What Would Machiavelli Do?

[papau]

"a way for Mr. Kerry and John Edwards to frame an antiterrorism strategy that, though not programmatic, would be genuinely illuminating and politically powerful, cutting to the core of President Bush's greatest national security failure" - as in being in favor of earning the respect of the Arab world?????

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/opinion/02wright.html?pagewanted=print&position=

What Would Machiavelli Do?
By ROBERT WRIGHT

ohn Kerry, tough-talking war hero, cut an impressive figure at last week's convention, maybe impressive enough to threaten the Republicans' time-honored dominance of the manliness issue - that is, national security. But you can already hear the Republican reply taking shape: O.K., you've shown us your muscles, but where's the beef? What exactly is your strategy for the war on terrorism?

It's a tricky question. National security challenges rarely lend themselves to the programmatic laundry lists that are tossed at domestic problems, and global terrorism may be the most complex national security challenge ever. That's why the few specifics Mr. Kerry did offer on the terrorism front were underwhelming (he's against closing fire stations, for example). Still, there is a way for Mr. Kerry and John Edwards to frame an antiterrorism strategy that, though not programmatic, would be genuinely illuminating and politically powerful, cutting to the core of President Bush's greatest national security failure. And they may be closer to this formula than they realize, for it fits naturally into the rhetorical framework the Democrats built at their convention.

Mr. Kerry rightly stressed how thoroughly Mr. Bush has lowered the world's opinion of the United States. In elaborating, he said that America can't fight a war on terrorism without allies. That's true, but it doesn't by itself underscore the penchant for complex thought that Mr. Kerry attributed to himself in his acceptance speech. Even Mr. Bush now seems to realize that antagonizing allies is a bad idea. In fact, since the dawn of recorded history, just about everyone has recognized this.

What is new, and uniquely challenging, about the war on terrorism is that hatred of America well beyond the bounds of its alliance now imperils national security. Fervent anti-Americanism among Muslims is the wellspring of terrorism, regardless of whether they live in countries whose governments cooperate with us. Yet this is a part of world opinion Mr. Kerry didn't talk about.<snip>

[library_max]

1. I think there are two main points here.

One the article talks about, regaining the cooperation of our allies worldwide. Any counterterrorism efforts are going to go nowhere fast if we try to do everything ourselves. Of course we will pursue our national interests, but we need to do so with respect for international opinion.

The other is that responsible positions in the intelligence community need to be filled with people who are willing to speak truth to power, and not tell the boss what he wants to hear. And a culture of listening needs to be created, in which intelligence officials who speak truth to power are encouraged and rewarded, not ignored and/or punished. Intelligence should drive the antiterrorism agenda, not the other way around.

[papau]

2. I agree - but how do they reflect what " Machiavelli would Do?"

:-)