Here she is in 2000:

"The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be.  It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. Military force is best used to support clear political goals, whether limited, such as expelling Saddam from Kuwait, or comprehensive, such as demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany during World War II. It is one thing to have a limited political goal and to fight decisively for it; it is quite another to apply military force incrementally, hoping to find a political solution somewhere along the way. A president entering these situations must ask whether decisive force is possible and is likely to be effective and must know how and when to get out. These are difficult criteria to meet, so U.S. intervention in these 'humanitarian' crises should be, at best, exceedingly rare."

That's from Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2000, Vol. 79, #1, p. 53. Has she forgotten entirely "how and when to get out"?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.