If the Powell Doctrine can be distilled as never enter a battle without force so decisive you know you can easily win it, the Clinton Doctrine can be distilled as never enter a battle in any serious way until it's so late that your contribution is meaningless.

Want an example? How about the Battle of Connecticut?

Want to maybe not be so shallow for once and focus on something larger than whether your side is scoring points, Arianna? Because that theory of yours about Clinton not acting until it's too farking late applies wonderfully to the administration's conduct in Rwanda.

Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF. The US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13). In late July, however, with the evidence of genocide littering the ground in Rwanda, the US did launch substantial operations-again, in a supporting role-to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide.

800,000 murdered, and all Saint Bill The Compassionate would've had to do was say the word and it could have been stopped.

Skleenar: At least pretend to be realistic in your criticisms.

I am. Saving those people in Rwanda would not have required the numbers we're currently using in Iraq, or the decades needed to get Somalia even a little bit straightened out. 5000 troops to prevent the Rwanda genocide is the number that gets kicked around the most since it's what General Dallaire originally mentioned, but it would have been a worthy human-rights investment even erring on the pessimistic side by saying that only some of the victims could have been saved even with several times 5000.

Can the US and other civilized nations save everybody who's stuck under the boot? Of course not - but not being able to save everybody isn't an excuse to save nobody. Especially when it's genocide on the table. Recognizing a genocide in progress carries with it an obligation to act, and sooner rather than later. I remain disgusted with both Bush and Clinton in this regard.

And besides, since the Rwanda genocide has its roots in the time before Clinton took office, you can even blame some of it on Bush (I) if you need to maintain your all-important Bush-hatin' street cred.