The author speaks as if American “hard power” is infinite, it’s just a matter of turning it on. But the United States is currently in a state of social division and financial collapse which is the consequence of two pointless losing wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of deaths. Those wars were started, not by Obama, but by…
The author speaks as if American “hard power” is infinite, it’s just a matter of turning it on. But the United States is currently in a state of social division and financial collapse which is the consequence of two pointless losing wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of deaths. Those wars were started, not by Obama, but by Bush. In whose administration, the author served. The words “Bush”, “Iraq War” and “Afghanistan” do not appear in this essay even once. Special pleading, much?
I agree but I think it is a consequence of far more than those two wars. While Obama's name might not be on those two, or earlier ones, his hands are far from clean in the Ukraine fiasco just to name one. We need to realize the Dems and the Repubs are two sides of the same coin.
The parties have certainly been alike in sowing division in the country, and this has had severe consequences. The Republicans like tax cuts without (unpopular) reductions in spending. The Democrats like spending with (inadequate) tax increases. Both of them like stigmatizing and blaming each other. Meanwhile most Americans want less division and more unity, but somehow we haven't been able to get it yet. We are far away from 1941 when the draft-age Rockefellers and Kennedys stood on the street with everyone else to get registered for the draft. E pluribus unum seems to be a forgotten concept.
I have no idea how the craziness happens on the Republican side, but on the Democratic side I think it's a combination of how progressives are in safe districts and accumulate seniority, and that the political people who do the work of government during Democratic administrations seem to conceive of their role as a social justice mission. Thus, we can elect moderate Democrats that Americans like until the cows come home, but what we'll get is a government dominated by the actions and concerns of leftists. Most disheartening.
But the Repubs have their share of blame. The prior president had both houses of Congress and the RINOs failed to act. I think far too many of them feather their nests the same way. I would love to see info on McConnell's, McCain's and Graham's financials. McConnell' in-law are very well heeled Chinese. My question is how to separate the real conservatives from the fakes. And as far as moderate Democrats PTL for Sinema and Manchin.
I don't see it as infinite, but I see it as a very important component of our position in the world. But I am not writing in this article simply about "our" hard power, but the place of hard power in international politics in general. The utopian belief that we have moved beyond hard power simply hands all initiative and advantage to those who live by the sword alone -- Putin, Xi, and Khamenei. As for the Bush admin and my role in it, that would be a different article. I do believe that Bush's views represent "muscular Wilsonianism." Personally, I am not a strong advocate of Wilsonian principles, as I think the article makes clear.
I don’t disagree with you on that: I think that Wilsonian moralism in international politics is both hypocritical and dangerous. At this time, of all times, I am grateful for the power of the US military and the hard power component it represents. At the same time, as we know from Thucydides, it is much easier to start a war than to end it, and another war could be catastrophic for us. Our country is in a weakened state. We don’t have the luxury of taking the offensive on all fronts to defeat the emerging axis of evil. At best we can defend our most essential interests and support our allies while we try to heal from our ills. Putin and Xi and Khamenei know that, and we will have to be canny and smart and unsentimental to maintain our position under those conditions. It is a risky time.
I agree with Doran and I agree with you. The Bush doctrine heavily influenced Obama/Biden doctrine. But the exhaustion from Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean we need to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
I don’t think Americans would really mind keeping a few thousand soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid last summer’s failures, to keep girls in school, and prevent the country from sliding into starvation. Not when there are tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in South Korea and we aren’t “exhausted” from that.
Agreed. Doran is fighting a previous generation's wars - and, of course, conveniently obscures his support for the worst American policy decision in fifty years - the invasion of Iraq.
I have same opinion. This author seem not to understand that our financial situation is everything but good.
We are running record deficits and our debt is ballooning out of control. Everything what we do now, we are financing it trough debt that will will leave to our children.
Yes we should help other countries, but not if it is leading us in financial ruin.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars seem to show the utter naïveté of Bush - that we could coercively transplant American style governance into fundamentally different cultures.
The 20 year “war” in Afghanistan showed both the left and the right lacked the courage of our convictions and became an unethical pursuit. On the hard left because they preach feminism and stand idly by as the taliban do what they do. On the right because we were unwilling to admit our goal was to liberalize Afghanistan, to change the culture. Crazy us, thinking the utter subjugation of women is evil.
The author speaks as if American “hard power” is infinite, it’s just a matter of turning it on. But the United States is currently in a state of social division and financial collapse which is the consequence of two pointless losing wars that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of deaths. Those wars were started, not by Obama, but by Bush. In whose administration, the author served. The words “Bush”, “Iraq War” and “Afghanistan” do not appear in this essay even once. Special pleading, much?
I agree but I think it is a consequence of far more than those two wars. While Obama's name might not be on those two, or earlier ones, his hands are far from clean in the Ukraine fiasco just to name one. We need to realize the Dems and the Repubs are two sides of the same coin.
The parties have certainly been alike in sowing division in the country, and this has had severe consequences. The Republicans like tax cuts without (unpopular) reductions in spending. The Democrats like spending with (inadequate) tax increases. Both of them like stigmatizing and blaming each other. Meanwhile most Americans want less division and more unity, but somehow we haven't been able to get it yet. We are far away from 1941 when the draft-age Rockefellers and Kennedys stood on the street with everyone else to get registered for the draft. E pluribus unum seems to be a forgotten concept.
I agree. I think the leadership of both parties has forgotten where they come from.
I have no idea how the craziness happens on the Republican side, but on the Democratic side I think it's a combination of how progressives are in safe districts and accumulate seniority, and that the political people who do the work of government during Democratic administrations seem to conceive of their role as a social justice mission. Thus, we can elect moderate Democrats that Americans like until the cows come home, but what we'll get is a government dominated by the actions and concerns of leftists. Most disheartening.
But the Repubs have their share of blame. The prior president had both houses of Congress and the RINOs failed to act. I think far too many of them feather their nests the same way. I would love to see info on McConnell's, McCain's and Graham's financials. McConnell' in-law are very well heeled Chinese. My question is how to separate the real conservatives from the fakes. And as far as moderate Democrats PTL for Sinema and Manchin.
I don't see it as infinite, but I see it as a very important component of our position in the world. But I am not writing in this article simply about "our" hard power, but the place of hard power in international politics in general. The utopian belief that we have moved beyond hard power simply hands all initiative and advantage to those who live by the sword alone -- Putin, Xi, and Khamenei. As for the Bush admin and my role in it, that would be a different article. I do believe that Bush's views represent "muscular Wilsonianism." Personally, I am not a strong advocate of Wilsonian principles, as I think the article makes clear.
I don’t disagree with you on that: I think that Wilsonian moralism in international politics is both hypocritical and dangerous. At this time, of all times, I am grateful for the power of the US military and the hard power component it represents. At the same time, as we know from Thucydides, it is much easier to start a war than to end it, and another war could be catastrophic for us. Our country is in a weakened state. We don’t have the luxury of taking the offensive on all fronts to defeat the emerging axis of evil. At best we can defend our most essential interests and support our allies while we try to heal from our ills. Putin and Xi and Khamenei know that, and we will have to be canny and smart and unsentimental to maintain our position under those conditions. It is a risky time.
Obama continued Bush era policies
Much to many people's disappointment
I agree with Doran and I agree with you. The Bush doctrine heavily influenced Obama/Biden doctrine. But the exhaustion from Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean we need to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
I don’t think Americans would really mind keeping a few thousand soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid last summer’s failures, to keep girls in school, and prevent the country from sliding into starvation. Not when there are tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in South Korea and we aren’t “exhausted” from that.
Agreed. Doran is fighting a previous generation's wars - and, of course, conveniently obscures his support for the worst American policy decision in fifty years - the invasion of Iraq.
I have same opinion. This author seem not to understand that our financial situation is everything but good.
We are running record deficits and our debt is ballooning out of control. Everything what we do now, we are financing it trough debt that will will leave to our children.
Yes we should help other countries, but not if it is leading us in financial ruin.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars seem to show the utter naïveté of Bush - that we could coercively transplant American style governance into fundamentally different cultures.
The 20 year “war” in Afghanistan showed both the left and the right lacked the courage of our convictions and became an unethical pursuit. On the hard left because they preach feminism and stand idly by as the taliban do what they do. On the right because we were unwilling to admit our goal was to liberalize Afghanistan, to change the culture. Crazy us, thinking the utter subjugation of women is evil.