T A B L E+T A L K Will the murder of a prominent human rights lawyer derail the Northern Ireland peace process? Opine in the International Issues area of Table Talk   How-to, why-not and what-for -- find it all at barnesandnoble.com Search by:  Keyword Title Author       R E C E N T L Y A death foretold By Margaret Spillane Despite Rosemary Nelson's murder, the Northern Irish peace process will survive (03/17/99) "You start to think that he's dead" By Jeff Stein Federal agents wonder if Eric Rudolph has survived his year in the wilderness (03/17/99) The question that won't go away By Christopher Hitchens Is Clinton a stone-cold rapist or isn't he? (03/16/99) The China syndrome By Joshua Micah Marshall GOP outrage over Chinese nuclear espionage is mostly politics (03/15/99) The danceable tragedy By Herbert Gold Just past Carnival, dozens die off the Florida coast, and still Haiti waits for a savior (03/12/99) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		STAR WARS LITE? | PAGE 1, 2 - - - - - - - - - - And this is just what the Republicans needed. So recently stung by impeachment, Republicans are also looking for a defining national defense issue to use going into the 2000 election cycle. Just as importantly, today's vote has allowed congressional Republicans to deliver on a pet issue near and dear to the hearts of their most loyal supporters -- something they haven't been able to do for a long time. But whatever significance the vote has in the political skirmishing between the two parties, and however feasible the technology actually may be, no one should ignore the larger issues at play in this debate. Republican support for a national missile defense cuts to the heart of how the United States will manage its foreign affairs in the coming years and decades. Some of the Republican devotion to the national missile defense program is Reagan-era nostalgia. Some is the perennial conservative desire for robust military budgets. But the deeper reason cuts to the heart of the approaches to foreign policy that now divide Republicans and Democrats. The Clinton administration's foreign policy has been based on the idea that America's national interests are best served through an engaged internationalism -- one that fosters regional peace, builds up international institutions and treaty organizations and creates a stable world system, with definable rules and norms. But for the last decade Republicans have increasingly chafed at the numerous international commitments that such a policy of liberal internationalism has made necessary. And that's where a national missile defense comes in. If the United States can make itself invulnerable to missile attacks from abroad, what do we care what North Korea does? Why worry if the crisis in the former Yugoslavia bleeds into the rest of the Balkans? Unfortunately, the tendency toward isolationism that's behind the Republican eagerness for a national missile defense system can't ultimately protect the nation. The most serious threat to the United Sates comes not from ballistic missiles, but from terrorist attacks that can be mounted by much less sophisticated means. Even more important, the isolationist approach to foreign policy that many Republicans now support will arm the country to the teeth without taking clear steps to avoid or reduce the risks of conflict in the first place. Whatever the deficiencies of Clinton administration foreign policy, one of its achievements has been its ability to combine potent national defense with pro-active long-range efforts to prevent conflict. That's an approach that shouldn't be abandoned, but a missile defense system could be a step in that direction. SALON | March 18, 1999 Joshua Micah Marshall is associate editor of the American Prospect.