Foreign Policy Magazine is to real foreign policy as People Magazine is to real people. Discuss.

This recent blog post from Daniel Drezner on his FP blog is refreshingly honest.  It asks (warns?) rivals and friends of the USA to refrain from interfering in the domestic debate raging between Congress and the White House over such things as health care and debt servicing.

Fair enough.

I suppose it would be too much to look forward to reciprocity on this issue, to expect that the USA– once it gets its sh*t back in a bag–do the same with regard to the domestic affairs of its rivals and friends?

Thought not.

Carry on.


4 thoughts on “Foreign Policy Magazine is to real foreign policy as People Magazine is to real people. Discuss.

  1. Madhu says:

    Hahaha, that’s my blog comment vibe exactly!

    Everyone messes around in everyone’s business and has forever and ever. But we really made it a habit (we being a lot of people) during the Cold War.

    Propaganda, lobbying, and, my favorite “point” to make on Small Wars Journal and elsewhere, pointing out the Orwellian nature of the acronym “GONGO!”

    Governments sponsored NGO’s, democracy activists, this activist and that activist, punching above one’s weight, the US State Department’s entire shelf-life! Foreign policy is ritualized meddling. Hawks, doves, let’s-make-the-world-a-better-place types, the savior complex (looking at you, Davos man billionaire with your plans for saving the world), and so on.

  2. Madhu says:

    Finally got through to read his post. He’s not incorrect in the particulars but I guess now we in the US know how it feels when we lecture others :)

    But between me, you and the internet, I’m not sure certain DC types have an ability to look at the self all that critically. Self-awareness is not something that can be shilled on a vitae….

    I came by this knowledge the hard way. The eager immigrant in Boston because I’d “made” it. And what I saw! I don’t know why I spend so much time on blogs, I’d do better writing about that experience.

    A certain rubber chicken lunch with featured speaker Madeleine Albright comes to mind….

    • Madhu says:

      “A new excitement begins. First there is the excitement of encounter with American bureaucracy, uniformed, brisk and purposeful, suddenly and disconcertingly friendly. “What is the purpose of your visit? What sort of lecture? History? I’m interested in history. I read a lot of history.” – Fields of Battle: The Wars for North America, John Keegan

      I guess I AM fully assimiliated (or whatever), unfashionable word. Are you all interested in history? I read a lot of history….

      Be honest. “They” are fascinating to watch from afar, aren’t they? Fascinating and horrible and wonderful, all at the same time. From afar is definitely preferable, isn’t it? I can’t quite quit “you” or “they”. It shows, doesn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *