What Samantha Power Learned on the Job

Can anyone name a person in the current administration, outside of a couple generals, who has/had the intellect, empathy, resilience, patience, and emotional intelligence of this woman? I can't think of anyone even coming close, which is more than sad.

Name one person in the Trump administration that even remotely resembles the idealist Samantha Power. **crickets** Looking forward to reading this book. Hope she sells a millions of them.

After Reading Friedman Review of Ms. Power's book. I get frustrated more, What we have now in White house , a real snake pit full of pit vipers waiting to bite and kill each other but meanwhile lie lie lie lie lie lie … I am frustrated...…………...

I am glad to read that Powers has learned something since she entered the political arena during the 2008 presidential campaign. She was an insufferable ideologue when she called Hillary a “monster”. Such high-minded moralism is a symptom of lack of experience. The harsh realities of the limitations of every available alternative weren’t lost on Hillary, honed by the fires of politics. It speaks well for Obama that he was annoyed by Powers. Her naiveté was a stark contrast to his cautious pragmatism. Friedman was a good choice to write this review. Few have his depth of experience with the complexity of international issues and the pros and cons of every option. Some can be predicted, but as Friedman points out, most come as an unpleasant surprise after choices cannot be undone.

The comment that America’s failure to intervene in Syria allowed Russia to and thereby caused a flood of refugees into Europe is erroneous. Merkel’s ‘come, we can cope’ act was in August 2015, in response to the hundreds of thousands of people migrating through the Balkans and Central Europe. Russia’s first intervention on the ground in Syria was in September 2015. Russia’s intervention stabilized the situation. Now that Assad is fully back in charge the refugees have stopped for the most part. America’s failure to intervene on behalf of Assad was the problem. That would have been ‘reality’. Hoping for democracy was ‘idealism’. Supporting the Syrian opposition, mostly extremists, better or worse disguised, was lunacy.

I'm so glad to see someone put into words the immense contradictions and complications of this central issue for the U.S. and its place in the world. To wrestle with these matters is to begin to do all that can be done and is the moral imperative. To ignore them, as we see in our current administration, is to turn our backs on the world, which is amoral. To do so for personal gain is immoral. We need a new president.

Friedman’s review provides a fine excursion into what progressive pragmatism is. We commonly counterpose “Progressivism” with “Conservatism,” but the basic dyad is idealism and realism that remains highly aspirational. That is a hallmark of America: progressive pragmatism. A fault of rank-and-file Conservatism is that it’s not yet realistic enough: Potential for enabling the mature autonomy of others—nations, groups, individuals—is integral to good government, as much as is securing shared traditions. Democracy is an always-unfinished project which requires educational leadership constructive futures, in light of which valuable pasts are re-framed. Futures do not originate from pasts. A keynote of leadership is exemplarity. Obama’s Cairo speech was integral to the Arab Spring which led to the Tunisian example. Would a early U.S. intervention into Syria have caused U.S. blame for the flood of refugees into Europe, as well as becoming a proxy war with Putinism? A strong case can be made for Obama’s choice of battles. The menace of Putinism is stark. We should realize that democracy is a learning process that its people have to learn to sustain. Iraq is better off now than otherwise. It can become a model for Iran's maturity beyond theocracy.

She wrote extensively about the Armenian Genocide... criticized all those in positions of power who were shy to speak about it... and yet, when she got in a position to actually speak up, she was silent just as the people she criticized in her book.

Power's award winning book on genocide was an extended wikipedia entry: nice, but not terribly illuminating. And it lacked depth (ie. our complicity, directly or indirectly in other genocides - Cambodia comes to mind). I think she is a bit of a con job actually, fawning a moral backbone when convenient, but never telling the total truth. She is bright, has her Ivy credentials, she is telegenic, and her body language screams concern/sensitivity and yet...she accepts an award named after Kissinger. Thus, she is the poster child for American faux idealism. She was/is an operator, political to her core, and politics rarely has morality front and center. I am a liberal, btw.

Don't just stand there, wiggle (as opposed to running over to the gun cabinet).

Can’t wait to read Ms. Power’s struggle between her belief that perfect is always on the menu, Obama’s belief that it’s rarely on the menu and the fact that god does perfect while humans do the other thing.

Can she explain away the Armenian genocide and the failure of the U.S. to recognize it? She is part of that failure and it is not because she doesn't know about it.

Samantha Power learned on the job.... because her prior experience in international relations was..... NADA. She was a book writer, an academic. Obama appointed someone with no experience in international affairs (or politics, for that matter), to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Yet, Trump is the incompetent.

Less American do-gooder interventionism is always better. Less American do-evil interventionism even even better than that.

I’m with Tulsi Gabbard- American military intervention never ends well, regardless of your “ideals.” Just don’t do it.

Can’t wait to read Ms. Power’s struggle between her belief that perfect is always on the menu, Obama’s belief that it’s rarely on the menu and the fact that god does perfect while humans do the other thing.

Why is a good chunk of this review just Friedman talking about himself? Once again, men have to interject their own experience when discussing a woman's experience.

This author is correct about himself. He would rather write his own book than review another"s. If you haven't time for another verbose article, there is an unsurprising one sentence summation third paragraph from the end.

Read Damned if you don't by Deter Filkins in the 9/16 New Yorker -- a different, interesting spin on Power.

Does it really matter that Friedman only rarely takes book review assignments because he'd rather spend the time writing his own books?

Samantha Power and John Bolton. Two sides of the same interventionist coin. Good luck, but good riddance to both.

I cannot wait to consumer and ponder this book by Samantha Power, whom I admire and respect greatly. Thomas Friedman who is among my most respected opinion writers and authors as well has penned a wonderful tribute to a wonderful thinker and author. I prize his and Samantha's thoughts on pondering the good and evil of unintended consequences resulting from the pursuit of higher goals. I wish more folks would give thought to such moral dilemmas. Today's world is a highly complicated place asking us all constantly to make hard choices. Too man simply turn their backs and ask others to make those choices for us. I prize those like Samantha Power who force us to think for ourselves, immerse ourselves in the world and its difficult challenge and choices. Thank you to both Samantha and Thomas.

Thomas Friedman, who otherwise is quite knowledgeable about the terminology scholars of international relations use to explain world affairs, misuses the terms "idealism" and "realism" in this essay. "Idealism" and "Realism," as theories of international relations, do not refer to actions taken by countries or governments. Actions are just that; actions. "Idealism" and Realism" refer to the motivations of countries or governments. The same action taken by a state could be explained according to Idealist or Realist theory depending on what scholars assume about states' motivations. Idealists assume that states are capable of acting in ways that abide by international norms. Realists argue that states are motivated by the need to protect, acquire, and project power. Regardless of what one theorizes about the motivations of states' actions, those actions themselves are not a function of the theory that is used to explain them. One suspects that Samantha Power was and remains an Idealist. She assumes that states are part of an international society of states and non-state actors. That doesn't mean that if international society is constituted by norms that permit the use of force to advance human rights states won't use force when human rights are at stake. It simply means that what motivates countries are norms of human rights and moral intervention, not the acquisition or projection of power.

Like Amb. Power, I arrived in the US full of idealism and sought to put it into practice. I worked in higher education, health care to advocate for the uninsured then moved on to UN international development. In the end there's fatigue and disillusionment, especially when you consider the many misguided policy pursued by the US government. It's complicated indeed. But I'll never forget the optimism, driven energy and sheer belief in India, Zambia, Guatemala, Nepal and many other countries, where people know lives around the world can be made better.

A review purporting to be a review turns out to be a self-promotion for Friedman, too. And he is, by no stretch of the imagination, an IDEALIST. Meanwhile, isn't it time we faced up to the serious flaws in the Obama administration, now glossed over because of the Trump nightmare of insanity we are now living through? I'm curious about whether Power's book will enable such.

Tom Friedman remains one of the best writers IMO whether he's reviewing a book or delving into the intricacies of international affairs. Have always loved his thorough yet conversation style. I for one am very excited to see Samantha Power live tonight at IPI (The International Peace Institute) where former NYTimes journalist Warren Hoge will be interviewing Ms. Power and talking more about this fantastic memoir.

It is a comment like this that misleads at best: "our absence helped the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrian regime crush the rebels and produce a flood of refugees into the European Union that led to a populist-nationalist backlash there that contributed to Brexit and weakened the E.U." 1) Who and what exactly was/is the pro-democracy forces in Syria? Are you speaking of entire armies, some of the soldiers, some of the leaders? Who else was in these armies? What would be the result if they held substantial territory or even ousted the Assad regime? Do you know they would be any better? Many of these oppressed areas of the world have deep problems that persist in spite of overthrows of dictators. 2) What makes you think there would not be a huge refugee crises coming out of the Syrian civil war no matter what? 3) Are you sure that the rise of the "populist-nationalists" is largely a consequence of the refugee crisis? Just look at American right-wing politics over the past 50 years, or simply the reaction to Obama becoming president. The rise of minorities to at least express their views has contributed greatly to the rise of these forces. Should the minorities (increasingly becoming majorities) simply keep quiet and resign themselves to being second class citizens? American "populist-nationalists" (or should we say racists and folks easily fooled by snake-oil salesmen?) are not a product of immigration. Anti-immigrant frenzy is a consequence of this, not a cause.

Good review except for the part about Tom Friedman's idealism turning into a "recessive gene." A gene doesn't become recessive; it can be down regulated or "turned off." Accuracy matters!

A number of the commentators here have spoken disparagingly of all intervention in other countries. I would say intervening in Vietnam was very different from intervening in Libya. One of the things about the Arab Spring many people conveniently forget is that many American NGOs with close ties to the American Government egged on the Arab Spring in several middle eastern countries. In that sense, I think we have at least a little responsibility for what later happened. Turning our backs on them when their leaders started murdering their own people in large numbers has seemed very cruel to me. I do realize that trying to figure out exactly what to do is difficult. Perhaps more people with diplomatic training would be part of the solution.

Samantha Power was a foreign policy lightweight who will be most remembered for allying with Hilary for the disaster in Libya. If she has any profound insights into U.S. foreign policy in the future, the review fails to cite them.

In short, no one is omniscient except the cynics who only believe they are. Power can bemoan the fact that had her entourage not come to Cameroon a little boy would still be alive, but she wouldn't have known that ahead of time. And just who are the bigger interferers of lives there, her and her entourage or Boko Haram? I don't know quite how I would answer the essay question that Friedman postulates. But what I do know is that every time I heard Samantha Power stand up to speak at the United Nations, I would hear someone speaking from a basic and decent place, with no more rhetoric than an understandable condemnation of whatever wrong she was speaking out against. And I was always thrilled to hear what she had to say. That was no different than any stirring speech any politician offers us, be it from John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan to Obama. It would be a sad world to argue that out of existence.

friedman suggests that folks in kansas, or anywhere else in this country, or the rest of the world, for that matter, are not fully invested in being more free, or more powerful, or more christian, or more corrupt, than the tribe or sect next door. closing family-planning clinics, closing the border, ending policies to fight climate change - sorry, toto, in kansas as in in iraq as in venezuela as in washington, dc, freedom's just another word for the opportunity to impose one group's will on another.

Ms Power's idealism represents triumph of hope over experience. USA has intervened in Somalia, Iraq, Libya and indirectly in Yemen and Syria, the results were terrible. It is a bitter lesson to learn that America can't stop human rights abuses and plant democracy at the barrel of the gun. May be America has a mission but it is mission impossible.

After the enormous tragedy visited by the U.S. on Libya, Power's crude and misguided notions about humanitarian war have been discredited. Her strident warmongering directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Given her record of incompetence in dealing with matters decreed complicated by Friedman, she should not be allowed to serve in government again.

In Iraq, though we left a democracy behind, ethnic and religious hatreds soon sabotaged it. Yet there is a state of Iraq’s size and population, even more ethnically and religiously diverse - with a 150 year history of democracy, peace and prosperity. That state is California. Why does California suffer no armed battles between Catholics and Protestants? Why does no ambitious psychopath plot the violent overthrow of its Governor? Are Californians somehow more peaceable than Iraqis? By nature, no; by circumstance, yes. California has one thing Iraq lacks - democracy insurance. The Federal government ensures that California’s government stays both democratic and benevolent. No matter who runs California, both democratic process and citizens’ rights are protected. If Hugo Chavez were to be Governor of California, instead of President of Venezuela, there would be no need for coups or riots. No one would fear him mocking democracy with “one man, one vote, one time.” Californians have what mankind has always longed for - a higher power - which enforces democracy and protects individual rights.

Wow! Thomas, great review! I rarely read a review that compels me to read said book. This one did. Important stuff...

She did claim that she was innocent. But she did not claim that she was Native American.

I had forgotten that Ms. Power described Hillary Clinton as a "monster." Sanctimonious, indeed.

You can bet Elizabeth Warren already has her copy.

Just in... Earlier this AM, Trump interviewed Power for the National Security top slot... A bit of their 1:1, picked up from one of the bugs Bolton inadvertently left behind in the Oval Office sofa: T: I see here that Friedman says you were a table-pounding idealist and human rights advocate, and believed in using American power to protect innocent civilians and advance democracy. Gotten that completely out of your system? P: Way out. Gonzo. T: Good – that’s a plus. Also see here that you got on Obama’s nerves – any of that spark left? P: Have evolved in my thinking on him. Now consider him a monster. T: Wow – more than a glimpse of Hope here. What about Warren? P: Monster of all monsters. T: Way to go. Last question – what do you make of Biden? P: You’re twice the President he could ever be. T: (picking up phone) Mike, can you fire McMaster for me. Oh, he hasn’t started yet. Even better. Just found our man for the job.

Is this about you, Friedman, or about Samantha Power ?Heaven's sake! I wanted to know more about her book, not about your Midwestern opinions.

Wow. Excellent review. A book I look forward to reading. Diplomacy mixed with power is always a high-wire act where the fall can be fatal and the thrill of just reaching the other side can be worth the trip. Buying a ticket to watch is not the same as putting your resources at risk and sometimes it can be worth it and other times lead to more and more and more, as in Vietnam. Knowing when to stop is as important as when to start.

Great review by someone who wells knows the subject matter. Friedman is correct - national security/foreign policy is complicated, which makes the National Security Council process so critical to cobbling together a sane policy. The NSC process is the same one that Trump, Tillerson, Flynn, Bolton and even Pompeo have done their best to sideline and even destroy. I look forward to reading Power's book. In this era of extreme cynicism, a touch of idealism and concern for humane values is welcomed. PS. As a former military advisor to the Tunisian armed forces, I made friendships with several senior military and national police leaders of that country that lasted decades. In a country as small as Tunisia, these individuals had much influence on the country's society, and I like to think that the relationships American officials have had with the leaders of this country contributed to their holding on to their democracy.

We have troops in over 70 countries. Most of the time, almost none of those troops speak the local language, or know anything about the history and culture of the country they're in. In many cases, the politicians in D.C. don't know much about these countries either. Trying to solve problems we don't really understand through military action has proven to be a fiasco. Watch Ken Burns painful documentary about Viet Nam, and hear LBJ say "there's just no way to win this thing, but we can't lose." And consider our 18 years in Afghanistan; the death toll in Iraq. We don't know what we're doing.

I saw Samantha power on the Rachel Maddow show last night; I was impressed. She is intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate. Reminded me a little bit of Elizabeth Warren. I wonder if she, too, will run for president.

Passionate idealistic advocacy coupled with hard and sometimes bitter experience is what the country needs at its highest levels. We sure do not have it now.

And look at those we’re saddled with now. Not a Samantha Power in the bunch, not even close. And if a trickle of light were to emerge, just who is there to hear it? We are left with nothing.

Better is good. Not only in diplomatic issues but domestic as well, and by golly it IS complicated.

The relationship between Powers and Obama appeared to be respectful and rational. If it had been in the present administration, she wouldn’t have lasted.

Yep...a realist is an idealist who has been mugged. For all her education, she seemed to have thought that Murphy's Law was not reality.

Idealism mixed with realism; we could use that in America now. We need to find the right Democrat candidate to lead us in this complicated world towards a future where America offers hope along with aid knowing it’s not a perfect world but we can aim for better. This narrow minded populist bubble we’re in has lasted long enough.

What’s complicated is that we’ve achieved the self knowledge that the reptile part of the human brain still controls. Some seek to manage the lizard thoughts and some seek to exploit the power. Which is easier? Democracy is messy- chaotic, while control by limiting freedom is candy to the many. Expect more candy and less freedom. Fighting for freedom and chaos is expensive, like buying insurance- but isn’t buying insurance smart? Isn’t respecting human rights a good idea? Oh yeah it is complicated.

Mr. Friedman uses the first person 11 times in the first paragraph. Thank you.

Friedman writes: The only Arab Spring country that was able to make the transition (albeit still tentative) from dictatorship to democracy, and to power-sharing between Islamists and secularists, was Tunisia — the one Arab country America had nothing to do with. Think about that. Yes think about it. It is NOT complicated. We should stay out of foreign interventions, close our hundreds of bases scattered in over 150 countries, and much more. Our foreign interventions almost all ended up either destroying the country, propping up dictators, and cost lives and treasures. In addition to our Middle East misadventures, we negatively affected Guatemala Honduras and Salvador, countries that is producing the immigrants knocking on our borders now, decades later. Yes think about it. but it is not complicated.

Interesting review. Thought provoking for some, I imagine. I don’t know that Friedman ever saw himself as an idealist as he helped pump up support for intervention into Iraq, but I suspect his zeal in taking on the review of Power’s book was, in part, motivated by his own personal interest in letting us know “it’s complicated” and in a sly way asking those of us who have cast his opinions aside as untrustworthy to take another look.

In Samantha Power is the intelligent, passionate, humorous, reflective personality that is nowhere to be found in the Trump administration.

Every Tom, Dick, and Betty who has worked in government is thereafter writing a book. Not usually very worth reading. Just another form of narcissistic self-enjoyment and venality waiting for the money to roll in, which in most cases will never much happen.