Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
And such reigns the power of myth.
I was the FAO-DET CDR in the DAO at the AmEmb-Bonn in 1990-1991. The 'de facto' US Ambassador to Libya (who was not a career diplomat but an SES-level careerist from another department as we did not ' officially' recognize Libya diplomatically) was a close friend and an extremely busy man who spent much time in Switzerland and Malta in the performance of his duties.
Gadhaffi was fairly quiet publicly - but he held no real power and those wielding power under the political structure which actually controlled Libya was, to our dismay, a very actively engaged and disruptive force in North African and Mediterranean political matters.
"America, hell yeah!" felt better - our staunchest allies became leery and distrustful of our ' cowboy' diplomacy mentality - and our true enemies grew even more determined as they went further underground and became ever more difficult to identify, locate, and keep at bay.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02  |
Well I'm obviously at an informational disadvantage in this, and my primary tool of influence over foreign policy is rendered once every 4 years.
Considering the orginal context of my comment to Sigaba, and to help make better educated choices at the ballot box:
-In your professional opinion, how would you compare the effectiveness of foreign policy with regard to threats when Carter, Reagan, and Clinton are put next to each other?
-Would the effectiveness of the current administration be cause for recommending replacement?