Quotes of the Day

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State under President Clinton, is back with a new book, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God and World Affairs. She talked with TIME assistant managing editor Romesh Ratnesar

TIME: You argue in the book that "we can't and we shouldn't" keep religion out of our foreign policy. Was that a conclusion you expected to reach when you set out to write?

Albright: One of my premises was that, whereas before, as a practical diplomat we tried to keep God and religion out of foreign policy, it was evident to me even as I was completing my time as Secretary of State that religion was playing a larger and larger part in what was going on in the world.

And when you look at the issues we're dealing with today that have to do with the Muslim world, for instance, we absolutely do not understand Islam per se. We have pictures of it that are portrayed only in harsh terms. But we don't have a real understanding of various apects of Islam. And as Secretary of State you have all kinds of advisers — economic adisers and arms control advisers and climate change advisers — and the point I want to make is that it would be good to have some religious advisers too. There are elements of religious history that are playing themselves out today — primarily in the Muslim world — that affect the way countries behave and the way they see the West. And so it affects how the battle of ideas is carried forward.

What is it that Americans don't fully understand about the role religion plays in U.S. foreign policy?

When I began this book I looked at President Bush as an anomaly. But in working on the book I found that all American Presidents in one way or another invoke God. If you look at U.S. history through religious history, there is very much a motif that shows the importance religion has played in the U.S. We're a very religious country and it affects the way we look at varioius political issues. President Bush is a little different because he's so sure about what religion is telling him.

Is that dangerous?

What we're trying to do right now is to get as many people on our side as possible. That after all is fundamental to the U.S. national interest — to get other countries to agree with what we're doing and to be supportive. But where it has gotten off track is when the choice has been framed in a way that narrows the numbers of people that can support us. Right after 9/11, President Bush was saying we were against the terrorists. And so people who were definitely opposed to seeing airplanes fly into the Twin Towers, who were against acts of terror, could be on our side. But when the choice was enlarged or changed by the President saying, you need to be with us on Iraq or what we're doing on Iran or in other parts of world, it became much harder for other people to be with us. We get into problems when there's an absolute definition of what it is that one has to agree with to be on the side of U.S.

It's one thing to be religious, but it's another thing to make religion your policy. I have looked at foreign policy and interntional relations issues all my life and I've never seen the world in such turmoil. What I'm looking at is whether there are elements within all religions that allow us to work to solve problems rather than using religion as a divisive issue. And I do believe there's enough commonality if we see religion as a practical way to solve problems.

Do you think it's a mistake to frame the war on terrorism as a struggle between good and evil?

I do. I think that we all know what evil is. We have a sense of what's evil, and certainly killing innocent people is evil. We're less sure about what is good. There's sort of good, good enough, could be better — but absolute good is a little harder to define. By making it a Manichean choice between good and evil we make it difficult for tolerant people to agree with what our policy is.

What's the single biggest thing the President could do to counter Islamic extremism?

I see major parts of the Muslim world who do not condone or support terror, violence or extremism. There has to be a way that the President can indicate that change that comes from within religion itself is the best way to go and not to try to impose our value systems on them. One of the reasons I'm so troubled by the war in Iraq is that it's imposing our system and making it much more complicated for those within Islam to adopt a moderate view and evolve that religion even further so that the violent elements are not the ones seen by rest of the world.

Did your religious background shape your decisions as Secretary of State?

As you know I have a somewhat confused religious background. I certainly do believe in God. And I certainly used to ask God for a lot, though I didn't say 'thank you' enough. But I think it basically shaped my view of morality, and I thought morality needed to play a central role in American foreign policy. And to the extent that one can equate the way I see God with morality, then I think it played a role. But I'm not presenting myself here as a theologian or somebody who is not interested mostly in solving problems.

Speaking of problems, you say in the book that the Administration has botched the fight against al-Qaeda and made a huge strategic mistake with the war in Iraq. If that's true, shouldn't someone be held accountable [for that]? Should the President fire, say, the Secretary of Defense?

I have resisted calling for people to be fired. Having been a person in one of those jobs, you realize the person you're responsible to is the President. But I think there needs to be more general accountability. The President needs to be more responsive to what happened here. One thing I find very difficult to deal with is that there's no admission of mistakes, of changing course. It's more, let's stick with the course we're on because we're doing the right thing. That's what is troubling — the lack of accountability by the Administration as a whole.

You describe in the book the meeting about Iraq that you and other former Secretaries of State and Defense had with President Bush earlier this year. Have you heard from anyone in the Administration since then?

I've had dinner with Secretary Rice and saw Steve Hadley at a different function. But as to the specifics of that meeting, no.

At dinner with Secretary Rice, did you share your criticisms of the war in Iraq?

She was very much aware of my feelings on Iraq already. One of the reasons I thought it was essential for me to say something in the meeting with the President is that I actually have said a lot of these things publicly. Everyobdy is already aware of my feelings and I thought it was intellectually dishonest not to say to his face what I say to people like you and on television.

Your former boss Zbigniew Brzezinski has said that it's time to start preparing for withdrawal and even to set a deadline for a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Do you think we should set a deadline?

I've been saying for some time that 2006 needs to be a year of transition and that there needs to be a strategic redeployment of U.S. forces. I personally had not been for setting a specific deadline, due to my own experience in Bosnia, where we set a deadline and couldn't meet it and found ourselves in an uncomfortable position. I prefer to look at benchmarks and things that need to happen. I would hope that with the appointment of a new Prime Minister who is hopefully going to put together some kind of unity government, that it will allow the Iraqis to be in a position to say "Alright, you've done what you can, it's time to leave." It's not a matter of us setting an artificial deadline but one that's based on the fact that government has found itself in a position where it can run the country.

But might we reach a point where the security situation is so bad that it's no longer in our interests to stay.

That's perfectly possible. We cannot be in the middle of raging civil war. But I'm more encouraged this week than last week because I think that the new Prime Minister has a possibility here. I think we have to let it play out a bit. But it's still very worrisome — and there's no question in my mind that it's Iran who has benefited a great deal from the whole war.

Speaking of Iran, if diplomacy fails, should the U.S. use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities?

I believe having face-to-face talks is essential before we consider other options. What the Iranians feel is a certain sense that the U.S. is not dealing with them. You can't take the military option off the table, but I have to say that everything I've seen would indicate it's not a definitive military mission because of the way nuclear facilities are distributed and hidden. As a policy maker we've always said you can't take the military option off the table, but it doesn't seem like a very good one to me.

What should the U.S. be prepared to offer Iran?

What we should be looking at are ways we can engage with them — first of all by giving them some sense of respect, recognizing them for what they are, which is a considerable power in the region. I would probe to see if there were any areas of common interest. We lost opportunities at the beginning of the Afghan war to work with them on definitions of terrorism and trying to figure out how to get some common lines on a variety of diplomatic issues.

That's where we should be looking. I know people sometimes see that negotiations are appeasement, but I don't see it that way. It's a way of delivering tough messages about what's expected and at the same time making it possible to develop a broader relationship on a variety of cultural issues, on trade issues and on some diplomatic issues.

You've said that failing to stop the genocide in Rwanda was the biggest regret of your tenure. If you could do it again, would you commit U.S. troops to stop what happened there? And given what we know about the genocide in Darfur, should the U.S. send troops to stop the killing there?

I personally would have wanted to send troops to Rwanda. One hard part is that what is known now is not exactly what was known at the time. Even the U.S. takes a while to get a force together and get it somewhere. Knowing what I know now, it would have been hard to get them there in time to stop what I call volcanic genocide. But Darfur is a rolling genocide. We've watched it for a couple years. I find it ironic and passing strange that at time when there are so many commemorations of Rwanda, we are watching this and not doing enough. I personally think there needs to be more American assistance, whether in logistics or communication, and some troops on the ground in a way to support others. Given what's happened to the U.S.'s reputation since the Iraq war, our presence in certain places is viewed as less benign than it might have been. I am concerned that we will find ourselves in a position where we will be the problem. But I pesonally think the African Union needs to be supported by some additional NATO assistance and American logistical assistance. But definitely more attention needs to be paid to it.

It's fascinating to many Americans that you and Secretary Rice share a mentor, your father, who was her professor in graduate school. Do you see your father's influence in the way she's handling herself as Secretary of State?

I'd have to say yes — but I can't tell you exactly how. The interesting part is that he and I never talked about her — the only way I found out about her was at his funeral, when my mother told me about her. She and I had a very interesting conversation when she was named National Security Advisor — I maintained that my father would have agreed in the importance of a moral aspect to American foreign policy. He approved of the idea that America is a special place and we have moral responsibilities. But I don't know whether he would feel positive about the moralistic approach this Admininstation has taken to foreign policy. I kid with her that I think I channel with my father now better than she does.

Do you see her often?

I don't. She travels a lot. She's very busy. We spoke on the phone over this last weekend because I had some things I wanted to tell her. She's very, very congenial but she's very busy. We're not in the same party. We share an admiration for my father, but she's a busy person.

Do you miss having her job?

Yes. People who say they're glad when these big jobs end are lying. But the truth is, you know from the minute you start that someday it will end. I loved being Secretary of State, that's probably evident to everyone who watched me. I had real reason last week to reflect on this because I was recently honored at a cermony at Ellis Island honoring four immigrants — Tommy Lasorda, Shelly Lazarus, Frank McCourt and me. It made me realize how special it is to have grown up in America and to have the opportunity to sit behind a sign that said "United States." As hokey as that sounds I felt incredible pride in representing the U.S. and could have done it forever. But I'm very happy with what I'm doing now. As I approach my 69th year, I feel that I still have a lot to offer and a lot to learn. I'm good.

Would you serve as Secretary of State again?

It's not likely to happen. You don't usually get to go round twice on this. I'm very much hoping there will be Democratic Administration in 2008 and I'll be happy to help in any way I can. But I don't live in expectation of having that job again. I did love it and it was an honor. But the best part about no longer being Secretary of State is I've been able to answer your questions.

A couple more. In an interview with The New York Times last week you mentioned that you can leg-press 400 lbs. Now, this has been a topic of some discussion on ESPN and elsewhere.

I've gathered!

Why are people so fascinated by your weight training regimen?

No idea! But I want you to know got off the red-eye from Hawaii this morning and I went to exercise, just to prove that it wasn't a figment of my imagination.

You've also done a little acting. Are you turning down movie deals?

All my life I've enjoyed surprising people. People think I'm sooo serious and always thinking about foreign policy — and while I spend a great deal of time thinking about foreign policy, it's not all I do. I did enjoy appearing on the Gilmore Girls. I had my own trailer, my own hairdresser, the whole thing. And what I found in acting is that it was actually quite hard because you had to follow a script, totally, exactly, with every preposition and intonation. And so I think I'm better being Secretary of State.

Any other show you'd like to appear on?

Not that I can think of. 24? Though when The West Wing was in mid-stream they didn't have a National Security Advisor or a Secretary of State — all of the decisions were being made by a chief of staff, which wasn't exactly right.

How about Commander in Chief?

I can't say I loved it. I didn't like the premise of the way she became President. I want to see a woman elected.

Do you think it will happen in a couple years?

I hope so. Other counties have handled it and we always think of ourselves as being ahead of people. So I'd love to see that.

• The former Secretary of State tells TIME why religion has a place in diplomacy, how the Administration fumbled in Iraq and why she didn't like Commander in Chief