Why Hillary Clinton Isn't a Great Secretary of State
If Hillary Clinton is a great secretary of state, you won't be able to convince Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal. He's decided to be the party-pooper in the recent celebration of Ms. Clinton's accomplishments in foreign policy. You can read the whole article by clicking HERE.
What really caught my eye in Mr. Stephen's report was this:
What Makes a "Great" Secretary of State?
Let/s look at what he considers a "great" secretary of state.
Kissinger's "breakthrough" was with China, specifically Mao. Yes, I know Kissinger is some sort of "icon" when it comes to foreign policy. But wasn't Mao one of the most evil political leaders in history? If you read about him, he was arguably a really disgusting evil individual as well. Imagine if some secretary of state had "broken through" and improved our relationship with Hitler's Germany. Mao was a lot worse that Hitler. (If you don't already know that, you should.)
As for Baker "dominating" the foreign policy of George Bush Sr.'s administration, how does that make him great. What did he do? Dominate? I watched Lebron James dominate the recent NBA finals. I can see why that sort of domination contributes to calling him a "great" ball player. How does Baker "dominating" contribute to him being called a great Secretary of State?
Acheson's alliance got the U.S. hooked into all sorts of commitments to all sorts of countries - just the sort of thing George Washington warned about when he left office. And now the U.S. government plays policeman to the entire world. Thanks Mr. Acheson. We're all glad you were such a great Secretary of State.
John Quincy Adams authored what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. (Right, James Monroe didn't think up his Monroe Doctrine. JQA did.) Admittedly, the idea that the Americas were to be considered off-limits to European colonization was probably something that needed to be established. Those meddlesome Europeans weren't needed around here once we got our independence. Of course, as America got more entangled in Central and South America - ostensibly justified by the Monroe Doctrine - that took something that started out pretty good and kind of twisted it until it served the foreign policy adventures that resulted in our becoming more of an imperial power than a republic. Of course, twisting good things to bad purposes isn't something new in human history. But, heck, we can't blame Adams for the ill-conceived policies of his successors. So maybe we can concede some greatness.
As for the great victory by Shultz, I assume we're talking about the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. But, let's face it, the Eastern Europeans who finally got fed up with the Soviet Commies pushing them around and - most especially - Pope John Paul II had a lot to do with that one. And let's not forget Ronald Reagan, his boss. But I suppose Shulz was smart enough to ride the tide on this one, and that takes some smarts. Does that make him "great"? I don't know.
What's common in all this, though, is the idea the a secretary of state who wields power and gets his fingers into all sorts of foreign entanglements somehow gets called "great."
But doesn't this wind up getting us involved in all sorts of foreign military entanglements where we send our soldiers thousands of miles from home and in the end wind up having trouble remembering why we did that in the first place? And even if we remember why we went there to start, how come after a while we're all confused about why we're there now? Afghanistan comes to mind, for example.
Besides, now that we're broke, with a national debt so huge it can never be repaid, do we really need or want a "great" secretary of state right now?
What really caught my eye in Mr. Stephen's report was this:
What would make Mrs. Clinton a great secretary of state is if she had
engineered a major diplomatic breakthrough, as Henry Kissinger did. But
she hasn't. Or if she dominated the administration's foreign policy, the
way Jim Baker did. But she doesn't. Or if she had marshaled a great
alliance (Acheson), or authored a great doctrine (Adams) or a great plan
(Marshall), or paved the way to a great victory (Shultz). But she falls
palpably short on all those counts, too.
What Makes a "Great" Secretary of State?
Let/s look at what he considers a "great" secretary of state.
Kissinger's "breakthrough" was with China, specifically Mao. Yes, I know Kissinger is some sort of "icon" when it comes to foreign policy. But wasn't Mao one of the most evil political leaders in history? If you read about him, he was arguably a really disgusting evil individual as well. Imagine if some secretary of state had "broken through" and improved our relationship with Hitler's Germany. Mao was a lot worse that Hitler. (If you don't already know that, you should.)
As for Baker "dominating" the foreign policy of George Bush Sr.'s administration, how does that make him great. What did he do? Dominate? I watched Lebron James dominate the recent NBA finals. I can see why that sort of domination contributes to calling him a "great" ball player. How does Baker "dominating" contribute to him being called a great Secretary of State?
Acheson's alliance got the U.S. hooked into all sorts of commitments to all sorts of countries - just the sort of thing George Washington warned about when he left office. And now the U.S. government plays policeman to the entire world. Thanks Mr. Acheson. We're all glad you were such a great Secretary of State.
John Quincy Adams authored what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. (Right, James Monroe didn't think up his Monroe Doctrine. JQA did.) Admittedly, the idea that the Americas were to be considered off-limits to European colonization was probably something that needed to be established. Those meddlesome Europeans weren't needed around here once we got our independence. Of course, as America got more entangled in Central and South America - ostensibly justified by the Monroe Doctrine - that took something that started out pretty good and kind of twisted it until it served the foreign policy adventures that resulted in our becoming more of an imperial power than a republic. Of course, twisting good things to bad purposes isn't something new in human history. But, heck, we can't blame Adams for the ill-conceived policies of his successors. So maybe we can concede some greatness.
As for the great victory by Shultz, I assume we're talking about the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. But, let's face it, the Eastern Europeans who finally got fed up with the Soviet Commies pushing them around and - most especially - Pope John Paul II had a lot to do with that one. And let's not forget Ronald Reagan, his boss. But I suppose Shulz was smart enough to ride the tide on this one, and that takes some smarts. Does that make him "great"? I don't know.
What's common in all this, though, is the idea the a secretary of state who wields power and gets his fingers into all sorts of foreign entanglements somehow gets called "great."
But doesn't this wind up getting us involved in all sorts of foreign military entanglements where we send our soldiers thousands of miles from home and in the end wind up having trouble remembering why we did that in the first place? And even if we remember why we went there to start, how come after a while we're all confused about why we're there now? Afghanistan comes to mind, for example.
Besides, now that we're broke, with a national debt so huge it can never be repaid, do we really need or want a "great" secretary of state right now?
Comments