Condi's Lessons

From my review of Condoleezza Rice’s memoir, No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington, in the February issue of COMMENTARY:

At 766 pages, Condoleezza Rice’s memoir of her service as national-security adviser and secretary of state is not long as such memoirs go. Henry Kissinger’s ran 3,955 pages in three volumes; George Shultz’s book, covering six and a half years as secretary of state, ran 1,184 pages, with small print; Madeleine Albright’s memoir of her four years, in what was in retrospect a holiday from history, ran 548 pages. Rice covers a decade, starting in 1999 when she joined George W. Bush’s presidential campaign as foreign-affairs adviser.

She has written a straightforward chronological account, providing a great deal of detail but relatively little reflection on the lessons of her experience. The lessons she does draw and that one can draw about her tenure are worth noting, however, particularly on the issue that appears to have been the most important to her personally, to which she devoted most of her last two years as secretary of state and nine chapters (and parts of others) in this book: the Middle East peace process.

Continue reading here.

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

Rick -- I haven't read Rice's book, and after reading your trenchant and very readable review, I don't think I will. I cannot, however, resist commenting on the review's final word: "pointlessness." I read a lot of book reviews, but rarely if ever have I read one that ended on a note that I would call "perfect." "Pointlessness" is perfect. Looking back on Condi's tenure, one must ask, "What, in the end, was it all about? And, whatever it was about, was it worth it?" Aside from calling it pointless, the only other apt description would be Koheleth's description of the human condition: "utter futility -- utter futility!"

[Rick Richman]

Mannie -- you captured the multi-dimensional meaning of that last word. Her effort was pointless because it ignored the point of the process – not just establish a Palestinian state, but insure first that it would be a democratic one that had established the institutions necessary to be a peaceful one; pointless because of what was sacrificed to make the non-point; pointless because it was futile to try to do what she was trying to do -- since she not only ignored her own lessons in trying to do it, but the lessons ignored were essential to whatever chance of success she had in the first place; and pointless because she did not draw the appropriate lesson from her failure.

There is an old saying, “when you lose, don’t lose the lesson.” Ironically, people on both the right and left tried to warn Obama against jumping right back into the peace process, urging him to take time to reflect on the lessons of the failures of two prior administrations (http://tinyurl.com/7najsh4), but Obama rushed right back in, trying to do what Condi had just failed in doing, without thinking about why it was she failed. He too tried to force the end, and failed.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Rick -- interesting that you used the expression "force the end" in your final sentence. As you well know, throughout Jewish history, Jews who attempted to bring about the Messianic age by declaring themselves the Messiah were accused of trying to "force the end." What Condi and Obama both tried may not have been messianic, but it was certainly utopian -- which is closely related. It could also be called quixotic, illusory, chimerical, impracticable -- or, in plain English, a waste of time. Which brings us right back to pointless, doesn't it? What could be more pointless than wasting time?