Oh, wow.  Anne Marie-Slaughter has resurfaced in The New York Times to upbraid Obama for not having acted to stop the formation of ISIS in Syria two years ago. She begins:

"For the last two years, many people in the foreign policy community, myself included, have argued repeatedly for the use of force in Syria — to no avail. We have been pilloried as warmongers and targeted, by none other than President Obama, as people who do not understand that force is not the solution to every question."

That is frankly, stunning to me.  In 2002/2003, Slaughter advocated for the invasion of Iraq and got her way.  Despite her catastrophic blunder, she found a high level job in Hilary Clinton's State Department, giving her the ear of both the Secretary of State and the President.  If Clinton is elected President, she will probably be offered another high level job. If that's "pilloried," then sign me up.

"This is where the White House is most blind. It sees the world on two planes: the humanitarian world of individual suffering, where no matter how heart-rending the pictures and how horrific the crimes, American vital interests are not engaged because it is just people; and the strategic world of government interests, where what matters is the chess game of one leader against another, and stopping both state and nonstate actors who are able to harm the United States.

In fact, the two planes are inextricably linked. When a government begins to massacre its own citizens, with chemical weapons, barrel bombs and starvation, as Syria’s continues to do, it must be stopped. If it is not stopped, violence, displacement and fanaticism will flourish.”

This is the thinking behind "Responsibility To Protect," a controversial foreign policy doctrine that Slaughter adheres to and promotes.  It has origins in the U.S. "failure" to act in Rwanda.  It is a far more mainstream idea in "The Foreign Policy Community" than it is in mainstream America.  That doesn't mean its wrong.  The purpose of these posts is to point out that these people, who make life and death decisions on our behalf, speak their own language and we are not always privy.

"The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power."

I'm sure its no surprise to any of you that the "Foreign Policy Community" is developing a language of war without risk.  Boots on the ground have been replaced with lightning bolts from the blue.  Don't worry, you will never have to fight and die for this and if your kids or your neighbors kids, who are volunteers, do have to fight, they probably won't have to die because drones.

"On the legal side, we should act in both countries because we face a threat to global peace and security, precisely the situation the United Nations Security Council was established to address. If nations like Russia and China block action for their own narrow interests, we should act multilaterally, as we did in Kosovo, and then seek the Council’s approval after the fact. The United Nations Charter was created for peace among the people of the world, not as an instrument of state power."

So if the UN Security Council doesn't go along it should be bypassed and given the chance to rubber stamp history after the fact because it is not an instrument of state power, you see.  I guess she's right.  It's not an instrument.  Unless an unlocked door is an instrument.

Here I see something about power and its unilateral exercise that holds hands with what we learned from Robert Kagan yesterday.