<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel><title><![CDATA[washingtonpost.com - Robert Kagan (washingtonpost.com)]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401674.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><language>en-us</language><ttl>15</ttl>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Putin Makes His Move ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The details of who did what to precipitate Russia's war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category><category><![CDATA[Makes]]></category><category><![CDATA[His]]></category><category><![CDATA[Move]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ In Europe, a Slide Toward Irrelevance ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302639.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302639.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ BRUSSELS -- A mere two years ago, the British author and thinker Mark Leonard published a book titled "Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century." Today, one wonders to what degree Europe will even participate in the 21st century. It's not just the deadly blow struck by Ireland's rejection Thursday of the Lisbon Treaty reorganizing the European Union. I've spent six of the past eight years in the capital of the European Union, and I've noticed over this period a steady loss of self-confidence in Europe, a turning inward and a growing pessimism about the future. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[In]]></category><category><![CDATA[Europe,]]></category><category><![CDATA[a]]></category><category><![CDATA[Slide]]></category><category><![CDATA[Toward]]></category><category><![CDATA[Irrelevance]]></category><category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category><category><![CDATA[United States]]></category><category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category><category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category><category><![CDATA[Gideon Rachman]]></category><category><![CDATA[Nicolas Sarkozy]]></category><category><![CDATA[France]]></category><category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category><category><![CDATA[Lisbon Treaty]]></category><category><![CDATA[Mark Leonard]]></category><category><![CDATA[Angela Merkel]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carl Bildt]]></category><category><![CDATA[Gordon Brown]]></category><category><![CDATA[Hu Jintao]]></category><category><![CDATA[London]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Silvio Berlusconi]]></category><category><![CDATA[Tony Blair]]></category><category><![CDATA[Vladimir Putin]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[Financial Times Ltd.]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ireland]]></category><category><![CDATA[Italy]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Sweden]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Ideology's Rude Return ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102899.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102899.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Ideology matters again. The big development of recent years is the rise not only of great powers but also of the great-power autocracies of Russia and China. True realism about the international scene begins with understanding how this unanticipated shift will shape our world. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Ideology's]]></category><category><![CDATA[Rude]]></category><category><![CDATA[Return]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category><category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category><category><![CDATA[Vladimir Putin]]></category><category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category><category><![CDATA[Mikhail Gorbachev]]></category><category><![CDATA[Berlin]]></category><category><![CDATA[Brussels]]></category><category><![CDATA[London]]></category><category><![CDATA[Paris]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Sergei Lavrov]]></category><category><![CDATA[Berlin Wall]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category><category><![CDATA[Italy]]></category><category><![CDATA[Moscow Kremlin]]></category><category><![CDATA[Spain]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S.S.R.]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category><category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category><category><![CDATA[Washington, DC]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Behind the 'Modern' China ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102552.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102552.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ China can go for great stretches these days looking like the model of a postmodern, 21st-century power. Visitors to Shanghai see soaring skyscrapers and a booming economy. Conference-goers at Davos and other international confabs see sophisticated Chinese diplomats talking about "win-win" instead of "zero-sum." Western leaders meet their Chinese counterparts and see earnest technocrats trying to avoid the many pitfalls on the path to economic modernization.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123926246" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123926246" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Behind]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA['Modern']]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Shanghai]]></category><category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category><category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category><category><![CDATA[Hong Kong]]></category><category><![CDATA[Antwerp]]></category><category><![CDATA[Barcelona]]></category><category><![CDATA[Davos]]></category><category><![CDATA[East Asia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Edinburgh]]></category><category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category><category><![CDATA[G. John Ikenberry]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Tiananmen Square]]></category><category><![CDATA[Belgium]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Spain]]></category><category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902334.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902334.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The long-awaited "resignation" of Fidel Castro may give both Cubans and Americans a chance to escape the trap they've been in for more than four decades. Fidel's brother Raúl will now officially become Cuba's maximum leader, a role he has held unofficially throughout Castro's long debility. That the Cuban leadership has finally reached the point where it must announce a changing of the dictatorial guard indicates this is a good time for the United States to suggest a different and more hopeful course. Instead of passing the torch to a new generation of dictators, Cuba's leaders could commit themselves to hold free and fair elections by the end of this year. And they could begin by unconditionally releasing all the political prisoners held in their jails. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[A]]></category><category><![CDATA[Card]]></category><category><![CDATA[to]]></category><category><![CDATA[Play]]></category><category><![CDATA[for]]></category><category><![CDATA[Cuba's]]></category><category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category><category><![CDATA[Cuba]]></category><category><![CDATA[United States]]></category><category><![CDATA[Fidel Castro]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Violeta Chamorro]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Nicaragua]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S. Congress]]></category><category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ New Europe, Old Russia ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502879.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502879.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Russia and the European Union are neighbors geographically. But geopolitically they live in different centuries. A 21st-century European Union, with its noble ambition to transcend power politics and build an order based on laws and institutions, confronts a Russia that behaves like a traditional 19th-century power. Both are shaped by their histories. The supranational, legalistic E.U. spirit is a response to the conflicts of the 20th century, when nationalism and power politics twice destroyed the continent. But Vladimir Putin's Russia, as Ivan Krastev has noted, is driven in part by the perceived failure of "post-national politics" after the Soviet collapse. Europe's nightmares are the 1930s; Russia's nightmares are the 1990s. Europe sees the answer to its problems in transcending the nation-state and power. For Russians, the solution is in restoring them. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[New]]></category><category><![CDATA[Europe,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Old]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category><category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category><category><![CDATA[Moldova]]></category><category><![CDATA[United States]]></category><category><![CDATA[Vladimir Putin]]></category><category><![CDATA[Estonia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Abkhazia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Kosovo]]></category><category><![CDATA[South Ossetia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Baltic States]]></category><category><![CDATA[Eastern Europe]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ivan Krastev]]></category><category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category><category><![CDATA[Nicolas Sarkozy]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Cooper]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Tbilisi]]></category><category><![CDATA[Belarus]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Latvia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Lithuania]]></category><category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category><category><![CDATA[Turkey]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S.S.R.]]></category><category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Time to Talk to Iran ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401146.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Time]]></category><category><![CDATA[to]]></category><category><![CDATA[Talk]]></category><category><![CDATA[to]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category><category><![CDATA[United States]]></category><category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S.S.R.]]></category><category><![CDATA[Helsinki]]></category><category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category><category><![CDATA[Hezbollah]]></category><category><![CDATA[International Atomic Energy Agency]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S. Armed Forces]]></category><category><![CDATA[United Nations Security Council]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Musharraf and the Con Game ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112101858.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112101858.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ There always seems to be a good reason to support a dictator. In the late 1970s, Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that it was better to support a "right-wing" dictator lest he be replaced by communists. Right-wing dictatorship -- today some call it "liberal autocracy" -- was in any case a necessary way station on the road to democracy. Communist totalitarians would never give up power and stifled any hope for freedom, but our friendly dictators would eventually give way to liberal politics.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123928383" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123928383" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Musharraf]]></category><category><![CDATA[and]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA[Con]]></category><category><![CDATA[Game]]></category><category><![CDATA[Pervez Musharraf]]></category><category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Anastasio Somoza]]></category><category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category><category><![CDATA[United States]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ferdinand Marcos]]></category><category><![CDATA[Hosni Mubarak]]></category><category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Al Qaeda]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[Egypt]]></category><category><![CDATA[El Salvador]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Nicaragua]]></category><category><![CDATA[Pakistani Armed Forces]]></category><category><![CDATA[Philippines]]></category><category><![CDATA[Sandinista National Liberation Front]]></category><category><![CDATA[South Korea]]></category><category><![CDATA[U.S.S.R.]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Free Elections Come First ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601862.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601862.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ During the slavery controversy of the 1850s, Northerners who opposed confronting the South argued for letting nature take its course. Slavery was doomed, they argued, because it could not spread where the climate was inhospitable to cotton and because the atavistic slave system would inevitably be overtaken by industrialization. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Free]]></category><category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category><category><![CDATA[Come]]></category><category><![CDATA[First]]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[Thomas Carothers]]></category><category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category><category><![CDATA[Abraham Lincoln]]></category><category><![CDATA[Eli Whitney]]></category><category><![CDATA[George W. Downs]]></category><category><![CDATA[Lee Kwan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Marc F. Plattner]]></category><category><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]></category><category><![CDATA[German Marshall Fund]]></category><category><![CDATA[Singapore]]></category><category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ The Next Intervention ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501056.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501056.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA[Next]]></category><category><![CDATA[Intervention]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ The 'Blame The Iraqis' Gambit ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102179.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102179.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ When people want to justify the unjustifiable and accept the unacceptable, they try all kinds of ways to make themselves feel better about their decision. For those who want to pull out of Iraq, there is a whole panoply of excuses: ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA['Blame]]></category><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iraqis']]></category><category><![CDATA[Gambit]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Obama the Interventionist ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123930781" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123930781" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA[Interventionist]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ The 'Surge' Is Succeeding ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA['Surge']]></category><category><![CDATA[Is]]></category><category><![CDATA[Succeeding]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Grand Delusion ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601541.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601541.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want. They've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. And they've embarked on these operations with the expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq and the new commander he has appointed to fight the insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Grand]]></category><category><![CDATA[Delusion]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Our 'Messianic Impulse' ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801516.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801516.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ As Americans struggle to find an answer to the serious problems in Iraq, larger and broader questions beckon. How did we wind up in Iraq in the first place? Some argue that we were too aggressive and self-righteous in promoting our principles, too meddlesome, too arrogant in seeking to transform the world, too quick to intervene militarily in crises far from our shores and remote from our interests. If the United States would only change its approach to the world, if it understood the virtues of limits, modesty and humility, we could avoid foreign policy debacles and the world would be a safer place. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Our]]></category><category><![CDATA['Messianic]]></category><category><![CDATA[Impulse']]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Staying the Course, Win or Lose ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110102972.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110102972.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ BRUSSELS -- Here in Europe, people ask hopefully if a Democratic victory in the congressional elections will finally shift the direction of American foreign policy in a more benign direction. But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it's unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123933381" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123933381" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Staying]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA[Course,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Win]]></category><category><![CDATA[or]]></category><category><![CDATA[Lose]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ More Leaks, Please ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ It's too bad we won't get to see the full National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" selectively leaked to The Post and the New York Times last week. The Times headline read "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists' characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, whose motives and reliability we can't judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE's judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise. On such an important topic, it would be nice to have answers to a few questions. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[More]]></category><category><![CDATA[Leaks,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Please]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ The Last Honest Man ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401384.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401384.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Twenty-nine Democratic senators voted in the fall of 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. There isn't enough room on this page to list the Democratic foreign policy experts and former officials, including those from the top ranks of the Clinton administration, who supported the war publicly and privately -- some of whom even signed letters calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Nor is there any need to list the many liberal, and conservative, columnists on this and other editorial pages around the country who supported the war, or the many prominent journalists who provided the reporting that helped convince so many that the war was necessary. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA[Last]]></category><category><![CDATA[Honest]]></category><category><![CDATA[Man]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ On Iran, Giving Futility Its Chance ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201874.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201874.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Let's imagine, and this is purely hypothetical, that President Bush has already decided that he will not leave office in January 2009 without a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. Let's imagine that he has already determined that if he cannot obtain Iran's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program voluntarily and verifiably, then he will order some form of military action to destroy as much of that program as possible before he leaves. Let's imagine that he has resolved not to end his two terms in office the way Bill Clinton ended his, by leaving every major international crisis -- from Iraq to Iran to North Korea to al-Qaeda -- for his successor. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[On]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iran,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Giving]]></category><category><![CDATA[Futility]]></category><category><![CDATA[Its]]></category><category><![CDATA[Chance]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Anti-Americanism's Deep Roots ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800900.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800900.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ I recently took part in a panel discussion in London about civil conflict and "failed states" around the world, centered on the interesting work of the British economist Paul Collier. The panelists included the son of a famous African liberation-leader-turned-dictator, the former leader of a South American guerrilla group, a Pakistani journalist, a U.N. official and the head of a nongovernmental humanitarian organization. Naturally, our reasoned and learned discussion quickly transmogrified into an extended round-robin denunciation of American foreign policy.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123935171" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123935171" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Anti-Americanism's]]></category><category><![CDATA[Deep]]></category><category><![CDATA[Roots]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ If Power Shifts In 2008 ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601595.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601595.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[If]]></category><category><![CDATA[Power]]></category><category><![CDATA[Shifts]]></category><category><![CDATA[In]]></category><category><![CDATA[2008]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ League of Dictators? ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801987.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801987.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Ever since liberalism emerged in the 18th century, its inevitable conflict with autocracy has helped shape international politics. What James Madison called "the great struggle of the epoch between liberty and despotism" dominated much of the 19th century and most of the 20th, when liberal powers lined up against various forms of autocracy in wars both hot and cold. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[League]]></category><category><![CDATA[of]]></category><category><![CDATA[Dictators?]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ India Is Not a Precedent ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001865.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001865.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Imagine a huge nation, a huge democracy, increasingly prosperous, increasingly powerful and increasingly sympathetic to the ideological and strategic objectives of the United States and its democratic allies around the world. Imagine that this powerful, prosperous, democratic nation sits on the same continent with Russia and China, two huge geopolitical problems waiting to happen. Imagine that this nation possesses a navy capable of helping patrol strategically vital waterways and a military force capable of acting as a deterrent against powerful neighbors. Finally, imagine that this nation, despite its power, has no record of using it for aggressive purposes but has been a remarkably peaceful and often constructive member of the global community. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[India]]></category><category><![CDATA[Is]]></category><category><![CDATA[Not]]></category><category><![CDATA[a]]></category><category><![CDATA[Precedent]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ It's the Regime, Stupid ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701231.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701231.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ If an air and missile strike could destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, it might seem the best of many bad options. But the likely costs outweigh the benefits.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123937311" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123937311" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[It's]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA[Regime,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Still the Colossus ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301696.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301696.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The striking thing about the present international situation is the degree to which America remains what Bill Clinton once called "the indispensable nation." Despite global opinion polls registering broad hostility to George W. Bush's United States, the behavior of governments and political leaders suggests America's position in the world is not all that different from what it was before Sept. 11 and the Iraq war. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Still]]></category><category><![CDATA[the]]></category><category><![CDATA[Colossus]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Withdrawal Pains ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201444.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201444.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The current discussion about drawing down American troops in Iraq -- whether "immediately," "rapidly" or "as soon as possible" -- would be amusing were it not so dangerously divorced from reality. There could be no greater mistake than drawing down the U.S. force now, at a moment when there is real hope for success if the United States perseveres. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Withdrawal]]></category><category><![CDATA[Pains]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ It Wasn't Just Miller's Story ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401405.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[It]]></category><category><![CDATA[Wasn't]]></category><category><![CDATA[Just]]></category><category><![CDATA[Miller's]]></category><category><![CDATA[Story]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ On Iraq, Short Memories ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101086.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101086.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ If you read even respectable journals these days, including this one, you would think that no more than six or seven people ever supported going to war in Iraq. A recent piece in The Post's Style section suggested that the war was an "idea" that President Bush "dusted off" five years after Bill Kristol and I came up with it in the Weekly Standard.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123938896" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123938896" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[On]]></category><category><![CDATA[Iraq,]]></category><category><![CDATA[Short]]></category><category><![CDATA[Memories]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ . . . and American Paralysis ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082801076.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082801076.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a big speech in Cairo in June in which she set down some criteria by which to judge the fairness and openness of the upcoming elections in Egypt. The speech seemed to augur a tough approach by the administration, a determination to press hard for real reforms in the Egyptian political system. That would be in keeping with President Bush's repeated declaration of his support for democracy worldwide, and especially in the Middle East. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[.]]></category><category><![CDATA[.]]></category><category><![CDATA[.]]></category><category><![CDATA[and]]></category><category><![CDATA[American]]></category><category><![CDATA[Paralysis]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Whether This War Was Worth It ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701217.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701217.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Serious scholars still debate whether the Civil War was necessary, never mind the more obvious "wars of choice" such as World War I, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, wars in Vietnam and Kosovo, and the Persian Gulf War. To a certain brand of American isolationist, even World War II was unnecessary and counterproductive. So there is nothing remarkable about polls showing Americans wondering whether the recent Iraq war was "worth it." It is a great American myth, voiced by John Kerry last year, that ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Whether]]></category><category><![CDATA[This]]></category><category><![CDATA[War]]></category><category><![CDATA[Was]]></category><category><![CDATA[Worth]]></category><category><![CDATA[It]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ The Illusion of 'Managing' China ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301405.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301405.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2005 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ There has been much disc ussion recently about how to "manage the rise of China." The phrase itself is soothing, implying gradualism, predictability and time. Time enough to think and prepare, to take measurements of China's trajectory and adjust as necessary. If China eventually emerges as a clear threat, there will be time to react. But meanwhile there is time enough not to overreact, to be watchful but patient and not to create self-fulfilling prophecies. If we prematurely treat China as an enemy, it is said, it will become an enemy. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[The]]></category><category><![CDATA[Illusion]]></category><category><![CDATA[of]]></category><category><![CDATA['Managing']]></category><category><![CDATA[China]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Those Subtle Chinese ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032505824.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032505824.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ For the past few months I've been hearing from a bevy of China experts about how subtle and brilliant Beijing's diplomacy has become in recent years. Sophisticated and confident, Chinese diplomats have been running rings around the United States, winning friends and influencing people throughout East Asia and the world.  So I can only marvel at China's latest diplomatic gambits, whose brilliance and sophistication must be so subtle as not to be susceptible to normal modes of analysis.<br clear="all"/><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123940778" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/wpni.rss/opinion/columns;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=331123940778" border="0" vspace="5"></a> ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Those]]></category><category><![CDATA[Subtle]]></category><category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Shiites and Stereotypes ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/02/18/AR2005040300277.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/02/18/AR2005040300277.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   President Jimmy Carter once asked Americans to abandon an  "inordinate fear of communism"  that "led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear." That was back in 1977, when a standard critique of American Cold War policies was that policymakers held a simplistic, monolithic view of communism. Not all communists were stooges of the Soviet Union, as  China and Yugoslavia demonstrated. And not all national liberation movements were led by communists. More often, they were led by nationalists. Then there was the whole kaleidoscope of the global left: the socialists, the euro-communists, the trade union leaders, the advocates of a "third way" between East and West. It was a mistake to lump them all together as "communists." ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Shiites]]></category><category><![CDATA[and]]></category><category><![CDATA[Stereotypes]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ A Higher Realism ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/01/23/AR2005040300014.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/01/23/AR2005040300014.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   The most significant thing about President Bush's inaugural address was the word he did not utter: terror. Until now the war on terrorism has been the administration's foreign policy paradigm, giving unity and coherence to disparate and morally contradictory policies: promoting democracy in the Middle East, for instance, while ignoring undemocratic practices in Russia and China. One would have expected Bush to make the war on terrorism the theme of his address. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[A]]></category><category><![CDATA[Higher]]></category><category><![CDATA[Realism]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
<item><title><![CDATA[ Embraceable E.U. ]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/12/05/AR2005033104221.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/12/05/AR2005033104221.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns</guid><pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   In the unfolding drama of Ukraine, the Bush administration and the European Union have committed a flagrant act of transatlantic cooperation. If Ukrainians eventually vote in a free and fair election and thereby thwart the reemergence of an authoritarian Russian empire along the borders of democratic Europe, it will be one of those rare hinges of history where looming disaster was turned into glittering opportunity. And it would not have happened without the joint efforts of the United States and the European Union using -- dare one say it? -- "soft power" to compel Vladimir Putin and his would-be quislings to retreat from their botched coup d'etat. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Kagan]]></dc:creator><category><![CDATA[Embraceable]]></category><category><![CDATA[E.U.]]></category><category><![CDATA[]]></category></item>
</channel></rss>
