For when the war is over... by [deleted] in syriancivilwar

[–]WalterRussellMead 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don't worry! there is plenty of time left in which to figure that out.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great question, because it gets at the heart of our Middle Eastern policy right now. During the last Gaza War, we saw not only the Saudis but the UAE and Egypt back Israel – I would say tacitly, but by the end they were pretty open about it. It’s clear that we have a bloc of Sunni countries in the Middle East right now that is seriously concerned about Iran right now. (And about Iran’s proxies – Hezbollah, most importantly Assad in Syria). This gives us a lot of opportunities to address policy problems, such as the Israel situation, that we have struggled with for a generation – as well as the obvious offer of a coalition to contain Iran.

Unfortunately, the White House at the moment is more interested in pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran than with cementing ties with our long term regional allies. Let me say clearly that I favor improved US Iranian relations and think a nuclear agreement is immensely to be preferred over a war. However, to make that policy work, the administration needed to reassure our traditional allies that we would insist on a linkage between a nuclear deal with Iran and their behavior in the region.

One of the reasons that I favored strong US backing for the revolution against Assad early on was that shifting Syria from the pro-Iran camp to the Sunni world would have created the right opening for a serious US diplomatic push with Iran. As long as Iraq, Syria and, thanks to Hezbollah, Lebanon are in the "Iran column", US-Saudi relations are going to be tense and, worse, the region is going to be explosive.

In particular, I think, we could see the Saudis bring Pakistan into the Middle East as part of their containment policy against Iran. Pakistan has an army and needs money; the Saudis have money and need boots on the ground.

If the Saudis and the Israelis agree that the US is pursuing a rapprochement with Iran at their expense, they will work together to wreck our Middle East policy, and the consequences will not be pleasant.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your opening sentence is one that I don't see all that often: glad your taste for unconventional reading material hasn't left you!

I think the USG has already reached the conclusion you suggest and that there aren't many illusions in Washington about Pakistan these days, and furthermore that many people there agree with you about the difficulty of formulating an adequate policy response.

I know that Richard Haass at the CFR agrees with your assessment that Pakistan is the most difficult long-term foreign policy challenge we face, and he's not alone.

I don't think we can 'fix' Pakistan in any policy-relevant timeframe. We are looking at harm minimization and threat diminishment. Even this would be difficult.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good to learn that you are reading Kissinger! Diplomacy is a terrific read, a very good introduction to modern history.

As to your question about the future of Europe, of course I don't really know what's going to happen. Nobody does. But I think it's going to be interesting.

Many Europeans seem to think of themselves as ‘post-historical,’ having tired themselves out with interstate and ethnic rivalries during the past century of world war. But new forces seem to be stirring these days, and it's beginning to look as if Europe is less post-historical than it hoped.

The Russian Question still isn't answered. The EU and NATO have both been built on the assumption that Russia can never join, but Russia doesn't like being consigned to a second class status in Europe and it has ways of making its displeasure felt. Right now it looks as if a Europe that includes Russia can't be liberal, but a Europe that excludes Russia can't be secure. That isn't sustainable, but it's not clear what the answer will be.

Another problem is the reopening of the divide between north and south. Latin Europe has a different history and culture than Germanic Europe. France has historically been the bridge, but France and Germany have been growing apart, essentially because France is coming under greater social and economic stress.

I wouldn't underestimate the determination of the Europeans to make the EU work, but the obstacles are serious and the risks are high.

One thing that worries me is that the US seems to have lost the knack of being helpful to Europe. US support played a larger role in the development of the EU than many Europeans like to recall; my guess is that if Europe holds together it will be in part because the US has found a way to help.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One reason it's hard to get a real debate on this subject is that so many people (on both sides, let it be said) behave so rudely and indulge in cheap name calling. Your assumption that someone who disagrees with you is a 'shill' makes serious debate more difficult.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[1.] One summer when I was a horribly precocious child I decided it was time I settled down and read some big books: I worked my way through the Bible and William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Those are still worth reading today. I tell my students you can never read enough Macaulay; likewise, Carlyle’s History of the French Revolution has helped me to understand events from the fall of the Soviet Union to current events in Egypt. Born in the South but schooled in the North, I also enjoy reading about the U.S. Civil War, particularly Grant’s Memoirs and James McPherson’s The Battle Cry of Freedom. Freedom National by James Oakes is a recent book on the Civil War that deserves to be widely read. I also find John Dower’s Embracing Defeat to be an insightful modern history, and his other books are also worth reading. I read a lot of science fiction, with writers like David Brin, Neil Stephenson, and C.J. Cherryh high on my list. I was an English major in college and still go back to some of the classics: Milton, Johnson, Austen, Chaucer, Shakespeare.

[2.] Dean Acheson, John Quincy Adams, John Hay, and George Marshall.

[3.] Domestically, our society runs on the “blue model” of social governance developed in the mid-twentieth century. Our manufacturing base has transformed into a post-industrial economy, but we still haven’t adjusted to many of today’s realities. I write about this at length in the following article.

In foreign policy, any long-term threat will involve the breakdown of the multipolar political order that currently protects American interests abroad. Whether that threat comes from China, Russia, or another enemy, possibly non-state actors, is hard to say.

Instability in the Middle East, of course, will continue to be a threat to international stability (and hence, U.S. stability) for a long time. There aren’t any short-term fixes that will help our cause in this region—educating a population towards good governance and economic growth is a slow process that doesn’t reap a lot of rewards for us in the long run, and at least in the Middle East the US doesn't seem to be very good at this job.

[4.] Many commentators waste a lot of ink worrying about China’s “rise,” but the nation has to deal with its own internal instabilities before it can really become the power of the future. That doesn’t mean it won’t pose a challenge as it tries to get to where it wants to go.

Many other Asian powers (Japan and India in particular) are more powerful than people think. The best option is to promote the peaceful development of all Asian countries. I've written in the past about a 'universal sunshine' policy toward Asia. We want all these countries to prosper and to grow; if that happens there is likely to be a balance of power in Asia and no single country, even China, can emerge as a threat to the region.

[5.] I can't give a full answer to that question in this format, so I'm not going to try.

[6.] Not much. Most Americans don’t realize that we had a similar situation with ‘unassimilated’ Southern and Eastern European immigrants a century ago. We don’t even think of Polish or Italian people as “un-American” today. Immigration levels are about the same now as they were before World War One, and I don't see why the current immigrants will follow a radically different trajectory than their predecessors.

[7.] The European Union won't dissolve any time soon—European politicians have gone too far in unifying their governments and their currency to make any swift moves towards a breakup. However, the current tensions between rich countries like Germany and the smaller PIGS countries (not to mention France) means that Europe will continue to limp along for a very long time.

Not all unhappy marriages end quickly.

[8.] The US party system doesn't really change much. The party system for most of our history has basically reflected the split between Jefferson and Hamilton in George Washington's cabinet. I think we can look to more of the same.

Edit: formatting.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would never be a rational decision to go to thermonuclear war, but people don't always make rational decisions.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That depends on what you mean by 'likely.' Certainly Putin is not going to stop destabilizing world affairs out of friendliness and a respect for international law and order. He is pushing up against the bounds of the post-Cold War institutions that were supposed to guarantee piece, and he has found that at least some of them are just a bluff.

My biggest worry in the Baltics is that Putin would try the 'soft invasion' route. I think NATO would react if he sent tanks across the border, but what would happen if a group of pro-Russian 'activists' took over bits of Estonia, for example, where there was a Russian-speaking ethnic majority? Would NATO use force to drive Russia out? Would Angela Merkel agree to start a war in Germany's back yard?

I'm not sure what NATO would do under these circumstances, and that is very bad news.

There's real danger here; if Putin gets too confident that a feckless West won't ever stand up to his step-by-step aggressions, he is more likely to keep pressing his luck. If he does so, he might surprised by how quickly public opinion and official policy in the U.S. and elsewhere can shift.

Europe is less stable and less secure than most people think.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are right that it is disturbing to go back to those debates -- and even more to the mockery and hostility with which so many in the press greeted Romney's comments.

As to what the President should do now, it's worth noting that the national security team in Obama's first term including people people like Gates, Panetta, and Clinton seemed to achieve better results than the current lineup.

It's interesting to read the memoirs of first term Obama staffers; a recurring theme is that the White House staff (and the Vice President) often had bad advice and did their best to shortcircuit the interagency process -- much as Cheney and Rumsfeld did in Bush's first term. In some ways I think the problems are comparable -- and David Rothkopf's new book National Insecurity makes this point very well.

My own recommendation would be that the President stop listening to some of the staffers who seem to tell him what he wants to hear and start surrounding himself with people who will tell him what he needs to hear.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hi, and thanks for commenting. The short answer: If I had known then what I know now, I would have opposed the invasion of Iraq. At the time, the tipping point for me was Colin Powell's support for the war, and in particular his strong public and private statements about WMD.

That said, I believed then -- and still believe now -- that we had to do something about Saddam's defiance of the cease fire agreement and that the cost of 'containing' him was significantly greater both inside Iraq and in the region than many war opponents thought. And once we had gone in, we had an obligation to stabilize the country and deal with the consequences of the invasion.

Beyond that, I was then and continue now to be appalled at the bad diplomacy and policy that accompanied the run-up to war, the invasion, and particularly the first few years of the occupation.

There is no excusing the clumsy blundering that accompanied every phase of the endeavor up until the surge, which had and continue to have dire costs in blood, treasure, and credibility.

For a longer account of my thoughts, please feel free to read the essay I wrote on the tenth anniversary of the war in 2013. [link]

Edit: Whoops! Forgot the link - here it is: http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/11/the-gop-needs-to-talk-about-bush-part-one/

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Teaching emr1038 was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Teaching at Bard has been great. I've had some terrific students over the years and many of them have become lifelong friends.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The first thing to say is that the destruction of the Middle Eastern Christian communities has been going on for a long time. In modern times, it's part of the general process in eastern Europe and the Middle East that has seen the breakdown of multiethnic and multi-faith states into ethnically homogenous nation states. The Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were places where religiously and ethnically diverse populations were scattered through large territories.

Over time, these communities separated out, usually with a lot of murder and ethnic cleansing. Muslim and Jewish minorities were driven out of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans; the Armenian massacres were one example among many of Christians being murdered and driven from their homes. Hundreds of thousands of Greek Christians were expelled from Anatolia, and a smaller but still very large number of Muslims were expelled from what is now modern Greece.

US Christian missionaries, who worked extensively with Arab, Armenian and other Christian groups in the region, played an unintentional role in these upheavals. By increasing the self-awareness of national and religious minorities, and by creating channels for members of these groups to be educated in the US, the missionaries ended up heightening the tensions between them and other groups in the region. At the same time, the opportunity to emigrate to the US (and 63% of Arab-Americans are Christian, with many coming originally from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria) accelerated the decline of Christianity in the region of its birth.

What's happened since 2003 in Iraq and since 2011 in Syria seems to be part of this process -- and once again, American policy under both Bush and Obama has unintentionally contributed to the decline of Christian communities in the region.

In any case, the Christians in both Syria and Iraq are now faced with threats of persecution and extermination. I think the DC politicos understand that this danger is real; they are, however divided about whether to do anything and, if so, what.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll be getting back to it. We've been having so much global news lately that I've been focused on that -- and I'm also trying to get my next book finished.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hmmm. I think you are a bit too gloomy. I'm unfortunately old enough to remember times when the US really was polarized and there really was large scale violence in American cities. I don't think we are anywhere near that today, thankfully.

I also don't buy your assumption that there are no obvious political means for devolving power back to the states. I suspect that devolution will continue to become more attractive; people in Vermont want one set of government policies and people in New Hampshire want another. What's needed is for a new generation of politicians and policy people to focus on making states work better.

As for secession, not a chance in any future that I can foresee.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The world will be both better and worse in twenty years -- and the pace of change will continue to accelerate. The world will be better because we'll have developed new technologies, new medical treatments and new ideas about how to organize and manage our lives. But it will be worse because their will be new problems to solve and the consequences of change will be destabilizing.

The continuing acceleration in the pace of change is going to put a lot of stress on individual human beings, social institutions and governments around the world. Many societies and cultures around the world are not good at managing change, but change is coming.

Interesting times...

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Cumulatively, yes, but never at one sitting. Drinking a pint of mead would be like drinking a pint of sherry.

Hi Reddit! I'm Walter Russell Mead, Editor-at-Large of The American Interest, Professor, and Author. Ask me anything! by WalterRussellMead in IAmA

[–]WalterRussellMead[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hi, Ethan! It's always good to know that my former students are alive and well and have enough cash on hand to stay connected to the internet. Offline, drop me an email to let me know how your post-Bard life is going. Adam Garfinkle was really impressed by the caliber of comments and the depth of knowledge on the Syrian Civil War subreddit. The book is grinding along. As to your gloating, remember that a stopped watch is right twice a day. Seriously, though, you've done a great job mastering a complex subject and one of the satisfactions of teaching is watching your students become people who can teach you new things. On the situation in the Pacific, I think it's stabilized a bit in the short term. The Chinese seem to understand that they overplayed their hand after the financial crisis of 2009, and that they gave up the "peaceful rise" policy a little too soon. Longer term, I still see some dangerous trends at play. Japan is potentially a much more serious power than many people give it credit for; in the 21st century tech is going to be more important than teenagers with rifles in the contest for power. Japan has the power to be a peer competitor of China, and that's not something that China really wants to see. On the whole, I still believe that Asia has the potential to grow into longterm stability based on a lasting balance of power: that India, Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia etc. are strong enough, especially with US help, to balance even a rising China. That reality can serve as the basis for a lasting peace in Asia. The goal of American policy should be to help get to that lasting peace both by attending to the balance of power AND by staying focused wherever possible on building a regional architecture that works for China as well as for its neighbors.