[Peace-discuss] Re: Eminently worth reading

[Jim Buell]

>At 12:21 PM 11/2/2002 -0600, John Wason wrote:
>
>This was forwarded to me by a friend in Dublin recently, but it was
>apparently published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; I don't know
>exactly when.  This is probably the most comprehensive and yet concise
>analysis of American foreign policy I've yet seen.  Jerry Landay evidently
>borrowed from it for his Cityview column a couple of weeks ago.
>
>Read it and weep.
>
>John

Quite an article, alright. A web search shows it originally appeared in the 
Atlanta paper on Sept. 29, 2002 - 
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html.

Interestingly, that page links to a rebuttal of sorts from Donald Kagan, 
the chairman of the PNAC 2000 report committee (Al - no relation, right?) - 
Kagan claims there that the PNAC report has been ignored by the Bushies. 
Right. Another side link leads to the transcript of an online chat between 
Bookman, the article author, and various readers. Here's a Q & A segment 
dealing with the Kagan response.

>Question from Atlanta, Ga.: What is your reaction to Donald Kagen's 
>article that
>               dismisses your premises and claims that the Bush 
> Administration is not
>               implementing the PNAC Report?
>
>               Jay Bookman: I'm glad that Dr. Kagan took our offer to 
> respond. I want to point out,
>               though, that "Pax America," with its deliberate evocation 
> of "Pax Romana," is Dr.
>               Kagan's term, not mine.
>
>               Furthermore, while he claims that the administration has 
> not followed his group's
>               recommendations, I find it odd that he fails to cite such 
> an instance. The truth is,
>               when you read through that report, and look at Bush policy, 
> the match is startling.
>
>               The real dispute is over the definition of empire. An 
> American Empire of the 21st
>               century will not be run or governed as the Roman Empire of 
> 2000 years ago. But a
>               nation that reserves for itself the right to intervene 
> militarily anywhere in the world to
>               advance its national interests, even without a direct 
> threat .... well, to my mind
>               "empire" fits.
>
>               I'd also like to mention a 1996 piece in Foreign Affairs 
> magazine. In that piece, Bill
>               Kristol, founder of the New Century project, warns that 
> "conservatives will not be
>               able to govern America over the long term if they fail to 
> offer a more elevated vision of
>               America's international role. What should that role be? 
> Benevolent hegemony." And
>               by the way, Kristol's co-author was Robert Kagan, Donald 
> Kagan's son. So excuse
>               me if I find the professor's rebuttal a little disingenuous.


jb