need people who understand that the wealth gap has ruined our economy and our workforce, and who will stand up against the people and corporations that offshore jobs and income. We need to invest in our own human capital, that means higher education and workforce training, so that we can rebuild our middle class without throwing therm into debt. We need to change our energy policies away from fossil fuels, fracking, and nuclear energy into renewable sources that sustain our environment. We need to invest in infrastructure and in infrastructure jobs.
Trump doesn't have these qualities. Hillary pays lip service to them, but is a Kissinger at heart. There is still one hope for us, but the Times refuses to acknowledge Bernie Sanders.
To do this, we need a great Domestic Policy Elite. We need people who understand that the wealth gap has ruined our economy and our workforce, and who will stand up against the people and corporations that offshore jobs and income. We need to invest in our own human capital, that means higher education and workforce training, so that we can rebuild our middle class without throwing therm into debt. We need to change our energy policies away from fossil fuels, fracking, and nuclear energy into renewable sources that sustain our environment. We need to invest in infrastructure and in infrastructure jobs.
Trump doesn't have these qualities. Hillary pays lip service to them, but is a Kissinger at heart. There is still one hope for us, but the Times refuses to acknowledge Bernie Sanders.
116
Please stop this Sanders nonsense. Beating a dead horse can last only so long. Take deep breaths, then let it go. It's over. Sanders has no more of a chance at success than any other leader. When tasked with policing the world the US is in a precarious position. The moment the US decides it no longer wants to be the ultimate super power of the world then perhaps it can come to terms with downsizing its foreign interventionist policies. Until that occurs don't count on anything changing much whatsoever.
It's really too much to expect any foreign policy choices, be it in terms of choosing strategic alliances or picking personnel for the US foreign policy establishment, from a person like Donald Trump who has yet to prove his credentials about being correctly informed about the world around him.
23
So we give the White House to a proven corporatist with Henry Kissinger as her foreign policy mentor. I think not. Go Bernie.
5
I'm a Bernie supporter and dislike Trump. However, I also recognize that Obama knew nothing about foreign policy, as reflected by 7+ years of mistakes and ongoing wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya, and his drone bombing of tens of thousands of innocent people, thereby creating tens of thousands more terrorists.
2
Trump's sole national security/foreign policy experience is dodging the Viet Nam draft.
Just another tough talking chicken hawk warmongering republican.
cf Bush, Cheney, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Limbaugh, Buchanan, La Pierre, Carson, O'Reilly, Rove, Kristol, De Mint, Chambliss, Sessions. Brownback, et alii.
Just another tough talking chicken hawk warmongering republican.
cf Bush, Cheney, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Limbaugh, Buchanan, La Pierre, Carson, O'Reilly, Rove, Kristol, De Mint, Chambliss, Sessions. Brownback, et alii.
3
I think that Evan Thomas' willingness to conflate the genuinely isolationist America Firsters of the 1930s with Trump's idea of less engagement rather than no engagement is irresponsible and border on the demagogic.