about Iraq being referred to in this thread. Here's what it said:
While Zakaria initially supported using military force against Iraq, he argued for a United Nations-sanctioned operation and occupation with a much larger force (approximately 400,000 troops). He also called for a Bosnia or Kosovo-style occupation that was international, rather than American, in nature. He wrote a Newsweek cover-essay the week the Iraq war began entitled "The Arrogant Empire", which detailed the failures of the Bush foreign policy in the run-up to the war. He was an early and aggressive critic of the occupation, arguing against the disbanding of the Iraqi army and bureaucracy, which the administration accomplished under the guise of "de-Baathification". He predicted that accelerating the build-up of the Iraqi military would create a Shia and Kurdish army that would exacerbate the sectarian tensions in the country. Four months into the occupation, his columns bore such titles as "Iraq Policy is broken," and in September of 2003 he wrote a cover story for Newsweek entitled "So What's Plan B?" In February of 2005, the week before Iraq's elections, he wrote "...no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim." In his October 2006 Newsweek cover essay, Zakaria called for a reduction in American troops in Iraq to 60,000 by the end of 2007.And I admit his deep insider credentials make me extremely wary -
In 2006, he was named one of the 100 most influential graduates of Harvard University. He currently serves on the boards of Yale University, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, New America Foundation and Columbia University's International House. Mr. Zakaria is a recipient of The International Center's Award of Excellence.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_ZakariaSo after reading the rest of that Wikipedia page on him, I do think my initial enthusiasm for him is definitely overstated, under-informed and needs revision or a good dose of 'realism' itself. The interview with Rose was my first exposure to him (that I'm aware of), and it is a great discussion, though I didn't agree with everything he said.
I think he is a realist and well informed about the world. He is a staunch capitalist, however, and free trade advocate which is not viable in its current corrupt form. But I find the breadth of his views refreshing and his feel for how this country can transition into a new role within a global community, etc., much more inspirational than anything else I've been hearing lately.
Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, I'd suggest you listen to the program when its available at the link I provided and see if you can hear him with fresh ears.
I'd like to hear more conversations like that going on.