(Here's a letter-to-the-editor that will be printed in my local paper here in North Carolina. Permission hereby granted to use any part or all of it in letters to your hometown papers.)

Not to rehash this Bosnia business, but the quote I want to discuss is part of the larger Bosnia story.

In video of Hillary Clinton's Bosnia remarks she says:

There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the President couldn't go, so send the First Lady.

Now, the Bosnia stuff aside, I think this is an important point, especially when contrasted with the
the Obama Doctrine (for those who missed it, it's a great piece).

Now, I'm not going to say that this quote of Senator Clinton's actually reflects her views, nor do I want to downplay the significance of having the First Lady visit another state.  In fact, this diary isn't even about her views.  Perhaps this was just joking banter among the White House staff.  And, clearly, she was mostly referring to Bosnia as "too dangerous."  But this statement does reflect a fundamental problem with US foreign policy.  These places that are "too small, too poor" are the same places, in many cases, where anti-US/West hate thrives, and should be a focal point of our positive foreign policy approach (in addition, of course, to fighting terrorism militarily).  The idea that a place could be "too poor" to be visited by the President of the United States is stunningly ignorant of the fact that the biggest source of the world's problems is poverty and that extremism's taproots are often found in impoverished countries or communities.

I would argue that visiting the poorest states and nations should be a priority for any American President, and that aiding them in building a healthy economy and in upholding human rights are among the most important foreign policy goals we could have.  They're far more important than forcing elections on a state that clearly hasn't overcome the obstacles to a functional democracy, and then claiming that democracy is on the rise.  We have focused our foreign policy, since World War II, on who in a given state controls the reins of power.  When democracy elects someone pro-American, we hail democracy!  When it elected someone socialist or communist, during the Cold War, we'd support a coup and then hail a strong anti-communist leader!  Has this really changed all that much?  In focusing on power, we're ultimately forgetting the idea of the social contract, and that no matter the type of government, the true power lies with the people's willingness to follow where the government would lead.  In Iraq, we won the traditional war (pre-insurgengy) and then tried to win the hearts and minds.  This approach is backward.  We should try to win hearts and minds, such that democratic leaders are friendly with us because their people are and such that, should non-democratic regimes be overcome either through violence or a peaceful transition, that the newly elected democrats of those countries are predisposed to befriend us, not because we insulate their power but because we've acted toward them in a friendly and helpful manner.  Can any state truly be "too poor" to deserve our attention?  I think not.

And, of course, the same applies to these states that are "too small."  Too small?  There were 19 hijackers on 9/11.  How small a state must one be that it cannot possibly produce 19 extremists?  It took fewer still to attack the USS Cole, and fewer again to bomb the Marine barracks in Beirut.  How small a state is too small to contribute to such extremism?    

Unfortunately, we have been more interested in creating leaders who'll agree with us than in creating partner states that are friendly toward us because we've been friendly and helpful toward them.  Now, in this even Bush has done some good, particularly with his Africa AIDS policy, though it's misguided in efforts to make a practical disease prevention policy fit a moral code, as if disease ravaging a continent isn't far more of a moral problem than a lack of abstinence and monogamy.  But we've at least turned some resources and interest toward a continent where extremism has a foothold.

Of course, we can't simply react to extremism; we must be proactive.  If we know that poverty is one of the primary causes that allows it to gain traction, then surely combating poverty the world over is important as a national security goal.  Instead, we wait until extremism has a foothold and then combat it.  This, of course, lends voice to a valid question: why didn't the United States care about us before extremism?  This must be combated!  And, I do not simply mean that we should combat it by giving aid and "throwing money" at the poverty problem.  As rich as the West is in comparison to the rest of the world, we cannot possibly hope to provide enough welfare to raise the world out of poverty.  Instead, our assistance must be in building economies that can be sustained in an increasingly global economy, supporting basic labor reforms, and this must be complimented with a basic but unwavering support for increasing human rights among states with governments of any and all types.  

Even when our military is on offense, it's because we, the United States, are on defense.  We've been on defense long enough.  It's time to go on offense on ALL fronts, and that doesn't mean drumming up a war with Iran but a war against poverty, genocide, starvation, and the other afflictions that fester and make the world ripe for extremist messages.

This is a long post, but I truly hope you'll stay with it to the end. In my view, there's plenty of gems in here and we're getting ready to `go at throttle up' on the Analytical Rocket. This post helps you strap into the rocket, I hope.

First, for fun: an observation and conclusion. You know it's going to be a wild political year when all the politicos want briefings `on what's happening out there'. Now, yesterday. Eight months out. Uh-huh. Are we a bit on edge these days, folks? A bit concern-ed? A bit unsure-ed? Natch on that and there you go on my recent and upcoming sched. Briefings, briefings, briefings, at the end of which comes the world-renowned "Hmm. Really? Hmm." That's the take on the current state of blue campaign strategery in this neck of the woods: noodlin', ponderin', chin-rubbin'. Lots of "hmm."

I am sure you get the picture. It's TBD which frame is more apropos for the year, though: a refrain from Country Joe McDonald's Fixin' to Die Rag ("open up the Pearly Gates, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!") or from Public Image Ltd.'s Warrior ("I take no quarter. This is my land. I'll never surrender. I am. A Warrior.").

Strategically, from what I've seen, I'd say the Talking Heads' Once in a Lifetime has the point locally and nationally so far in 2006: "same as it ever was" for political communications, folks. Politicos are simply more fidgety this time. Nervous tics, that sort of thing. The poor dumb bastards. I'll definitely return to this issue when we get to the recommendations section of the research, given what we know now and also what I think we'll find in the extended analysis (which I plan to conduct and then present next).  And those recommendations are most likely include relentlessly slapping `em all silly. Just so you know. Tough love, you see. Especially since the national blues have that killer-diller Silver Bullet thematic going against the reds: "We can do better." (Sigh.) Jeebus. Jiminy Freaking Christmas, that'll catch fire with voters, don't ya think? Riiiiight.