There are a couple of commentary pieces that deserve further circulation and wider discussion. One, by Brookings fellow Shibley Telhami, argues that if history is any guide, use of force in Iraq will likely increase the resort to terrorism in the Arab world. This is not merely because the action angers the Arab street, but more precisely because of a pervasive feeling of powerlessness and collective humiliation in the Arab world. It’s this humiliation which explains such a cross-identification with the Palestinians and a distrust of the state. Fighting recalcitrant states, Telhami argues, may solve one problem but also encourages Arabs to support non-state militants, who often show victory when states cannot or will not.
A second piece, from the American Prospect, review’s Kagan’s book Of Paradise and Power, which is a key apologia for the neo-con position. The author Stephen Holmes dispute’s Kagan’s argumentation then asserts against the book’s thesis that Europe does matter for the U.S., though not for the reason liberal hawks often give. Less important than multilateral governance for him is the role of Europe in stopping terrorism:
The September 11 attacks were partly planned, organized and financed in Europe. The Muslim diaspora communities into which terrorist cells can invisibly blend remain the likeliest staging grounds for future al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. In other words, Europe remains a frontline region in the war against terrorism just as it was in the war against communism. As daily press reports also reveal, the European police have been acting in a perfectly Hobbesian manner, arresting scores of suspected terrorists. In other words, despite his pose as a no-nonsense realist, Kagan has apparently failed to realize the degree to which the contours of American national security have been redrawn since 9-11. The home front and the foreign front have now been disconcertingly blurred. National-security strategy must now operate in a domain where soldiering and policing have become of coequal importance. This profound change helps us understand the erroneous premise of Bush’s foreign policy. In our new security environment, despite the prevailing cliche, the United States is not the world’s only superpower.
Given the lack of political will to address the weak state problem and the lack of creative thinking necessary to enact adequate domestic security, Holmes’ point can not be said enough.
No comments have been added to this post yet.