Cheerleading, uni-dimensional advice (pacifistic or militaristic), blaming others (individuals, institutions, countries) for poor execution, and the continuous disregard/simplification of the seminal self-interests of other countries and peoples (whether they coincide or conflict with ours) are automatic disqualifiers for consideration.
Anyone who has ever used the term 'domino' to refer to anything other than their personal gaming experiences in their family room is disqualified.
Anyone who refers to the voting percentage in an occupied country as a barometer of democratic health is disqualified.
Anyone who combines the terminology of 'escalation' and 'democracy' in the same sentence is disqualified.
Anyone who does not know that threats not acted upon are simply bluffs waiting to be called is disqualified.
Lastly, anyone who thinks that the short or intermediate term application of military force will be 'transformative' in any other way than destructive (which can be desirable in some circumstances, like Hiroshima) needs to be permanently barred from any serious foreign policy discussion.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sometimes you should skip the blog and read the comments
"lone wolf," whoever he or she is, lists a number of qualities that should disqualify anyone from being taken seriously in discussions about foreign policy -- this in a comment at ex-Chicagoan Daniel Drezner's blog: