Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Paul Buchanan and the SIS

Much of the current criticism of the SIS comes from the usual suspects on the fringe Left but Paul Buchanan is more difficult to categorise.

This article gives an indication of where he is coming from - Little to be gained by toadying to US.

What caught my attention was what he had to say about US involvement in Liberia -
Abandoning the realist premises that are ostensibly the heart of Republican foreign policy, the US increasingly uses the threat of force as first resort in strategically debatable places such as Liberia.
Liberia, a few months back, was gripped by a rather nasty civil war.

Interestingly, it was the centre-Left who were pushing for US military intervention and were criticising Bush for inaction. Eventually the US sent in a very small force which acted as an advance guard for a larger, African, peace keeping force.

Just the sort of intervention one would expect liberals to support.

But look at how Buchanan presents this. He argues that US intervention in Liberia was "strategically debatable". It probably was. The US gained nothing from it. But the whole point of the exercise was to save Liberian lives, to stop a war. This for Buchanan is unimportant. He sounds like a typical old school isolationist Republican.

He also alleges that in this case force was a "first resort". But this is completely untrue. The US refrained form intervention for some time, trying to find other options.

Buchanan's analysis is pretty odd and not even accurate. And that is my impression of what he has to say about the SIS.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

the author seems to make a career of defending the SIS, this is the odd thing about him.What are Morrisons motives? What are his links to the Mossad spies, AUT and Tony Resnick the "medic" who helped provide info on paraplegics for use in NZ passport applications

8 January 2005 at 4:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home