Speaking as someone living in the region who has a friend living in Taiwan, this is an unfortunate but necessary thing. Australia went overboard in pandering to Trump during Scott Morrison's time as Prime Minister and could have been far more clever about playing them off against each other. China's expansionism in the South Pacific is very troubling so balance of power is about as good as we can hope for.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
March/April 2023
Published on February 28, 2023
Good op-ed. Possibly gated.
About the author:
ANDREW J. BACEVICH is Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at
Boston University and Chair of the Board of the Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft, which he co-founded.
So far, U.S. policy on Ukraine has been pragmatic and arguably restrained. But President Joe Biden and his team routinely talk about the war in ways that suggest an outmoded, moralistic, and recklessly grandiose vision of American power. Aligning his administrationâs rhetorical posture with a sober assessment of the true stakes involved in Ukraine might allow Biden to wean the establishment from its obsession with hegemony. Demonstrating that Americans do not need their countryâs role in the world explained to them in the style of a childrenâs bedtime story would be a bonus.
The victory in World War II bestowed a new sense of purpose on U.S. policy, which was subsequently codified in NSC-68. But it also imposed a straitjacket. As the scholar David Bromwich has recently written, âThe Second World War is the picture that has held us captive.â In important respects, the story of U.S. national security policy over the past seven
decades centers on an effort to preserve and update that picture. The overarching aim has been to engineer another such victory, thereby delivering security, prosperity, deference, and privilegeâor, more broadly, a world run on American terms, a dominance justified by a self-assigned mission to spread freedom and democracy.
By Andrew J. Bacevich
March/April 2023
Published on February 28, 2023
Good op-ed. Possibly gated.
About the author:
ANDREW J. BACEVICH is Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at
Boston University and Chair of the Board of the Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft, which he co-founded.
Behind a mind-set that invites the burden of policing a rules-based global order is a conventional assumption: War, though tragic, is a boon for economic vitality and patriotic vigor. This assumption is at best outmoded. The economy is no longer fueled by wartime industries in the same way. When wars are fought by a smaller corps of volunteers and financed by borrowing from financial institutions and foreign governments more than taxes and war bonds, a public spirit of common cause hasnât materialized. In fact, Americaâs most recent military misadventures contributed to the steady accumulation of more than $30 trillion in debt â now being weaponized by partisans in Congress for political gain.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Elliott Abrams, who led Middle East policy in the Bush administration and Iran and Venezuela policy in the Trump administration, insisted that the United States should seize the ânew Cold Warâ opportunity to foster bipartisan consensus.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
I don't care about your use of the term (being leveled at westslope, who may or may not identify), but the facile characterization of repeating/being susceptible to Russian talking points. I guess the flip side would be the vast majority of boring centrists repeating NATO/US talking points.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) (For some weird reason they are the Labor Party) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
Well, I haven't seen the Labor Party spouting Russian talking points, not saying that they haven't. I mean some of the old timer's still call each other comrade. But yeah I'd say they still are overall left-leaning with the caveat that if something helps a heavily unionised business they tend to support it (I'm looking at you, coal companies).
But if you don't like left leaning then maybe "progressive?" "non-extreme right wing?" "woke"? I dunno, but I think even you get the idea of who I was trying to characterise in a general sense realising that generalisations are just that and are imperfect.
*strawman? Unwilling to clarify? Wants to keep safe in the land of inuendo?
I admit that it is sometimes hard to figure out the salient points from a rambling RP discussion thread.
If you start off with a hilarious characterization of "left-leaning" (does that incl. Aussie Labour?) and just dismiss arguments (as fuzzy logic) or distort them beyond recognition, then there's really no point in repeating or continuing them. Carry on as usual.
