"...while modern liberalism and internationalism underwrite the Biden administration’s strategy." I never heard of Deudney and Ikenberry before, but they apparently see themselves as purveyors of modern liberalism and internationalism. Yet again, we have cheerleaders for presidential carte blanche for our ongoing deadly sanctions, drones droning night and day around the world and the callous assumption that we can kill our way to peace.
John and Dan have clearly written a stupid article more influenced by domestic American politics than any genuine understanding of international affairs. Are John and Dan about to say that the Biden administration's policies vis-a-vis China have to be abandoned because they are materially identical to Trump's stance on China? No, they won't. John and Dan, like so many Blob creatures, care more about style and tone than substance. Like many members of the contemporary bureaucratic, academic, and media elite, they care more about sizzle than steak. Much like the credulous rubes who were foolish enough to invest in Trump's businesses, they have been taken in by a sales pitch (albeit a sales pitch with a different tone than Trump's preferred version) rather than cooly and logically evaluating the actual material qualities of the product being sold. This is not the mark of wise decision-making.
I wonder if John and Dan would be able to defend (a) the strategic logic of adopting a dual containment policy with respect to China and Russia simultaneously (is there any reason to suspect that it will end up different than the dual containment policy towards Iraq and Iran we adopted in the 1990s), (b) the strategic propriety of attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO despite the staggering cost it will take to defend it and the lack of capabilities it brings to the alliance, or (c) the strategic logic of attempting to give Taiwan a security guarantee despite the fact that it is a redline issue for China. They certainly cannot do so on the merits. Not only are the overall objectives of Dan and John foolish, but they don't even seem to be able to develop a clearsighted strategy to achieve those objectives and they don't seem to think that the Untied States has to prioritize some objectives and therefore make tradeoffs with respect to others. No, this kind of strategic thinking is too complicated for their Yaley heads, so they best they can do is try to say "well you sound like TRUMP!"
Trump was undoubtedly an idiot who did not look the part. But here's the sad truth: America's elites are idiots who look the part but are equally inept at playing it.
TL;DR Any stick will do to beat a dog, and if the dog is one of the Officially Designated Enemies, then even the sloppiest scholarship will be greeted with hosannas.
Maybe take this screed as a sort of compliment. As Ghandi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Quincy is already at stage three!
Also, recall what Oscar Wilde said: “The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.”
"...while modern liberalism and internationalism underwrite the Biden administration’s strategy." I never heard of Deudney and Ikenberry before, but they apparently see themselves as purveyors of modern liberalism and internationalism. Yet again, we have cheerleaders for presidential carte blanche for our ongoing deadly sanctions, drones droning night and day around the world and the callous assumption that we can kill our way to peace.
John and Dan have clearly written a stupid article more influenced by domestic American politics than any genuine understanding of international affairs. Are John and Dan about to say that the Biden administration's policies vis-a-vis China have to be abandoned because they are materially identical to Trump's stance on China? No, they won't. John and Dan, like so many Blob creatures, care more about style and tone than substance. Like many members of the contemporary bureaucratic, academic, and media elite, they care more about sizzle than steak. Much like the credulous rubes who were foolish enough to invest in Trump's businesses, they have been taken in by a sales pitch (albeit a sales pitch with a different tone than Trump's preferred version) rather than cooly and logically evaluating the actual material qualities of the product being sold. This is not the mark of wise decision-making.
I wonder if John and Dan would be able to defend (a) the strategic logic of adopting a dual containment policy with respect to China and Russia simultaneously (is there any reason to suspect that it will end up different than the dual containment policy towards Iraq and Iran we adopted in the 1990s), (b) the strategic propriety of attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO despite the staggering cost it will take to defend it and the lack of capabilities it brings to the alliance, or (c) the strategic logic of attempting to give Taiwan a security guarantee despite the fact that it is a redline issue for China. They certainly cannot do so on the merits. Not only are the overall objectives of Dan and John foolish, but they don't even seem to be able to develop a clearsighted strategy to achieve those objectives and they don't seem to think that the Untied States has to prioritize some objectives and therefore make tradeoffs with respect to others. No, this kind of strategic thinking is too complicated for their Yaley heads, so they best they can do is try to say "well you sound like TRUMP!"
Trump was undoubtedly an idiot who did not look the part. But here's the sad truth: America's elites are idiots who look the part but are equally inept at playing it.
As a believer in restraint I was stung to read that restraint is not restraint but the opposite of restraint.
TL;DR Any stick will do to beat a dog, and if the dog is one of the Officially Designated Enemies, then even the sloppiest scholarship will be greeted with hosannas.
Maybe take this screed as a sort of compliment. As Ghandi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Quincy is already at stage three!
Also, recall what Oscar Wilde said: “The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.”