 |
November 06, 2006Sound Military DoctrineThe “Powell doctrine” holds that the US should go to war only as a last resort and then only with overwhelming force. In his article “US Forces: Challenges Ahead” in Foreign Affairs in 1992-93, Mr Powell posed a number of questions to be asked by US policymakers before launching a war. Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear, attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analysed? Have all other non-violent policy means been exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy? Have the consequences been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Does the US have broad international support? The Powell doctrine developed similar principles laid out by Caspar Weinberger, defence secretary during the Reagan administration. Mr Powell, like Mr Weinberger and much of the US military, was determined to avoid large-scale debacles such as the Vietnam war and minor disasters such as the Somalia intervention in 1992-93. Donald Rumsfeld may have outlasted Colin Powell in the upper councils of the Bush Administration--but the Powell Doctrine will far outlast the Rumsfeld Doctrine as persuasive, coherent military strategy. Comments
The primary reason that the Powell Doctrine will supercede the "humanitarian hawks" is that, thanks to Bushco, the US no longer has the moral authority or diplomatic standing to lead international coalitions designed to stop genocidal campaigns. Maddy Albright was right -- and the acceptance of US hegemony by the international community was contingent upon our use of military power in a manner consistent with the goals of the international community as a whole. Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 6, 2006 02:21 PM | Permalink to this comment 
Have the risks and costs of withdrawal been fully and frankly analysed? Posted by: neill at November 6, 2006 02:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Shock and awe". Who can forget? Posted by: Alan at November 6, 2006 03:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
The question for me has always been when the so called Powell doctrine gets invoked. I do not think it necessarily wrong to begin a limited military intervention for humanitarian reasons, and even in special cases for regime change. The Powell doctrine need not be invoked prior to these actions start. But one troops are committed it requires constant re-evaluation of the situation to determine whether it should be invoked and we launch total war or we concede and get out. In other words the Powell doctrine need not be abandoned even if military action begins prior to its being invoked. Sometimes military action can be a very useful adjuct to diplomatic efforts. Posted by: ken at November 6, 2006 03:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
At its limit, however, the Powell doctrine becomes the McClellan doctrine under which there is never enough well-trained, overwhelming force to engage. Inaction, in other words. The inaction result under McClellan, of course, was four more years of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history. Posted by: Linc at November 6, 2006 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
If the Powell doctrine is applied as is, what wars since WWII would not comply with it? long long list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_wars#1945-1949 Also, Vietnam was never defined as a war, but as a police action, far as I remember. And of course, the war in Iraq is over, this is just rebuilding and keeping the peace and so on. Posted by: Klaus at November 6, 2006 04:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
I largely agree with this. In all cases wisdom is required, not an easily obtainable quality, it appears, where there is Dubya. Foreign adventurism most easily degenerates into folly. But this should not deter action once it is needed on the moral or ethical sphere. Providence seems to frown most upon serious neglect as well as adventurism, so I can't really equate Albright's desire to respond to genocide with the folly of the neocons, whose level of recklessness was and is without excuse. Posted by: Mike Leslie at November 6, 2006 06:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
neill writes: "Have the risks and costs of withdrawal been fully and frankly analysed?" Why bother, when the risks and costs of invasion weren't? Posted by: jon h at November 6, 2006 08:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
ken writes: "The Powell doctrine need not be invoked prior to these actions start. But one troops are committed it requires constant re-evaluation of the situation to determine whether it should be invoked and we launch total war or we concede and get out." The problem with this is that it allows the nation to rush into an engagement without doing enough preparation beforehand. That creates a significant risk that, later on, it won't be *possible* to ramp up to a full Powell Doctrine deployment. We couldn't do one to Iraq, now, because the Army isn't big enough and we couldn't attract enough quality recruits to enlarge it, because people are rational enough to not want to put themselves into a meat grinder if they can avoid it. Ideally, you'd increase the size of the military, do a major recruiting drive with bonuses for long-term commitments, and get everyone trained and equipped for the war (linguistic training, body armor, up-armored vehicles). Then when you're ready to do a full Powell deployment, you'd do a minor deployment with the rest ready to go if necessary. Bush and Rummy did a sub-Powell deployment without bothering to have the capability for the full Powell. IMHO, they should have taken advantage of the 9/11 patriotic buzz, and the buzz from the seeming-victory in Afghanistan, to build the land forces up by 25% or so, with a focus on positions and training that we'd need in Iraq, before going in. Alas, that wouldn't have fit into the election schedule. Posted by: Jon H at November 6, 2006 08:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry to play contrarian, but the Powell Doctrine has serious shortcomings that aren't mentioned here. In his articulation of "Force-Protection Fetishism," Jeffrey Record has this to say about the Powell Doctrine: The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine implicitly assumes that public tolerance of casualties is minimal in circumstances that do not satisfy the doctrine’s use-of-force criteria, and this assumption elevates casualty minimization above mission accomplishment. The way our military fights its wars - relying on high-tech airpower and networked operations - is an extension of Powell's idea of overwhelming force. But as we're learning in Iraq, counterinsurgency operations demand boots on the ground intermingling with local populations. Ironically, to win a counterinsurgency like Iraq we must expose ourselves to more risk. Weinberger-Powell is outdated if we face more opponents like the Iraqi insurgents, which seems likely in humanitarian interventions or anywhere else where we possess conventional military superiority.
Sorry to play contrarian, but the Powell Doctrine has serious shortcomings that aren't mentioned here. In his articulation of "Force-Protection Fetishism," Jeffrey Record has this to say about the Powell Doctrine: The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine implicitly assumes that public tolerance of casualties is minimal in circumstances that do not satisfy the doctrine’s use-of-force criteria, and this assumption elevates casualty minimization above mission accomplishment. The way our military fights its wars - relying on high-tech airpower and networked operations - is an extension of Powell's idea of overwhelming force. But as we're learning in Iraq, counterinsurgency operations demand boots on the ground intermingling with local populations. Ironically, to win a counterinsurgency like Iraq we must expose ourselves to more risk. Weinberger-Powell is outdated if we face more opponents like the Iraqi insurgents, which seems likely in humanitarian interventions or anywhere else where we possess conventional military superiority.
TK wrote, "But as we're learning in Iraq, counterinsurgency operations demand boots on the ground intermingling with local populations." We didn't learn this in Iraq, we learned this in Vietnam. Weinberger-Powell was crafted as a response to Vietnam - as a way of avoiding another Vietnam. If the purpose of Weinberger-Powell is to avoid another Vietnam like situation then the doctrine is not outdated, except that we decided to ignore the doctrine and enter in another Vietnam like situation - Iraq. Not to put words in your mouth, but your point seems to be that the Powell doctirne is flawed/outdated because it doesn't allow us to enter into counterinsurgency situations like Vietnam or Iraq, but that's what the doctrine was designed to do - keep us out of situations like Vietnam or Iraq. So how can it be flawed our outdated if its doing what it was designed to do? You may not like the goal, but there is no flaw in the methodology. You also seem to be saying that minimizing casualties is more important under the Powell doctrine than mission accomplishment. For one thing, I don't believe this is so (WWII had tremendous casualties, but would clearly fall within the Powell doctrine because there was a real need, a clearly defined mission, appropriate levels of troops/national commitment, and an exit strategy). Even if the Powell doctirne does call for minimizing casualties, though, how is that a flaw? Minimizing casualties, last time I checked, was a good thing. Posted by: Corey at November 6, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
hey, here's an idea that is consistent with the Powell Doctrine, and might even act as a good supplement to it: Don't start wars unless they are formally declared by Congress. It's not just a good idea. It's the Constitution. Posted by: kid bitzer at November 7, 2006 01:43 AM | Permalink to this comment
Doesn't matter what namesake military doctrine Rumsfeld is following; the proof that he doesn't know his behind from a hole in the ground is in the photos: http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2006/11/06/its-rummy-rumsfeld-time/
I hope to comment on Rivkin's piece later in the week, but for now I'll just quote his final paragraph: Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany were not even coordinating their war strategies against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. Indeed, Japan rather foolishly chose not to engage Russia in the winter of 1941, when the Germans were pressing it hard to do so, and this allowed Stalin to pull Soviet Forces from the Far East and rush them to the gates of Moscow. Our World War II foes were animated by different and even inconsistent ideologies. Yet no serious military historian would question that combat with Nazi Germany in the European and African theatres was a part of a broader epochal struggle against the Axis Powers. Likewise the streets of Baghdad, the dusty roads of the Sunni Triangle, the back alleys of Kabul, and the mountains of Pashawar are all theatres in the global struggle against the Islamists. The surest way to hand them victory is to lose sight of this reality.
neill, the gaping hole in your argument is that Iraq wasn't part of any "Global struggle against the Islamists" at all - until Bush and co rushed in to make it one, and then utterly bungled it. Therefore, to go with your analogy, we wouldn't even HAVE this problem had not people like YOU set it on fire first, and then let it rage out of control. Posted by: Mentar at November 7, 2006 06:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
tit for tat while Rome BURNS. this is not a game. most of us will DIE. as will the society we have spent 200 years building. as will the WEST, thousands of years in the making. read it ONE more time: "Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan and Germany were not even coordinating their war strategies against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. Indeed, Japan rather foolishly chose not to engage Russia in the winter of 1941, when the Germans were pressing it hard to do so, and this allowed Stalin to pull Soviet Forces from the Far East and rush them to the gates of Moscow. Our World War II foes were animated by different and even inconsistent ideologies. Yet no serious military historian would question that combat with Nazi Germany in the European and African theatres was a part of a broader epochal struggle against the Axis Powers. Likewise the streets of Baghdad, the dusty roads of the Sunni Triangle, the back alleys of Kabul, and the mountains of Pashawar are all theatres in the global struggle against the Islamists. The surest way to hand them victory is to lose sight of this reality." get it?
Have the risks and costs of withdrawal been fully and frankly analysed?
Nasrallah, one of the axis generals: When I talk about an [American] failure, I’m not saying that the Americans’ plan for the region has collapsed, and that they are packing up their things and leaving, like what happened in the final days in Vietnam. But I would like to tell you clearly... I am one of those people who see a very clear picture. In our childhood... When we were young boys... I cannot forget the sight of the American forces leaving Vietnam in helicopters, which carried their officers and soldiers. Some Vietnamese, who had fought alongside the Americans, tried to climb into these helicopters, but the [Americans] threw them to the ground, abandoned them, and left. This is the sight I anticipate in our region, but I am not saying it will happen in months. It will take years. The Americans will gather their belongings and leave this region - the entire region. They have no future whatsoever in our region. They will leave the Middle East, and the Arab and Islamic worlds, like they left Vietnam. I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam, and to learn the lesson of the South Lebanese Army with the Israelis, and to know that when the Americans lose this war – and lose it they will, Allah willing - they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history. Abandonment. Yes, that's what we want.
neill at November 7, 2006 07:59 AM | Remind me again. Just how many American solders are supposed to die for Bushco's mistake? From Lind's piece regarding Madeleine Albright and American participation in the battles in the Balkans--primarily Bosnia and Kosovo--apparently he forgets that American participation was largely encouraged (from the standpoint of the US) by reports of attrocities there on the American 24/7 news channels, and was approved by America's allies in Europe--promarily NATO. Given the fairly small extent of American participation that was required to achieve the goal, and the allied support, it seems to me that the American participation was not necessarily a violation of the Powell doctrine. Posted by: raj at November 7, 2006 01:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Neill, give it up. You've completely lost all credibility and nobody's paying attention any more. Why not go someplace where people don't know you and start over?
Neill is right, the gypsies and the commies and the gays are out to destroy us. And the semites, especially the nasty semites with their secret religoius ways; they want to destroy the West! We must destroy them! Heil Neill! Concentration Camps and Gas Chambers For The Salvation Of the West! (It is like an old but bad movie come back....) Posted by: wolfenstein at November 7, 2006 01:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
But in a historical context, how does one view the Powell Doctrine in light of his shabby performance as secretary of state when he caved under pressure to the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal within the White House? His performance at the UN Security Council meeting was a sad day for his own doctrine and for all Vietnam veterans, who still remember that past debacle. And just compare his performance with Adlai Stevenson's during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It is my considered opinion, having lived a full life and now with far fewer years ahead of me than behind, that people who are saying we cannot withdrawal from Iraq without disaster befalling us are basically cowards. They are informed by fear instead of experience. They have not lived long enough or have not learned enough to weigh the situation objectively without a panicky fear that the 'bad guys' are infinitely strong and we are infinately weak. Three years after we pull out of Iraq no one will care about it any more. Our 'enemy' is pathetically weak, stupid, and confused. Our 'enemy' is more dangerous to America as a mascot for conservatives than as a stand alone threat to our nation. Posted by: ken at November 7, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Neill writes: "Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Adolf Hitler declared war on *us*, moron. Posted by: Jon H at November 7, 2006 06:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
> But in a historical context, how does one view the Powell Doctrine in light of his shabby performance as secretary of state when he caved under pressure to the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal within the White House? But, can't the doctrine stand on its own, regardless of the personal failings of the originator?
ken, why are you so eager to bear out osama/nasrallah/etc's predictions that America doesn't have the stomach for a long fight and will turn tail, betraying its friends and allies? and how do you think being handed victory by the defeated Americans will affect their prestige and behavior? a real good night tonight for the libs will be a real good night for the enemy as well. which they will trumpet to the world. advanced age doesn't equal an increase in wisdom.
Yes, Neill, we know that you want to attack every country which isn't ruled by white christians, and you don't mind slaughtering some women and children as long as they are brown-skinned, and you equate anyone who won't keep step with your cleansing plan as a coward -- in fact, we're so clear on this pogrom, you needn't keep repeating it.
neill,
i dont think Max Boot has agreed with Rummys occupation-lite apprach for some time. Posted by: liberalhawk at November 8, 2006 07:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
Neill, I don't understand why people keep responding to your trolls. You got two responses to this last one. I thought you ought to go away somewhere that people haven't wised up to you yet, but I guess since somebody keeps taking you seriously you might as well stay.
I'll tell you why people respond J, because my arguments are compelling, whether one agrees with them or not. I have a certain intellectual honesty, in my way, a willingness to engage the argument and address the grand scope of the problem. and when people have intellectually honest critiques of what I write, I try respond to those head-on. I don't call other people names, and strive to maintain a civil tone. I'm not always successful in this latter regard, especially when debating with someone I find profoundly unserious. But I try. I prefer to engage on the issue at hand. I confess I have focused on the same aspect of different topics because I think it is so critical to our, I repeat our, short- and long-term well-being. your knee-jerk response to blow it all up and run is reminiscent of that scene in a Monty Python film where they scatter, yelling 'flee! flee!' There are lots of lessons from mistakes made in Vietnam, but none has haunted us like our ignominious departure from Saigon, and trebling that, de-funding an ally and leaving him to slaughter. The arabs in particular were amazed and disgusted by our cowardice. And, lo and behold, four years later Khomeinists took over Iran, and took over our Embassy for a year, humiliating us in the eyes of the world, especially the Muslim world, which doesn't take such things lightly at all. And the liberals in America were so caught up in their secular progressive heroic narrative, they had no clue that this other derogatory narrative about America even existed. We're wonderful, everyone knows that. And islamic radicals have been hitting us surreptitiously ever since, and laughing, as their power and prestige has grown. All the way to 9-11 and beyond. This war is not going away. It will go wherever we are. Hamas today announced that it will hit American targets (hat-tip to whoever it was that intimated I was some kind of uneducated dolt for my concern that Hezbollah has cells to hit us here.) The course change we seem ready to take won't necessarily bring us to a better, safer place. We need to be very deliberate about the actions we take, and which narrative about America we animate for the world. Posted by: neill at November 9, 2006 01:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
That o'l Powell. But what would one expect from a staff officer? Anyways, good thing Washington, the Abolitionist, the British in both wars and the new world power of post war America in the Cold War didn't know of measured management as leadership. Of course Powell nostrums would be attractive in a basically managerial and conservative life we now live. 99% percent aspire to death after many, many years of low fat diet, low impact aerobics, bunches of pointless Viagra, and if truly favored our own teeth. We don't live in heroic times.
I'll tell you why people respond J, because my arguments are compelling, whether one agrees with them or not. heehee. OK, you win this round. But I swear I'll come up with a funnier joke than you next time around.
thanks j as usual for your insightful analysis. but I'm bracing for a thorough evisceration of my argument, as I'm sure you're just taking your time on -- you little tease, you. and greg, wasn't this site a cheerleader for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- before the going got tough? That's the thing about wars -- they often tend to get difficult, pesky things. And if you're not ready to stick it out if that happens. then keep your piehole shut before the decision is made to go or not. See it through to the (possibly bitter) end, or if you're not ready for that, opt to not go. For the sake of the troops who YOU advocate to place in harms way. You heard it here first, folks: The Stokes Doctrine. Posted by: neill at November 10, 2006 03:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
thanks j as usual for your insightful analysis. but I'm bracing for a thorough evisceration of my argument, as I'm sure you're just taking your time on -- you little tease, you. and greg, wasn't this site a cheerleader for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- before the going got tough? That's the thing about wars -- they often tend to get difficult, pesky things. And if you're not ready to stick it out if that happens. then keep your piehole shut before the decision is made to go or not. See it through to the (possibly bitter) end, or if you're not ready for that, opt to not go. For the sake of the troops who YOU advocate to place in harms way. You heard it here first, folks: The Stokes Doctrine. Posted by: neill at November 10, 2006 03:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
[sigh] OK, Neill, I have a few minutes to spare, I guess I'll spend them on you. I say it's possible to make an argument similar to yours that would make sense. Just because you haven't made it doesn't mean it isn't possible. I'll make a quick sketch of that argument and then point out its assumptions. ---- We can't relax our grip, not one bit. Like balloons in a closed space, wherever one contracts the others will expand. We'll have to fight china someday, and the more we control and the less they control when it comes, the better. Since nobody is going to get workable alternate energy, keeping control of the world's oil is vital. Whatever oil we can't deny to china will go to building up china's economy and china's military. If we can keep control over all the middle east oil then we have europe, india, china, and japan by the balls. Anybody sasses us, we can squeeze. Cut off the circulation for awhile. And unless we get control first, they'll get control of us. No choice but victory or defeat. So we have to control the middle east. No choice but to win in iraq or lose the world. It doesn't much matter what happens to the iraqis provided we can keep control of their oil and use iraq as a base to get control of iran. Saudi arabia is ours, they don't have any army worth mentioning.Likewise kuwait and the emirates. All we have to do ks keep control of the middle east oil and we mostly control the world including china, india, and japan. We can afford to tell japan to re-arm because their army and navy will have to do what we say or we won't give them oil. No matter how hard it turns out to keep control of iraq's oil, there's no choice but victory because if we're defeated there we're defeated everywhere. Meanwhile we have to persuade the US public to go along. So we tell them fairy tales about terrorism and caliphates since they lack the resolve to fight otherwise. They don't understand that we have to do whatever it takes to keep the empire going, that the empire means freedom for americans and losing it means slavery for us. This approach is logically consistent, as yours is not. However, it depends on assumptions that do not work. First, it assumes that adequate alternate energy will not show up, and that the oil not run out. If an adequate alternate energy source is found then we'll look pretty stupid wasting our strength holding the middle east. On the other hand if the oil runs out we'll be stuck even worse. It depends on the assumption that we can't manage peaceful coexistence with other empires. If we could do that, we would be better off. if we actually get into a world war then even if we "win" we're likely to wind up with a lot less world than we control already. But there's the chance that the others won't share. The USSR tried a policy of peaceful coexistence with us, and look where it got them. Still, it's worth a try. We're ahead now. We won't know whether china will be willing to co-exist until they're stronger. But we have time, we can build our own strength and get ready in case they don't want to share. But if we're too aggressive now, they can't afford to try to share. Why make world war inevitable? It depends on the assumption that the US public will never notice what we're doing, or that they'll notice and go along with it. This may be the way to bet but it isn't at all a sure thing. The USA did OK before we were a superpower. Call it everything before WWII. A lot of ways we did a lot better as a regional power. Some of us have the idea that we have to control the whole world to keep somebody else from doing it, but when in world history has that logic ever worked? That whole sense of inevitability is a sort of hypnosis. Nothing is inevitable here, except the oil will eventually get used up. There's a sort of romance to the idea that only the hardest, strongest, and toughest survive, the idea of being mean enough to make the hard choices. But it's just another sort of romantic fiction.
J, please explain in detail how America "controls" the oil in all these countries. Head of al-queada in Irag al-Masri: "The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake... We haven't had enough of your blood yet... We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House... The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel... So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections... I say to... the ruler of believers (Abu Omar Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahideen Shura) I vow allegiance to you... I put under your command 12,000 fighters who are the army of the al Qaeda... The victory day has come faster than we expected... Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away. We have to be unified by the sword, even though disagreements exist between us [between al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgent groups]... Go where God has ordered you to go and know that we are with you. We are your soldiers and your men." Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail: The tape highlights the very real fact that al-Qaeda works to influence elections in the West, and has a real preference in their outcome. This was true in Spain in the spring of 2004, when the Madrid rail suicide bombings killed over 200 commuters just days before the election, and led to the subsequent victory of the current Socialist government and immediate withdrawal of Spanish forces from Iraq. Over the summer, U.S. intelligence uncovered a 66 page document that explained al-Qaeda strategy to manipulate Western elections. The document, which was published on the web in a private al-Qaeda forum, has yet to be declassified. Posted by: neill at November 11, 2006 01:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
also, J, still waiting for that evisceration of my arguments.... Posted by: neill at November 11, 2006 06:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
"a real good night tonight (election eve) for the libs will be a real good night for the enemy as well. which they will trumpet to the world." actually, I'm NOT a rocket scientist. but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express election night.
J, please explain in detail how America "controls" the oil in all these countries. Neill, I didn't claim that this strategy has been an unqualified success. I claimed that it's a logically consistent strategy that would be worth refuting. Your collection of talking points does not make any combined sense and is not worth refuting. It refutes itself.
"it's a logically consistent strategy that would be worth refuting." hmmm. a logically..... you lost me.....and how does this indicate exactly how America "controls" other countries' oil reserves? C'mon, swing for the fences, eviscerate my arguments. Humiliate me. Someone?
Neill, your asrguments eviscerate themselves. Nobody else needs to do it for you. You humiliate yourself.
By that dodge, you really mean that you are incapable of eviscerating, or even responding coherently to, my argument. You are incapable as well of supporting your own argument that America "controls" the oil reserves of other nations. Over and out. Posted by: neill at November 11, 2006 04:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
No, Neill, I'm saying you aren't worth the bother. You're welcome to your own interpretation though. You aren't worth the effort to show you otherwise, even assuming you could understand.
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!
Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
