I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means…

 Posted by  2012 Election, Book Related, East and S.E. Asia, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons  2 Responses »
Apr 132012
 

Can we please stop using the word “embolden” to describe American policies with respect to our enemies?

“Embolden” has become a buzz word to attack the foreign policy maneuvers of political enemies here in the United States.  President Bush used to say that withdrawing from Iraq would “embolden” the terrorists–and many Democrats pushed back by arguing that in fact the Iraq War itself had “emboldened” the terrorists.  Just today Mitt Romney attacked Obama for “emboldening” North Korea by trying to engage with them diplomatically.

But what does “embolden” actually mean?  The dictionary definition is to make bold, to give someone courage or confidence.  But in the context of a strategic environment, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense. Continue reading »

It’s a MAD World

 Posted by  Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism  4 Responses »
Jul 152010
 

There is an interesting opinion piece today by Timothy Egan on nytimes.com about mutually assured destruction (MAD). MAD is a Cold War era policy that says essentially “if you nuke our cities, we promise to nuke your cities”.

Egan assumes, like many people do, that MAD kept us safe during the Cold War. But he criticizes the Pentagon for continuing to rely on MAD in an era where the greatest threats to United States security are terrorist organizations:
Continue reading »

The Destructive Power of Common Knowledge

 Posted by  Football, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism  No Responses »
Sep 092008
 

I am constantly flabbergasted by how “common knowledge”, even and especially among experts in a particular field, can so often be so wrong. And I don’t even mean “wrong if you really know what you’re talking about”; I mean “illogical at face value”. I’ll start with a couple examples from football (it is that time of year), and then get to one about national security (inspired by this op-ed in today’s New York Times).
Continue reading »

Hypocrisy of Nuclear Energy

 Posted by  2008 Election, Environment, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons  No Responses »
Nov 022007
 

I read McCain’s Foreign Affairs essay the other day, which is really quite good. There are certainly things in it I disagree with, but when compared with the nonsensical mess that Giuliani wrote, it does make you appreciate that McCain has some grasp of the issues at hand. On the issue of nuclear power, however, McCain’s stances came off as incredibly hypocritical. (To be fair, he actually is just proposing that we follow through with policies that the Bush Administration has proposed, so he’s not the only hypocrite on the issue.) McCain is very clear that nuclear proliferation, especially to terrorist sponsoring states like Iran, Syria, and North Korea, is a very bad thing. And to counter this, he wants to strengthen the IAEA (the UN-affiliated body that handles these things) by, in part, tasking them with preventing the spread of nuclear power technologies. By itself, this is a reasonable thing to do; after all, one of the problems we’re running into with both Iran and North Korea is that nuclear power technologies look an awful lot like nuclear weapons technologies (both the parts and the satellite photos). At the same time, McCain wants to reduce American reliance on “foreign oil” by expanding our own reliance on nuclear power. It’s a classic case of what’s good enough for us is too good for you.

Continue reading »

Giuliani’s Understanding and Foreign Affairs

 Posted by  2008 Election, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism  4 Responses »
Aug 172007
 

I encourage you to take a look at this series of articles being published in Foreign Affairs. In a nut shell, the journal asked each of the “top” presidential candidates to write an essay outlining their foreign policy goals and strategies if they are elected president. So far, four candidates have responded: Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney.

As with any mid-election statement, there are plenty of platitudes and not enough specifics–especially when it comes down to actually paying for things. That being said, the general styles and philosophies of the candidates come through pretty clearly, and there are enough specific policy proposals to be able to compare and contrast the candidates. For instance, all four candidates express a need to hire more soldiers, but in different ways. Romney and Giuliani want to build new combat brigades to be part of an overall expansion in military power, to return the military to the size and prominence it had during the Reagan years; Obama focuses on recruiting more Marines and special ops forces, to refocus the military on counter-terrorism and peace-making; Edwards stresses the need to improve pay and benefits for soldiers and veterans, and to eliminate the reliance on the National Guard to provide support personnel.

Continue reading »

 Older Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha