http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-584 Across the Aisle » Ned Lamont, Tony Snow and Jellyfish Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:10:50 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/#comment-584 [...] Kudos to Madalene O’Donnell and Julie Fischer for their contributions while I was away on vacation. [...] [...] Kudos to Madalene O’Donnell and Julie Fischer for their contributions while I was away on vacation. [...]

]]> http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Across the Aisle » President Bush and the American National Interest Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:33:31 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/#comment-459 [...] Last week, though, Madalene O’Donnell blogged about the answer. Her post started from the premise that the President has, in fact, answered exactly those questions with the National Security Strategy document. But she still criticizes the administration. She takes the President to task for failing to implement the NSS: the NSS talks about failed states as a serious threat to the U.S., but, she argues, the U.S. has not invested much to fix the failed state in Somalia. The NSS talks about the importance of democracy, but the U.S. seemed surprised when Palestinians elected Hamas, voting against the corrupt Fatah government.O’Donnell would have preferred a more aggressive American anti-corruption campaign before the election. Presumably, she has the same view on Lebanon: stronger U.S. nation-building effort might have allowed the Lebanese government to suppress Hezbollah or to convince Hezbollah to disarm and join the democratic government. Overall, O’Donnell traces the failure of American foreign policy to insufficient nation-building. She thinks that the American national interest calls for an expensive plan to create well-functioning institutions all over the world — for example, using American aid in some (unspecified) way to fight corruption. [...] [...] Last week, though, Madalene O’Donnell blogged about the answer. Her post started from the premise that the President has, in fact, answered exactly those questions with the National Security Strategy document. But she still criticizes the administration. She takes the President to task for failing to implement the NSS: the NSS talks about failed states as a serious threat to the U.S., but, she argues, the U.S. has not invested much to fix the failed state in Somalia. The NSS talks about the importance of democracy, but the U.S. seemed surprised when Palestinians elected Hamas, voting against the corrupt Fatah government.O’Donnell would have preferred a more aggressive American anti-corruption campaign before the election. Presumably, she has the same view on Lebanon: stronger U.S. nation-building effort might have allowed the Lebanese government to suppress Hezbollah or to convince Hezbollah to disarm and join the democratic government. Overall, O’Donnell traces the failure of American foreign policy to insufficient nation-building. She thinks that the American national interest calls for an expensive plan to create well-functioning institutions all over the world — for example, using American aid in some (unspecified) way to fight corruption. [...]

]]> http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-430 David H. Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:35:33 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/07/19/statecraft-and-state-failure/#comment-430 Isn't part of the problem that the US has a very circumscribed notion of what it will support in the way of "local aspirations for governance"? Why did it take so long to support Fatah? Doesn't the US only really believe in supporting the guys we like (i.e., the guys who are like us), as opposed to supporting a democratic process filled with many actors? Isn’t part of the problem that the US has a very circumscribed notion of what it will support in the way of “local aspirations for governance”? Why did it take so long to support Fatah? Doesn’t the US only really believe in supporting the guys we like (i.e., the guys who are like us), as opposed to supporting a democratic process filled with many actors?

]]>