End of Dreams, Return of History

[The Reaper]

Very interesting heavy reading, if you have 30 minutes or so and your mind is focused. Too long to post in its entirety.

I like Kagan and the questions he asks.

TR

July 19, 2007
End of Dreams, Return of History
By Robert Kagan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html

[82ndtrooper]

That practically qualifies as a disertation. Thanks for sharing.

Interestingly he points to the stuggle of Islam. What stuggle ? The stuggle to become a nation, all be it, without a defined geographic fence. Radical Islam, according to him, and I agree, are theocratic in nature, however lacking necessary powers to be one nation, one people, under their own flag. It's likely they will never be a nation, but more or less and Idea, never a super power. Hence the struggle to be heard through terrorism.

I especially enjoyed his comments, in the beginning of his writings, referring to the "Mirage" of the post cold war years through Bush Sr and Clinton. That nations, especially ours, desire to back peddle to that mirage of what was possibly a historical fluke of nature, so to speak.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Pete]

At first I was getting a tad put off by, as I thought, the anti US slant. But I kept slogging through and came to see his point - his point on a great number of issues.

I liked the bit on Kosovo. The UN Security Council was good also.

It did take a while to make it to the end.

[82ndtrooper]

At first I was getting a tad put off by, as I thought, the anti US slant. But I kept slogging through and came to see his point - his point on a great number of issues.

I liked the bit on Kosovo. The UN Security Council was good also.

It did take a while to make it to the end.

I expected him to allude to Bosnia and Kosovo as necesarry for foreign policy window dressing considering that genocide in Rhwanda was a much larger atrocity committed on mankind. He did not, at least to some extent.

The "Mirage" of well being shortly after cold war came at a cost. All Clinton and Kofi Anan could do was apologize for doing nothing. Hence the "mirage" of well being and "all is well" by not extending out the hand of the United States, rather the U.N. :rolleyes:

Searo Leone was largely brought to peace, for a short time, by privatized military, being Executive Outcomes involvment in both UW and FID during the twist with Hutsi's and Tutsi's. Another example of the Mirage perspecitve that Kagan brings up in the beginning of his writings. In other words, it's ok if military involvement is the only answer , just not at as long as it's our military.

I expect the left to see Darfur as Bush's Rhwanda.

[Sionnach]

Excellent read. Thanks, TR.

[x-factor]

You know an article is really good when the conclusions all seem like common sense. This was an excellent piece.

Just a couple of semi-random observations.

1) I think he's exactly right that Bush, on the strategic level, isn't really that unique or surprising. What Kagan leaves politely unsaid is that the tremendous backlash to Bush both in the US and worldwide has to do more with the administration's (up until at least 2006) lack of subtlety in communicating its agenda and frequent lack of competence in executing that agenda.

2) Is Kagan saying that a strong, unified Europe is a vital necessity? If so, is history really on our side there? Is the EU the best vehicle for this?

3) I really like the comparison he makes to the 18th century. I've had alot of the same thoughts myself and this article helped them gel. I'd actually expand the analogy a little bit to encompass the 250-300 years between the discovery of the New World and American Independence. In that respect, I'd expand on what Kagan said about the world order being defined as a autocratic-vs-liberal world and draw the analogy we're moving into a period of neo-mercantilism.

- All major international actors have more or less accepted the basic concept of "the global economy

- Generally speaking, there is security (or at least, predictability and stability) in the established world, but on the "frontier" of the undeveloped/ungoverned world (the New World historically, South and Central Asia and Africa currently) its a free for all on both a macro and micro level

- The global economy is increasingly driven by a few key commodities (in the historical period gold and spices, currently energy)...oddly enough, the key commodities are often found in large unexploited concentrations on the frontier

- Alliances are made both on philosophical grounds (historically, Protestant vs Catholic or currently, liberal vs autocratic) and practical grounds...with economics and culture as the connective tissue between the two (ie people tend to do business with those they trust and they tend to trust those who think like them)

- On the day-to-day level, mercantile conflicts, especially on the frontier, are fertile ground for:
*extensive espionage activity and highly specialized state-driven units for power projection to the frontier (historically: Conquistadors; currently: SOF),
*semi-independent non-state actors with primarily economic motivations (historically :East India Company, Privateers; currently: Exxon-Mobil, Blackwater),
*criminal non-state actors (historically: pirates; currently: drug cartels/organized crime)
*small but influential religious extremists (historically: jesuits; currently: jihadists)