Condoleezza Rice has been out of the limelight for some time, but she emerges with the latest political lingo in her Washington Post piece about Russia’s strangle-hold on the Ukraine. Throughout her piece she rehashes the political differences of old and champions not only the Keystone Pipeline, but she urges the EU to set up a network of piping to counter Russia’s market.
Let me just get this out there. I don’t know if the other former Secretary of State will use the slogan, something about ‘in it to win it’ again, but if the GOP could settle their differences and put forth a Rice/Rubio ticket it would be over for the Democrats at least for the next decade. The Clinton’s would have to know this would usher in an entirely new political map.
The choice of Rice’s words were did not characterize Putin as Hitler’esk but characterized him from a first person standpoint and carefully articulated Putin’s intent and objectives like the foremost seasoned intellectual on Russian affairs that she is.
Secretary Rice’s opinion piece urged more action in Syria, a contingency force left in Iraq, troops in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future despite the leadership’s objections, and she highlighted threats around the globe like actions by Beijing, Iran and Vladimir Putin’s “hard power”.
Rice states, “Most important, the United States must restore its standing in the international community, which has been eroded by too many extended hands of friendship to our adversaries, sometimes at the expense of our friends.”
Has our standing in the world languished since the last administration or during?
The question is key, because the political battle in the U.S. will be waged on this front. Democrats will almost certainly make the case that they have attempted to fix all of the problems of the previous administration. Before candidate Obama received any foreign policy creds he was talking about dumb wars and when he ran for his second term in office he cited our actions in Libya as a smart war.
Never before has the differences been so starkly different. What’s even more mind-boggling is a speech by Rice’s boss, as a GOP frontrunner for President, George W. Bush gave these comments on American not being a world police:
"America must be involved in the world," Bush said. "But that does not mean our military is the answer to every difficult foreign policy situation - a substitute for strategy. American internationalism should not mean action without vision, activity without priority, and missions without end - an approach that squanders American will and drains American energy."
Yet Secretary Rice signals an expansion of America’s might around the globe and unlike her fellow party members, in stating her case she doesn’t even mention President Obama.
Rice has more than ample material for her platform. I know, I know on many occasions she has said she will not run, but the items addressed in her opinion piece requires and almost demands her leadership.