Good Versus Evil Isn't a Strategy

Madeleine Albright has a good article in the LA Times titled "Good Versus Evil Isn't a Strategy" about Bush's "Manichean" foreign policy stance, and how it is hurting the U.S. (link here).

I'll let you read the article yourself, but there was an interesting response from the neoconservatives over at WeeklyStandard.com (link here). The first half of the response is nothing but sarcastic comments about how the Clinton administration failed to really stabilize the world, and how 9/11 was really all Clinton's fault. I'm no fan of Clinton, but this kind of sarcastic political reaching is pathetic. In addition, do Bush supporters really want to compare Clinton's accomplishments (even if meager) with the disaster Bush has brought upon the world?

The part of the response I'm most interested in is in response to Albright's advice to Bush on Iran. In an attempt to paint Albright as either a "flip-flopper" or as someone who should support regime change in Iran, the response questions Albright's statement that belligerence towards Iran will make regime change more difficult there because the population will rally behind their extremist president. What the Weekly Standard wants to know is, why did Albright openly support regime change in Iraq if she says it is counterproductive in Iran? As is typical of neoconservatives, the Standard fails to realize that Iran is not Iraq, and that there was little risk of the Iraqi people rallying behind Saddam the brutal dictator. This, however, is not the case in Iran, where the president was elected and enjoys popular support. Once again neoconservatives' black-and-white, over-simplified view of foreign policy leads them to ridiculous conclusions.