the problem is that the bluesky prog-leftist war nerd is in the position of the conservative intellectual, and the base are people whose knowledge of international affairs comes from the DSA international committee
with love to many of my mutuals, i don't really feel this "hip progressive national security revolution" thing is going to happen. because it has the same problem that conservative intellectuals have with their base -- who don't want to be all that intellectual
Sorry oldheads, us zoomers don't drink anymore, we just mainline The Horrors direct to our frontal lobe on our Demon Rectangle for 10 hours a day
I think a very large number of americans imagine the rest of the world as being either Neuschwannstein, Tokyo, or some biome-appropriate version of a Maasai village. Iran, being middle-eastern, is presumably a collection of Maasai villages full of dusty bedouin jihadis with bad teeth and AK-47s.
"Iran is a big country, filled with many Iranians." -> things our media apparently does not know
A map of the railways in Africa and their gauges.
I always drop this or something like it in front of my students and as them what this tells them about the economic paradigms present and how operations in Africa might be effected.
Reminder that northern canada is extremely desolate but also filled with genuinely absurd fantasy terrain
As one of the fifteen or twenty genuine Liberal Internationalists in the US, all of whom are active on this site, I do think we really need to confront the fact that a genuine liberal-democratic "rules based" international order cannot be underpinned by arbitrary and hegemonic US military might.
I’m less clued in on specifics there, but I do recall serious issues with Washington undermining our negotiating position on China and leaving us in the lurch with the cases Indian wetwork on Canadian soil.
The thing about Middle East policy is we don’t actually spend that much money planning around it and this guy was so powerful pretty much because he was the only person with any power in FP who cared.
Katharine Boyle couldn’t find Kyiv on a map in 2022, but she wants a Quisling in power more than anything now that she’s heard Warriors podcast about it.
I also think the Gizmo Cult is on board with this intellectual posture because their tools performed so poorly in the war.
They’re also broadly - especially at the main VCs - fascist, so defeating Ukraine and a Free Europe is essential to their project.
DoD didn’t ignore the Ukrainian War for Independence, it affirmatively decided to discard it.
Years ago my team at CNA did a review of the US use of proxies.
A pertinent finding: “Policymakers & the US military should restrict the use of proxies to irregular warfare activities against states or other nonstate armed groups & avoid any temptations to use them as surrogate conventional armies”
Turns out that opposing a war because you think good American soldiers shouldn’t be sent to die for foreigners isn’t the same as opposing a war on the basis of moral principle.
I know it’s shooting fish in a barrel at this point, but it’s still fucking ridiculous that people convinced themselves Mr. “Bomb the shit out of them and take their oil” is a dove
Our #ForeverCanadian movement just grew by 260,000 Albertan!
youtu.be/I1ieKwFlLZI
All it would have taken is one stray rocket and a perfectly-timed IADS malfunction and we'd have Iraq in Eurovision or something.
One example of this is the report discussing whether the renegotiated USMCA "should be replicated" based on its benefits and drawbacks for the domestic auto sector, ignoring how infuriating that entire process was for Canada and Mexico and what we gave up to get some more auto jobs in Michigan.
Also a grim foretaste of what was to come that the report occasionally mentions that "burden-sharing" with allies is important, that alliances have to be revived and deepened etc., but also assumes that allies will be cool with Western foreign policy being steered by employment prospects in Ohio.
Man, this piece is a perfect example of what's wrong with trying to do foreign policy for "the man on the street", because people simultaneously want the US to retain global leadership, promote democracy and stability etc., but also not pay anything to do it, etc. etc...
Oh what the fuck is this.
"Voters don't care about any of that, just focus on [insert kitchen table domestic issues]" may be right, but you do need to find someone who will treat it like an election winner anyway because the alternative is careerists playing with other peoples' lives for attaboys and think tank appointments.
The fact that McGurk's success continued despite changes in leadership and changes in approach to Iraq and the Middle East is such a sign of underlying rot. Everyone says foreign policy doesn't win elections, and they may be right, but the problem is that leaves the field open for guys like him.
"A U.S. diplomat who was in the embassy when McGurk arrived found his steady advance astonishing. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?”"
I FUCKING HATE THIS SHIT (AND THIS GUY)
This scathing article in New Lines is a pretty good summation of McGurk and his rotten legacy. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?”
the fact that McGurk keeps getting put on CNN and Colbert (along with Petraeus!) despite not actually understanding the area
