The Belgravia Dispatch: Grand Strategy Musings as Deflated Souffle

July 22, 2007

Grand Strategy Musings as Deflated Souffle

I've just waded through over 12,000 words this Sunday morning to learn, well, that great power politics still exist, the U.S. is still big boy on the block, and (rest assured) that we can still kick around any bad guys push come to shove.

The piece closes with a grave admonishment that the "era of grand expectations" is over and done with. Why, you don't say? And not a trace of irony in this grim closing, eh, perhaps accompanied by a serious acknowledgment of the growing debacle that is American policy in the Middle East, cheer-led by many of the author's intimates?

To be frank, I feel like I've just had to suffer through a badly botched souffle, brimming over and soggily capsizing under the weight of its warmed-over fare (power politics still live on! the world looks different from Moscow than it does from Washington!), over-used nostrums ("the return of great power and great games"!, expectations ain't what they used to be!), among other trotting out of group-think cliches. Can't we do better in our 'elite' discourse?

P.S. There is a bonus section on how to deal with Islamic extremists: "If retreat is impossible, perhaps the best course is to advance. Of the many bad options in confronting this immensely dangerous problem, the best may be to hasten the process of modernization in the Islamic world: more modernization, more globalization, faster."

A riveting apercu! Perhaps a 'faster, please' might be tossed in too, followed, say, by a 'heh, indeed!'

Posted by Gregory at July 22, 2007 02:33 PM

Comments

I like to thank Greg for reading Kagen's manifesto for the Hoover Institute so we don't have to.

Posted by: p_lukasiak at July 22, 2007 04:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

As usual in these rantings about foreign policy and geopolitics, the game is portrayed simply as "king of the hill,' and the players behave as young adolescents fighting for spots on the pecking order.

It would be refreshing for once to read an analysis that dealt with the real underlying issues: economics and resources.

Kagan apparently entirely misses the fact that the West and Japan are running out of oil and natural gas, and are increasingly dependent on a few producers who have increased their power enormously over the last few years. Plus China has emerged with a trillion dollar portfolio mostly held in dollars, a debt that has allowed Washington to pursue its foreign adventures on the cheap.

Yet Kagan insists that the U.S. remains in the catbird seat, mostly because we articulate better values than our rivals, despite what our behavior actually says about us.

Posted by: JohnH at July 22, 2007 10:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ah Yes, the Kagans can always be counted on to play Wagner though a kazoo.

I love the smell of C-span2 in the morning, smells like victory!

Posted by: DonkeyKong at July 23, 2007 06:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

By any rational, empirical analysis, the US role in the Middle East is not a "debacle." I know you want it to be (not because you are anti-American, but because you are anti-Bush and want to hang that albatross around his neck), but saying it doesn't make it so.

You can seriously argue about the current state and trajectory of affairs in the region, but "debacle" is simply too strong a word. It is a polemic, not an analytic.

Posted by: Moqui at July 24, 2007 06:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

Mind you, I am not saying things are good. You can seriously argue about the current state and trajectory of affairs in the region, but "debacle" is simply too strong a word. It is a polemic, not an analytic.

Posted by: Moqui at July 24, 2007 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

Sure, the US role is not a debacle. There may be hundreds of dead showing up on the streets of the major cities of Iraq every morning, and our favorite Saudi dictatorship may be in some danger of slipping (and destroying our economy), and the our favorite Egyptian military dictatorship may be losing ground to democracy, and our favorite Jordanian dictatorship may have problems with struggling democracy, and the US may be hated from one end of the Moslem world (Magrib) to the other (Indonesia), and our favorite Pakistani strongman thug may be in danger of losing to democracy, and the US may be widely regarded as a terrorist nation, but, its no debacle -- it is a collection of very deliberate (if stupid) choices.

A debacle would be if.... the US were publically caught torturing Moslems? Um, No. If the US were proven to be killing innocent Moslems? Um, No. If the US were publically caught funding more Moslem terrorists by Turkey? Um, No. If the US were caughting funding Salafi terrorists in Anbar? Um, No. If the US were caughting funding Salafi terrorists in northern Iran? Um, No.

There can be no debacle, until the Decider Decides it is a Debacle. Otherwise, it is not a Debacle, because only the Decider Decides.

Posted by: John Connor at July 25, 2007 02:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Freddy Kagan is proof-positive of the need for waterboarding in this country.

Somebody get the plywood. I'll hook up the hose.

Posted by: John P. Normanson at July 26, 2007 02:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Hold Forever, or Gradually Fold? \| Main \| You Voted Wrong, See? » July 22, 2007 Grand Strategy Musings as Deflated Souffle I've just waded through over 12,000 words this Sunday morning to learn, well, that great power politics still exist, the U.S. is still big boy on the block, and (rest assured) that we can still kick around any bad guys push come to shove. The piece closes with a grave admonishment that the "era of grand expectations" is over and done with. Why, you don't say? And not a trace of irony in this grim closing, eh, perhaps accompanied by a serious acknowledgment of the growing debacle that is American policy in the Middle East, cheer-led by many of the author's intimates? To be frank, I feel like I've just had to suffer through a badly botched souffle, brimming over and soggily capsizing under the weight of its warmed-over fare (power politics still live on! the world looks different from Moscow than it does from Washington!), over-used nostrums ("the return of great power and great games"!, expectations ain't what they used to be!), among other trotting out of group-think cliches. Can't we do better in our 'elite' discourse? P.S. There is a bonus section on how to deal with Islamic extremists: "If retreat is impossible, perhaps the best course is to advance. Of the many bad options in confronting this immensely dangerous problem, the best may be to hasten the process of modernization in the Islamic world: more modernization, more globalization, faster." A riveting apercu! Perhaps a 'faster, please' might be tossed in too, followed, say, by a 'heh, indeed!' Posted by Gregory at July 22, 2007 02:33 PM Comments I like to thank Greg for reading Kagen's manifesto for the Hoover Institute so we don't have to. Posted by: p_lukasiak at July 22, 2007 04:00 PM \| Permalink to this comment As usual in these rantings about foreign policy and geopolitics, the game is portrayed simply as "king of the hill,' and the players behave as young adolescents fighting for spots on the pecking order. It would be refreshing for once to read an analysis that dealt with the real underlying issues: economics and resources. Kagan apparently entirely misses the fact that the West and Japan are running out of oil and natural gas, and are increasingly dependent on a few producers who have increased their power enormously over the last few years. Plus China has emerged with a trillion dollar portfolio mostly held in dollars, a debt that has allowed Washington to pursue its foreign adventures on the cheap. Yet Kagan insists that the U.S. remains in the catbird seat, mostly because we articulate better values than our rivals, despite what our behavior actually says about us. Posted by: JohnH at July 22, 2007 10:22 PM \| Permalink to this comment Ah Yes, the Kagans can always be counted on to play Wagner though a kazoo. I love the smell of C-span2 in the morning, smells like victory! Posted by: DonkeyKong at July 23, 2007 06:43 AM \| Permalink to this comment By any rational, empirical analysis, the US role in the Middle East is not a "debacle." I know you want it to be (not because you are anti-American, but because you are anti-Bush and want to hang that albatross around his neck), but saying it doesn't make it so. You can seriously argue about the current state and trajectory of affairs in the region, but "debacle" is simply too strong a word. It is a polemic, not an analytic. Posted by: Moqui at July 24, 2007 06:37 PM \| Permalink to this comment By any rational, empirical analysis, the US role in the Middle East is not a "debacle." I know you want it to be (not because you are anti-American, but because you are anti-Bush and want to hang that albatross around his neck), but saying it doesn't make it so. Mind you, I am not saying things are good. You can seriously argue about the current state and trajectory of affairs in the region, but "debacle" is simply too strong a word. It is a polemic, not an analytic. Posted by: Moqui at July 24, 2007 06:38 PM \| Permalink to this comment Sure, the US role is not a debacle. There may be hundreds of dead showing up on the streets of the major cities of Iraq every morning, and our favorite Saudi dictatorship may be in some danger of slipping (and destroying our economy), and the our favorite Egyptian military dictatorship may be losing ground to democracy, and our favorite Jordanian dictatorship may have problems with struggling democracy, and the US may be hated from one end of the Moslem world (Magrib) to the other (Indonesia), and our favorite Pakistani strongman thug may be in danger of losing to democracy, and the US may be widely regarded as a terrorist nation, but, its no debacle -- it is a collection of very deliberate (if stupid) choices. A debacle would be if.... the US were publically caught torturing Moslems? Um, No. If the US were proven to be killing innocent Moslems? Um, No. If the US were publically caught funding more Moslem terrorists by Turkey? Um, No. If the US were caughting funding Salafi terrorists in Anbar? Um, No. If the US were caughting funding Salafi terrorists in northern Iran? Um, No. There can be no debacle, until the Decider Decides it is a Debacle. Otherwise, it is not a Debacle, because only the Decider Decides. :) Posted by: John Connor at July 25, 2007 02:53 PM \| Permalink to this comment Freddy Kagan is proof-positive of the need for waterboarding in this country. Somebody get the plywood. I'll hook up the hose. Posted by: John P. Normanson at July 26, 2007 02:20 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia 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 Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author 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 Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda 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 Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post 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 Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 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 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch