CLASSIC RICE

In early 2000, Condoleezza Rice had a theory essay published in Foreign Affairs¹ that now seems to show there was a radical change² in her thinking once she came to power. She criticized the Clinton administration for its military actions:

Means and mission were not matched, and (predictably) the already thinly stretched armed forces came close to a breaking point.

Of course, the Iraq Fiasco has done exactly that. Interestingly, Rice attacks Clinton's intervention in Kosovo because it lacked "a political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces."

Here's a prescient warning:

The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.

Rice has explicit statements about Iraq and how to deal with itand other "rogue regimes":

"As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him."

Here is Rice's suggestions for dealing with Saddam and others like him:

"These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and
classical statement of deterrence -- if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration. Second, we should accelerate efforts to defend against these weapons. This is the most important reason to deploy national and theater missile defenses as soon as possible, to focus attention on U.S. homeland defenses against chemical and biological agents, and to expand intelligence capabilities against terrorism of all kinds."

It's easy to say that "9-11 changed everything" but it did not change the limitations on the use of American military power.



¹ "Campaign 2000: Promoting the National Interest"

² The policy hasn't completely changed: here she sounds just like Rumsfeld:

"U.S. technological advantages should be leveraged to build forces that are lighter and more lethal, more mobile and agile, and capable of firing accurately from long distances."