CHAPTER SEVEN: Terrorism and the World after 9/11

Using the Perspectives

A recent L.A. Times opinion editorial takes a close look at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's changing rhetoric on how to handle terrorism.

In a Foreign Affairs article published in 2000, Rice took a very realpolitik approach to foreign policy calling into question "values-based Clinton-era" humanitarian interventions that drained resources and emphasized the importance of not isolating or ignoring powerful states. She wrote "The military is . . . not a civilian police force, it is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. . . . It is one thing to have a limited political goal and to fight decisively for it; it is quite another to apply military force incrementally, hoping to find a political solution somewhere along the way."

1.  What perspective do you see in Rice's early statements?
     

2.  What are the "values-based Clinton-era" missions, and why would she refer to them as such?
     

The editorial notes that a Foreign Affairs article published 8 years later, in a post 9/11 world, Rice takes a very different approach to foreign policy but all the while explains her previous stance.

She reflected that in 2000 "monumental changes were unfolding--changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear. [After 9/11] the United States was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective."

The LA Times editorial notes how in the latest article Rice has reversed her stance on humanitarian interventions and state-building. Rice traces the causes of terrorism to authoritarian and oppressive regimes and the lack of freedom and opportunity they are associated with. 'In the broader Middle East,' she asserts, for too long the U.S. 'supported authoritarian regimes,' but this 'produced false stability. . . . there were virtually no legitimate channels for political expression.' No wonder, then, 'that Al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers. . . . Our theory of victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully--to develop their talents, to redress injustices and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency: The center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.'"

3.  Does Rice's foreign policy change represent a perspective change? If so, what new perspective is she using? Justify your response.
     

4.  Which approach do you find the most compelling? What are the implications for the U.S. role in Iraq and elsewhere?
     

Rosa Brooks, L.A. Times, June 26, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-brooks26-2008jun26,0,1852466.column