Get out the shovel….
Robert Kagan has written a piece entitled “Backing into World War III.” Kagan
instead prefers a headlong rush into human oblivion.
Who is Robert
Kagan?
Robert Kagan (born September 26, 1958) is
an American historian, author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator. Kagan
is mainly characterized as a leading neoconservative, but he prefers the term
“liberal interventionist” to describe himself.
“Liberal interventionist”; a label right
out of The Department of Redundancy Department.
A co-founder of the neoconservative Project
for the New American Century, he is a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations….Kagan left the
Republican Party in 2016 due to what he described as Donald Trump’s fascism,
and endorsed Hillary Clinton.
A better label would be “warmonger.”
He didn’t leave because of Trump’s fascism (Kagan has obviously never met a
fascist); Kagan left because he is a liberal interventionist.
Kagan is married to the American diplomat
Victoria Nuland, who served as Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian
Affairs in the Barack Obama administration.
“F*ck the EU” Nuland. They all get
mad when Trump badmouths the EU, but nary a peep when a warmonger does.
OK, so what of this piece by Kagan?
He sees, and laments, the upswing of Russia
and China; he sees, and laments, the downturn of the United States. Of
course, his Project for the New American Century is one of the prime reasons
for this US downturn….
…we will reach the moment at which the
existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy,
as it has three times in the past two centuries.
While it is 100% certain that the existing
order will change, it need not “collapse”; instead, it can transition somewhat
smoothly. The State Department has something around 70,000 employees and
a budget approaching $50 billion. Try mixing in a little diplomacy once
in a while.
But no; we can’t have any of that diplomacy
stuff! Instead, we get “collapse” as the only possible outcome.
Thereafter we get “brutal anarchy.” Brutal anarchy for whom, one might
ask. It has certainly descended into brutal anarchy for those on the
receiving end of the Project for the New American Century.
History shows that world orders do
collapse, however, and when they do it is often unexpected, rapid, and violent.
The late 18th century was the high point of the Enlightenment in Europe, before
the continent fell suddenly into the abyss of the Napoleonic Wars.
One might ask: was there a
relationship? How could the high point of the Enlightenment coincide with
the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars? Is this a fair question?
The Enlightenment included a range of ideas
centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came
to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional
government, and separation of church and state.
Man’s reason, not God’s laws, was the
primary source of authority. Could this have something to do with this
reality? Now, before all of my atheist libertarian friends get up in
arms…someone or something will make the laws. This is an
unavoidable reality of history.
When it was God’s law, there was no doubt
that all men – even the king – were below the law; for more or less 1000 years,
some form of just such law was to be found in the Germanic
Middle Ages. When it was man’s reason, well the man who made the law made
sure he was above the law.
We bow to the gods of liberty, equality, fraternity; yet these gods
coincided with the “three times in the past two centuries” lamented by Kagan.
Look, I didn’t offer up the comparison; blame Kagan.
Returning to his essay, Kagan laments the
actions of the Trump administration to date:
The further accommodation of Russia can
only embolden Vladimir Putin, and the tough talk with China will likely lead
Beijing to test the new administration’s resolve militarily.
This is the first place in the essay where
I lost it. Accommodating Russia leads to war and playing tough
with China leads to war. Idiot.
China and Russia are classic revisionist
powers. Although both have never enjoyed greater security from foreign powers
than they do today—Russia from its traditional enemies to the west, China from
its traditional enemy in the east—they are dissatisfied with the current global
configuration of power.
Has Kagan ever looked at a map of
Europe? Has he studied NATO expansion toward Russia? Either he is a
dolt or he treats his readers as dolts. Or both…that’s my bet.
As to being “dissatisfied with the current
global configuration of power,” for China, with an economy quickly approaching
that of the largest economy in the world, what do you expect?
Both seek to restore the hegemonic
dominance they once enjoyed in their respective regions. For China, that means
dominance of East Asia, with countries like Japan, South Korea, and the nations
of Southeast Asia…
What? How many centuries ago did
China enjoy “hegemonic dominance” over Japan and South Korea?
For Russia, it means hegemonic influence in
Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia…
Has Kagan seen a map of Europe circa 1989?
Let’s get down to brass tacks. The
Warsaw Pact was made up of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
Out of these countries and excluding Russia,
Russia has military bases in eight of these –
if you count Crimea as “Ukraine” (which I am sure Kagan will). Guess
what? Eight of these countries have joined NATO
(nine if you count the now decentralized Czech Republic and Slovakia
separately; ten if you include East Germany).
One wonders exactly which country – Russia
or the United States – is exercising “hegemonic influence in Central and
Eastern Europe and Central Asia.”
Further, in case it needs to be pointed
out, many of these new NATO countries border Russia; at the same time, these
new NATO countries are up to 5000 miles or more distant from Washington, DC.
Returning to Kagan: much of the remainder
of the essay contains the standard false history of wars and neocon-driven
bromides. Nonsense piled on nonsense. Piled higher and deeper.
Conclusion
Just look at both China and Russia: Never
in the past two centuries have they enjoyed greater security from external
attack than they do today.
Has Kagan never seen this map? Perhaps they do not understand
that the United Sates is surrounding them with military bases in order to
protect them.
In any case, never at any time in
the last two centuries has the United States ever had to fear an
existential external attack. The most one can say is Pearl Harbor – when
Hawaii was not yet a state, and anyway…FDR and all that – and 911 – when…well, we
don’t really know what happened, do we.
The candidate [Clinton] who spoke often of
America’s “indispensable” global role lost…
Yes; may I explain why?
America First.
