The U.S. isn’t the only country to have spawned an idealistic suburbanite who ended up fighting for the Middle Ages in Afghanistan.
POLITICAL SITE OF THE DAY: Thanks to aboutpolitics.com for naming us their site of the day.
AIDS IN INDIA: On the plane to Chicago this evening, I got time to read two deeply rewarding essays. One was Michael Specter’s report from India on the burgeoning HIV epidemic in that country. The piece is full of the usual New Yorker high-mindedness, but it breaks ranks with orthodoxy by making a simple, arresting point. Cheap anti-HIV drugs – or even free anti-HIV drugs – have all but no relevance to curtailing the epidemic in a vast and dirt-poor country like India. It’s far more important and feasible in such a place to find innovative ways to prevent HIV infection than to treat or cure it. Specter, like all New Yorker writers, is a liberal. He’s basically sympathetic to writers like Tina Rosenberg who have laid almost the entire responsibility for the spread of HIV in the developing world at the feet of the evil pharmaceutical companies. But when Specter actually saw the situation on the ground, he saw the tragic futility of such an approach. And his intellectual honesty casts a dark shadow on the real motivations of some of those who want to use the developing world HIV crisis to cripple a free market in pharmaceuticals at home. Alas, Specter’s piece is not online. But if you get the New Yorker, don’t miss it.
WHEN AMERICA BLINKED: I also got around to Robert Kagan’s endless book review in The New Republic of David Halberstam’s tome on “Bush, Clinton and the Generals.” Like much of what Kagan writes, it was cogent, elegant and powerful. Kagan’s account of the collapse of foreign policy nerve among American elites in the past generation is a wonderful rubric through which to see the country’s recent history. It’s a polemic, of course, but that only buoys the narrative along. What you get here is an almost pristine view of the boundless potential of American power abroad, and the necessity to project it anywhere and everywhere to do good, prevent harm, and generally bring about a better world. I’m sure Kagan would consider my reaction to his often breathless naivete about the wider world to be a symptom of my own enmeshment in American decadence. But his admirable idealism and sharp intellect would, I think, be leavened if they came with at least some respect for the virtues of moderation in foreign policy, prudence in foreign engagements, and respect for other powers and cultures. Certainly, we need more of Kagan’s spirit in foreign policy – but I’d be terrified if there were no moderating influence as well. That’s why, although I’m critical of many of Colin Powell’s views, I’m glad he’s at the table in the current war. The president, I think, understands this mix. I wish that some neoconservatives, who deserve our gratitude for their powerful critique of recent foreign policy, would appreciate this more.
The Dish 