This is the third essay in a series: Condemned to Repeat It: Myths and Lessons of the 20th Century.  The previous essays addressed Die Dolchstoßlegende and the decisions that led to Stalingrad.  The series is based on George Santayana's axiom:

Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

December 7, 1941.

September 11, 2001.

In his latest article in the New Yorker, veteran reporter Seymour Hersch explores the complex geopolitical calculus in the Middle East.  The article is long and deep, and I had to read it twice to follow Hersch's underlying narrative.  That narrative might be summarized as:  the Bush Administration's new strategy in the Middle East is to use Iran, and the Shi'a, as a convenient foil.  If true, this marks the advent of a third phase in the U.S.

[Several months ago I began what was to be a series of essays about myths and lessons of 20th Century history, based on George Santayana's axiom that "Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it."  I've neglected it but here is Part II.]

I've written at some length about the need for a coherent, long-term vision of the United States and her role in the world.  And I do believe that is essential.  However, we must always remember that it is all too easy for "long-term vision" to become "tunnel vision," and thus to solve one set of problems by creating others.

Rather than hijack maddy's thread on the UPI article, I'd like to invite Guyman (and anyone else who wishes) to participate in a discussion about what America's role in the world ought to be. 

This brilliant article by Professor (and former CIA analyst) Chalmers Johnson ought to be required reading for anyone who cares about the United States and the values upon which she was founded.  His core thesis is that it is not possible for a state to be both a democracy and an empire; the prerequisites for each are irreconcilable with the other.

Speaking in La Plume, Pennsylvania on behalf of embattled Republican congressman Don Sherwood, President Bush said yesterday, "for Democrats ... victory is not an option."  MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted the irony that Bush should attrribute to the Democrats a conclusion of a commission headed James Baker.  Baker was the Secretary of State under Bush's father, and the man who spearheaded the GOP Florida recount fight that won Bush the presidency in 2000.

In another thread, rsloan wrote of me:

"Frankly, I usually don't agree with what she has to say, and sometimes I have suspected her of being a Trojan Horse."

I've no Greeks inside, or if I do, I'm unaware of it.  (*imagines herself in the role of Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and shudders*)

No, it's just that, from a policy perspective, I think a lot of our "conventional wisdom" -- the stuff the mainstream media feeds us, and even some of what we read from traditional authorities -- is still somewhat locked in a Cold War mindset.

I see some of that lingering Cold War worldview in Wes Clark, a man I greatly respect and admire, for whom I've voted before, for whom I will vote again.  And I understand why.  Wes served this country with courage and honor and complete commitment, for over 30 years.  That service lay in the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Army's mission was based on a specific worldview, both an assessment of threats (e.g.: the Soviet Union) and the means by which the U.S. could meet those threats (the Containment Policy established by Harry Truman).

As I watched the news from North Korea these past few days, I knew it was only a matter of time before Democrats began blaming President Bush for Kim Jung Il's nuclear test.  I'm no fan of the president, nor of the Republican party, as anyone who's read my blog will know.  But when it comes to North Korea ...

... au contraire.  Kim Jung Il is driving this crisis.  What's more, only one nation has the power to stop him, and the United States is not that nation.  That nation is China, and this week's North Korean nuclear test is China's failure, not the U.S.'s.