stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

From “policed By America” To “policed By Nobody”

May 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm David Frum | 18 Comments |

Share
| Print

That’s the verdict of a former head of Britain’s spy service on the state of the world under the Obama administration.

Recent Posts by David Frum



18 Comments so far ↓

  • balconesfault // May 3, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    I like it – an interesting hook to get people to jump to an article about whether Tony Blair preferentially selected an Intelligence Chief as a reward for producing the British dossier that was used by Blair and Bush as evidence of Saddam’s nuclear weapons program.

  • barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 5:17 am

    Re: Balconesfault; 9:41 PM –Yep! (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)Frum’s quite a character.(*CHUCKLE*)BILL

  • ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 5:35 am

    This of course assume that our role is to be the world’s policeman. An interesting conceit from an alleged conservative. Amazing how in eight short years for domestic political reasons we moved to being the world’s policeman and major nation builder.

  • sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 6:36 am

    David Frum: On New Majority, you’ve never stated your own vision for foreign policy. But just from the headline here, it sounds like you are nostalgic for the days when America was the world’s policeman.If so, I have some questions: Would you favor U.S. military intervention in Darfur? There is more bloodletting going on there than there was in Iraq under Saddam.How about Iran? Would you favor a pre-emptive military strike to disable their nuclear capabilities before they test-fire a nuke?(In case anyone is curious, my own answer to both of these questions is NO.)

  • ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 6:42 am

    balconesfault 9:41 PM”….for producing the British dossier that was used by Blair and Bush as evidence of Saddam’s nuclear weapons program.”……Doe anyone really still believe Bush/Blair didn’t fix the intelligence to justify the war

  • sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 6:43 am

    ottovbvs: The backing by neo-conservatives of an aggressive “world policeman” foreign policy had nothing to do with “domestic political concerns” of the last 8 years. Rather, it was long in coming. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), made up of neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Gaffney and Kagan, set forth this agenda way back in 1997.http://tinyurl.com/6c3lAnd their decision to “Liberate Iraq” from Saddam wasn’t made after 9-11, but *before* 9-11.http://tinyurl.com/674bu6This paper is a truly fascinating document. The main reason given for smashing Iraq is simply to make an example of Iraq, to impress the whole world with our “indomitable” military might. And by so doing, to make up for the humiliation of Vietnam, which caused America to lose its “hayba” (an Arabic word meaning “mojo”).The events of the last 8 years, however, have demonstrated what was wrong with their argument.

  • ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 7:18 am

    sinz54 wrote 28 minutes ago”The backing by neo-conservatives of an aggressive “world policeman” foreign policy had nothing to do with “domestic political concerns” of the last 8 years”……It had an enormous amount to do with it because a forward foreign policy and domestic political support were seen as self reinforcing. I suggest you read some of the PNAC position papers by people like Perle which make exactly that point. You actually give an example of it yourself… “to impress the whole world with our “indomitable” military might. And by so doing, to make up for the humiliation of Vietnam, which caused America to lose its “hayba” (an Arabic word meaning “mojo”).”

  • Bulldoglover100 // May 4, 2009 at 7:21 am

    Or hey we could let the spittle covered nut jobs who seem to be running this party these days tell us what we can and can’t do! Fix the problems at home David and the ones in other countries will take care of theirselves. Remember, this country was attacked on Bush’s watch.

  • bloodstar // May 4, 2009 at 8:25 am

    Frum,I’m glad you were one hundred percent behind the intervention in Bosnia. I’m also pleased to know you feel the United States should go it alone and be the world policeman.Really, your credibility to create a new conservatism is being shot to tatters by your own unwillingness to recognize the fundamental unsoundness and incoherence of your own message.Really? the Telegraph? next thing we will hear, you’ll think CNS is a fantastic unbiased source of information.My suggestion, focus on the Republican party or a third party and get your own house in order. Otherwise you keep looking more and more like all the other current ‘conservative’ movements who offer only snark and no solution.

  • ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 8:34 am

    bloodstar wrote 3 minutes ago”Really, your credibility to create a new conservatism is being shot to tatters by your own unwillingness to recognize the fundamental unsoundness and incoherence of your own message.”……I have to say this is absolutely correct. David is suggesting a new direction for which he’s to be applauded but he’s not walking the talk. Either from institutional recidivism or emotion he keeps bringing along the same old baggage that has been instrumental in the destruction of conservatism over the last 20 years.

  • sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 10:00 am

    ottovbvs: The example I gave had nothing to do with impressing Americans. It was to impress foreign regimes, in hopes that they would fear us and cave in to our demands. Regimes like Libya and Iran. (In the case of Libya, this actually worked; Qaddafi proved more amenable to a settlement after he saw Baghdad fall to coalition forces.)I even searched PNAC. Here is a letter from Perle, urging Clinton to act against Serbia, even against the wishes of domestic conservatives (such as myself) and Clinton opponents who said we had no vital interest there:http://www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial_Apr26_99.pdfI’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying I can’t find evidence to support your contention.

  • sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 10:08 am

    ottovbvs: David Frum isn’t talking the talk either. I have yet to see a clear vision or manifesto from Frum on foreign policy.David Frum seems to be suggesting that in a “center-right” GOP coalition, all the center cares about is relaxing the GOP language on abortion and same-sex marriage. Not true!We “centrists” have some other disagreements, on the Bush war policy with its trillion-dollar nation-building venture, for example.

  • ottovbvs // May 4, 2009 at 11:38 am

    sinz54 10:00 AMottovbvs: The example I gave had nothing to do with impressing Americans.”And by so doing, to make up for the humiliation of Vietnam, which caused America to lose its “hayba” (an Arabic word meaning “mojo”).”…….Nothing to do with domestic political considerations…Ever attended comprehension classes?…..There are also plenty of other examples by the neocons as I mentioned…..I haven’t the time or inclination to search for them.

  • sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    ottovbvs: If you will read the full paper from which my example came, you will understand the context of it better. That’s the last time I’m going to say this to you.

  • mlindroo // May 5, 2009 at 3:38 am

    Sinz54 wrote:> ottovbvs: David Frum isn’t talking the talk either. I have > yet to see a clear vision or manifesto from Frum on > foreign policy.Indeed! The omission of foreign policy is hugely baffling since the PNAC-inspired Iraq policy arguably is *the* single most important reason for the implosion of the Bush Administration and the GOP in general.—Frum & co. are admirably open minded on other [domestic-] issues but foreign policy remains the big weakness. We get a lot of inane, reflexively hawkish pro-Israel, anti-Islamic soundbites from the usual thoroughly discredited AEI suspects and….little else really. MARCU$

  • sinz54 // May 5, 2009 at 7:10 am

    mlindroo: Our Israel policy is NOT what doomed the GOP. Israel is a civilized, pro-Western, technologically advanced nation. They are our natural ally, just like Britain is our natural ally. We have a “special relationship” with both. It’s not just based on shared interests. It’s also based on culture. They are like us.And support of Israel doesn’t lose us any votes, except the votes of radical black activists like Louis Farrakhan and who wants their votes anyway. Support for Israel was a non-issue in the 2008 election.Reagan was staunchly pro-Israel (for which he received 40% of the Jewish vote). But he didn’t plunge America into a counterinsurgency quagmire for dubious reasons the way Bush 43 did.BTW: When the Bushies were getting ready to invade Iraq, Israeli military and intelligence officials warned them not to do it.

  • sinz54 // May 5, 2009 at 7:17 am

    mlindroo: Ironically, the GOP would be better off returning to the foreign policy that *candidate* Bush espoused in 2000 when running against Al Gore.In his debate with Gore, Bush called for a “humble” foreign policy (as opposed to the “arrogance” of Madeline Albright), but with a strong national defense as a safeguard. He said: “If we’re humble, but strong, other nations will respect us.” That was in the 2000 Repubican Platform too.In response, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, strongly supportive of the PNAC ideas, promised to break Bush of that ignorant nonsense. They did.

  • Mike K // May 5, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    “the GOP would be better off returning to the foreign policy that *candidate* Bush espoused in 2000 when running against Al Gore.”I’m sure we would all like to return to the days when militant Islam was not attacking us directly. That is the difference between children and adults.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.