Check out Daniel Larison's short piece in the The Week. Money quote:
Today, we are at the end of an era defined by conservative internationalism, a creed both exceedingly ambitious in its goals and extremely parsimonious in the resources provided to reach them. For the past 30 years, conservative internationalists have largely dominated national security debates; even internationalist Democrats have been influenced by them or been forced to mimic their arguments. During and after Vietnam, conservative internationalists wished to preserve an active, "forward" foreign policy while avoiding the political costs such a policy entails. Consequently, they turned to air power, missile defenses, covert operations, and short wars to minimize both American casualties and public backlash. In short, conservative internationalists found a way to insulate an activist national security state from the people it was supposed to serve….
…In recent years, it was common for liberals to ask why President Bush never asked for collective sacrifice in support of a war effort that his administration routinely described as vital, even "existential." As Zelizer explains, Bush couldn’t have done so without undermining a pillar of conservative internationalism—the "promise of minimal sacrifice." In reality, the sacrifice is not so small, but it is made to seem small by pushing the fiscal costs of war into the future and carefully hiding the human costs from public scrutiny. The pain is buried in abstract projections of future deficits and in the quiet stoicism of the professional military.
Today, we are at the end of an era defined by conservative internationalism, a creed both exceedingly ambitious in its goals and extremely parsimonious in the resources provided to reach them. For the past 30 years, conservative internationalists have largely dominated national security debates; even internationalist Democrats have been influenced by them or been forced to mimic their arguments. During and after Vietnam, conservative internationalists wished to preserve an active, "forward" foreign policy while avoiding the political costs such a policy entails. Consequently, they turned to air power, missile defenses, covert operations, and short wars to minimize both American casualties and public backlash. In short, conservative internationalists found a way to insulate an activist national security state from the people it was supposed to serve….
…In recent years, it was common for liberals to ask why President Bush never asked for collective sacrifice in support of a war effort that his administration routinely described as vital, even "existential." As Zelizer explains, Bush couldn’t have done so without undermining a pillar of conservative internationalism—the "promise of minimal sacrifice." In reality, the sacrifice is not so small, but it is made to seem small by pushing the fiscal costs of war into the future and carefully hiding the human costs from public scrutiny. The pain is buried in abstract projections of future deficits and in the quiet stoicism of the professional military.
Add Comment
How Little Has Changed Since 2003 01/21/2010
In the year leading up the US invasion of Iraq, hawkish commentators filled the op-ed sections of leading American newspapers with all of the reasons why America needed to invade. Little ink was spilled on what might happen after Saddam was overthrown, and how to handle different scenarios- just vague notions of a democratic spring.
Similarly, as the war hawks try to turn up the pressure to bomb Iran, there is little discussion of the potential aftermath. From Greg Scoblete, via Daniel Larison:
...I'm more interested in what happens after America attacks Iran. What if the government collapses? Do we occupy the country? Do we allow a power vacuum? Do we let a Revolutionary Guard commander assume control? A cleric? Could we exercise any control in Iran following an attack? And if the current regime hangs on and then redoubles their nuclear efforts, do we subject them to another pounding five years hence?
Perhaps this is because those who have thought through the aftermath wouldn't advocate bombing Iran in the first place.
Similarly, as the war hawks try to turn up the pressure to bomb Iran, there is little discussion of the potential aftermath. From Greg Scoblete, via Daniel Larison:
...I'm more interested in what happens after America attacks Iran. What if the government collapses? Do we occupy the country? Do we allow a power vacuum? Do we let a Revolutionary Guard commander assume control? A cleric? Could we exercise any control in Iran following an attack? And if the current regime hangs on and then redoubles their nuclear efforts, do we subject them to another pounding five years hence?
Perhaps this is because those who have thought through the aftermath wouldn't advocate bombing Iran in the first place.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 01/19/2010
The Arch of Neutrality
. Talk about news that can ruin your day. AFP is reporting that Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov has signed a decree ordering Ashgabat's infamous rotating golden statue of former president/cult leader/all-around-crazy Saparmurat Niyazov (aka Turkmenbashi) be razed by March of this year.
The "Arch of Neutrality," which was originally built as an homage to Niyazov's official foreign policy, will be sourly missed. In honor of this sad day a poem by Turkmenbashi the Great:
Let's, O my heart, walk my heart. Let's look around our land.
With lions in its fields, the beautiful land of Türkmen,
Now the day has come for the poor, sad, brave, men,
You are the Türkmen, with such heroes like Jelaleddin.
Let's select a thousand-winged horse
And travel praying over her plains and mountains
And seek for the ancestors who became part of them,
And You are the Türkmen which hosts 360 saints
The old people are as wise as Gorkut
The mothers are as merciful as Ýunus
If you feel lonely and sigh, you see compassion
You are the Türkmen with beautiful houri-like girls like Agaýunus
You are braver than the brave, just find an opponent as you are
You are a lion more than a lion, just find a battle field for you
Let your cream boil over always, never feel the lack of it,
You are the Türkmen, with Garagum, so many minerals in its core
History is your ancestors and grand children
And grandfathers, father, children and nation.
Entering the most fortified palaces with your horse,
You are the Türkmen with strong and agile arms.
The rich and noble are godly like saints
Your horsetail-standard is always hoisted brightly,
You words are fine, pleasing, and heart is illuminated
You are the Türkmen, with his face and heart smiling
Oguz is your forefather, and Gorkut is your master,
Your memory is the history of the sixty ages.
Your Garagum is your table and treasure,
Your provision is blessed, you are the prosperous Türkmen.
And I thought we had it bad with Orrin Hatch.
Update: Good news! Rumors of the Arch of Neutrality's demise have been greatly overstated. It turns out the the Turkmen are actually planning to relocate the behemoth to a choice plot outside of Ashgabat. Full report from RFE/RL here.
The "Arch of Neutrality," which was originally built as an homage to Niyazov's official foreign policy, will be sourly missed. In honor of this sad day a poem by Turkmenbashi the Great:
Let's, O my heart, walk my heart. Let's look around our land.
With lions in its fields, the beautiful land of Türkmen,
Now the day has come for the poor, sad, brave, men,
You are the Türkmen, with such heroes like Jelaleddin.
Let's select a thousand-winged horse
And travel praying over her plains and mountains
And seek for the ancestors who became part of them,
And You are the Türkmen which hosts 360 saints
The old people are as wise as Gorkut
The mothers are as merciful as Ýunus
If you feel lonely and sigh, you see compassion
You are the Türkmen with beautiful houri-like girls like Agaýunus
You are braver than the brave, just find an opponent as you are
You are a lion more than a lion, just find a battle field for you
Let your cream boil over always, never feel the lack of it,
You are the Türkmen, with Garagum, so many minerals in its core
History is your ancestors and grand children
And grandfathers, father, children and nation.
Entering the most fortified palaces with your horse,
You are the Türkmen with strong and agile arms.
The rich and noble are godly like saints
Your horsetail-standard is always hoisted brightly,
You words are fine, pleasing, and heart is illuminated
You are the Türkmen, with his face and heart smiling
Oguz is your forefather, and Gorkut is your master,
Your memory is the history of the sixty ages.
Your Garagum is your table and treasure,
Your provision is blessed, you are the prosperous Türkmen.
And I thought we had it bad with Orrin Hatch.
Update: Good news! Rumors of the Arch of Neutrality's demise have been greatly overstated. It turns out the the Turkmen are actually planning to relocate the behemoth to a choice plot outside of Ashgabat. Full report from RFE/RL here.
Currently Reading 01/19/2010
Cracks in the Jihad, by Thomas Rid, The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2010. Rid analyzes the current state of Islamist militancy.
Money quote:
War, in Clausewitz’s eminent theory, was a clash of collective wills, “a continuation of politics by other means.” When states went to war, the adversary was a political entity with the ability to act as one body, able to end hostilities by declaring victory or admitting defeat. Even Abd el-Kader eventually capitulated. But jihad in the 21st century, especially during the past few years, has fundamentally changed its anatomy: Al Qaeda is no longer a collective political actor. It is no longer an adversary that can articulate a will, capitulate, and be defeated. But the jihad’s new weakness is also its new strength: Because of its transformation, Islamist militancy is politically impaired yet fitter to survive its present crisis.
Money quote:
War, in Clausewitz’s eminent theory, was a clash of collective wills, “a continuation of politics by other means.” When states went to war, the adversary was a political entity with the ability to act as one body, able to end hostilities by declaring victory or admitting defeat. Even Abd el-Kader eventually capitulated. But jihad in the 21st century, especially during the past few years, has fundamentally changed its anatomy: Al Qaeda is no longer a collective political actor. It is no longer an adversary that can articulate a will, capitulate, and be defeated. But the jihad’s new weakness is also its new strength: Because of its transformation, Islamist militancy is politically impaired yet fitter to survive its present crisis.
A Turkish Muslim human-rights group protests Barak's upcoming visit
In the continuing expose of Israel's diplomatic incompetence, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon warned today that Israel might expel the Turkish Ambassador if another fictional TV episode is aired that denigrates the Israeli defense forces. Abba Eban must be turning over in his grave.
Turkey doesn't respond well to criticism, much less to threats. Ayalon couldn't have a found a faster way to poison the Turkish public's feelings towards Israel. Surely, Israel is also thinned-skin, but behind all this Middle Eastern machismo, someone needs to remind Ayalon that Israel has a lot more to lose than Turkey does from a collapse in relations.
Part of this is debacle is due to factional politics in Israel-- Avigdor Lieberman is an ultranationalist brute thrusted into control of Israel's foreign affairs by parliamentary horsetrading, not because he represents the will of the Israeli electorate. He is more interested in massaging his tough-guy image than in conducting effective diplomacy. Ayalon belongs to Lieberman's party, Yisrael Beitenu, which panders mostly to the right-wing Russian immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s.
Barak, who has to go to Turkey to clean up the mess that the Lieberman-Ayalon axis made, is on the complete opposite end of political spectrum from Lieberman (and Netanyahu). The relatively dovish head of the Labor party, Barak engineered the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon and nearly conceded to every Palestinian demand at Camp David in 1999. He has an incredibly difficult task ahead of him.
Turkey doesn't respond well to criticism, much less to threats. Ayalon couldn't have a found a faster way to poison the Turkish public's feelings towards Israel. Surely, Israel is also thinned-skin, but behind all this Middle Eastern machismo, someone needs to remind Ayalon that Israel has a lot more to lose than Turkey does from a collapse in relations.
Part of this is debacle is due to factional politics in Israel-- Avigdor Lieberman is an ultranationalist brute thrusted into control of Israel's foreign affairs by parliamentary horsetrading, not because he represents the will of the Israeli electorate. He is more interested in massaging his tough-guy image than in conducting effective diplomacy. Ayalon belongs to Lieberman's party, Yisrael Beitenu, which panders mostly to the right-wing Russian immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s.
Barak, who has to go to Turkey to clean up the mess that the Lieberman-Ayalon axis made, is on the complete opposite end of political spectrum from Lieberman (and Netanyahu). The relatively dovish head of the Labor party, Barak engineered the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon and nearly conceded to every Palestinian demand at Camp David in 1999. He has an incredibly difficult task ahead of him.
Erdogan's Political Upbringing 01/16/2010
Here is part of a documentary made by Saadet Partisi, the Turkish political party currently led by Necmettin Erbakan. It explains the counter-narrative championed by Islamists in Turkey. Although Erbakan is a bit extreme, the enemies he identifies- materialism, foreign domination, and Zionist conspiracy- strike cords with many Turks.
Erbakan is the godfather of modern political Islam in Turkey. He formerly lead Refah Partisi, which won a plurality with 21% of the vote in the 1995 Turkish parliamentary elections. Erbakan briefly served as prime minister in 1996 and 1997, before the Turkish state forced forced him to step down and banned his party. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul both rose to prominence in the 1990s through Refah Partisi.
After being shut down, the Refah Party's leaders split into two groups, with the "moderates" (or pragmatists, depending on your level of cynicism) forming AKP. Although nobody knows how much Erdogan's actual beliefs have changed since the 1990s, it is nevertheless informative to understand the worldview from which Erdogan began his career in politics.
To see what Erbakan says about Erdogan since their split, check the excerpt from an interview included after the jump.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
Erbakan is the godfather of modern political Islam in Turkey. He formerly lead Refah Partisi, which won a plurality with 21% of the vote in the 1995 Turkish parliamentary elections. Erbakan briefly served as prime minister in 1996 and 1997, before the Turkish state forced forced him to step down and banned his party. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul both rose to prominence in the 1990s through Refah Partisi.
After being shut down, the Refah Party's leaders split into two groups, with the "moderates" (or pragmatists, depending on your level of cynicism) forming AKP. Although nobody knows how much Erdogan's actual beliefs have changed since the 1990s, it is nevertheless informative to understand the worldview from which Erdogan began his career in politics.
To see what Erbakan says about Erdogan since their split, check the excerpt from an interview included after the jump.
Click "Read More" to Continue ------>
Gaddafi, undoubtedly rooting for his favorite football team, the LSE Beavers
Of the many unusual aspects of the Gaddafi family, add a love affair with the London School of Economics.
On January 12th, the LSE accepted a donation from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation of £1.5 million (~$2.5 million). The Foundation is headed by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and an LSE alumnus.
Previously, LSE President Howard Davies served as Britain's economic envoy to Libya. See the UK's embarrassing communique from that meeting here.
Someone should really tell Davies that the idea of LSE accepting money from Gaddafi to do research on "Global Governance" is basically like Harvard Med School taking money from Philip Morris to study smoking cessation.
On January 12th, the LSE accepted a donation from the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation of £1.5 million (~$2.5 million). The Foundation is headed by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and an LSE alumnus.
Previously, LSE President Howard Davies served as Britain's economic envoy to Libya. See the UK's embarrassing communique from that meeting here.
Someone should really tell Davies that the idea of LSE accepting money from Gaddafi to do research on "Global Governance" is basically like Harvard Med School taking money from Philip Morris to study smoking cessation.
Russia Taking Lessons from China 01/15/2010
Aleksandr Zhukov, a Russian deputy prime minister, praised the Chinese Communist Party at a meeting on the Sino-Russian border. Wang Jianwei/Xinhua
This has to be one of the biggest historical ironies of all time.
Somehow we missed this, but back in October, officials from Putin's United Russia Party met behind closed doors with senior officials from the Chinese Communist Party. The goal? To learn from China how to construct a one-party state that combines political control with strong economic growth.
Communist China transitioned fairly smoothly to a market economy, while Russia lost an entire decade to economic chaos. Since then, China has become the world's supplier of manufactured goods. Russia's economy looks third-worldish in comparison, mostly dependent on resources.
Russia turning to China for guidance also marks a change in the times. In the 1990s, Russia went to America for advice. But Russia's economic failure during that decade eroded faith in the American system, not to mention the current crisis. In 2010, Russia still doesn't have a plan to solve the country's many problems, only a personality. For a sustainable solution, Russia is now looking to China for inspiration.
Perhaps Russia is finally proving that Marx was correct. History repeats itself: the first time as a tragedy, and the second time as a farce.
Somehow we missed this, but back in October, officials from Putin's United Russia Party met behind closed doors with senior officials from the Chinese Communist Party. The goal? To learn from China how to construct a one-party state that combines political control with strong economic growth.
Communist China transitioned fairly smoothly to a market economy, while Russia lost an entire decade to economic chaos. Since then, China has become the world's supplier of manufactured goods. Russia's economy looks third-worldish in comparison, mostly dependent on resources.
Russia turning to China for guidance also marks a change in the times. In the 1990s, Russia went to America for advice. But Russia's economic failure during that decade eroded faith in the American system, not to mention the current crisis. In 2010, Russia still doesn't have a plan to solve the country's many problems, only a personality. For a sustainable solution, Russia is now looking to China for inspiration.
Perhaps Russia is finally proving that Marx was correct. History repeats itself: the first time as a tragedy, and the second time as a farce.
If You Had a Bad Travel Day... 01/15/2010
Nagasaki after the bomb
It doesn't compare to this. Tsutomo Yamaguchi finished a temporary work contract for Mitsubishi in Hiroshima on August 5, 1945. The next morning, he set out to take the train to go home Nagasaki, when his day was interrupted by an atomic bomb explosion. Although he was badly burned and unable to hear, he persevered and somehow caught the train to Nagasaki.
Once in Nagasaki, Yamaguchi reported for work again. His boss there did not believe Yamaguchi that a bomb had destroyed all of Hiroshima, until a blinding light appeared through the window. This was perhaps the biggest "I told you so" moment of all time.
Somehow, Yamaguchi survived both blasts and exposure to deadly radiation, living to become an advocate of a denuclearized world. He passed away last week at the age of 93.
Once in Nagasaki, Yamaguchi reported for work again. His boss there did not believe Yamaguchi that a bomb had destroyed all of Hiroshima, until a blinding light appeared through the window. This was perhaps the biggest "I told you so" moment of all time.
Somehow, Yamaguchi survived both blasts and exposure to deadly radiation, living to become an advocate of a denuclearized world. He passed away last week at the age of 93.
Currently Reading 01/15/2010
From Baghdad to Beirut, by Michael Totten. Totten compares Iraq and Lebanon, the Arab world's two putative democracies. Money quote:
Iraq’s sectarian divisions, like those in Lebanon, attract outside powers. Many Sunni Arabs enlisted al-Qaida terrorists from 2004 to 2007 in their fight against the American military and the Shi’a-dominated central government, for instance. But no Middle Eastern country interferes simultaneously in Lebanon and Iraq as much as Iran. In 2008, Ryan Crocker—the American ambassador to Lebanon from 1990 to 1993 and to Iraq from 2007 to 2009—told Congress that Iran was pursuing a “Lebanonization strategy” in Iraq, “using the same techniques they used in Lebanon to co-opt elements of the local Shi’a community and use them as basically instruments of Iranian force.” In his new book, The Gamble, Pulitzer Prize–winning author Thomas Ricks elaborates: Crocker raised concerns about “what he termed the Lebanonization of Iraq—that is, the weakening of the government, the division of the people into sectarian groups, and the rise of militias that rival the government in reliable firepower.”
Iraq’s sectarian divisions, like those in Lebanon, attract outside powers. Many Sunni Arabs enlisted al-Qaida terrorists from 2004 to 2007 in their fight against the American military and the Shi’a-dominated central government, for instance. But no Middle Eastern country interferes simultaneously in Lebanon and Iraq as much as Iran. In 2008, Ryan Crocker—the American ambassador to Lebanon from 1990 to 1993 and to Iraq from 2007 to 2009—told Congress that Iran was pursuing a “Lebanonization strategy” in Iraq, “using the same techniques they used in Lebanon to co-opt elements of the local Shi’a community and use them as basically instruments of Iranian force.” In his new book, The Gamble, Pulitzer Prize–winning author Thomas Ricks elaborates: Crocker raised concerns about “what he termed the Lebanonization of Iraq—that is, the weakening of the government, the division of the people into sectarian groups, and the rise of militias that rival the government in reliable firepower.”
Loading
