Kagan is much smarter than this

OP-ED: Power Play, By ROBERT KAGAN, Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2008; Page W1

I read the piece and found it disappointing: too inside-baseball, as if the entire argument exists solely within the field of international relations. Worse, Kagan's straw-manned his opposition to an absurd degree, stating his archetype as basically, "Man will always war, for it is in his nature"-- not exactly a hard notion to defend but also so baseline as to be meaningless.

Note also how Kagan leaves out current history and economics, so the only explanation left is: Russians are simply like this. Again, that's not particularly helpful.

Kagan is much smarter than this. Great Powers was in many ways inspired by Dangerous Nation, but his last book and his writing since the campaign began seem to be a thinly-veiled promotion of certain neocon concepts--to wit, the resurrection of pre-9/11 ideas of "taking them on."

In that regard, Kagan just seems bored with the Long War and ready to re-embrace the old neocon agenda of working the big pieces aggressively, and to me, that's just unimaginative in the face of everything that's going on with globalization's continued advance.

There's simply a bigger agenda out there than fighting China and India and waiting passively for a fascist wave to subsume globalization. To me, that's just too defeatist and fatalistic--and a bad reading of current events.

(Thanks: Florian Widder)

Comments

[Tom Mull]

Obama is reading Zakaria "a self described realist" and McCain is being advised by Kagan. I'm voting for Barnett, Zakaria, and Obama's optimism in lieu Kagan and McCain's pessimism! =)

[Jeff J]

Balance of power has shifted? I wouldn't think Abkhazia and S. Ossetia (which the Russians already occupied with peacekeepers since the 90's) would equate to any of the former Warsaw Pact countries in any measure of power. As Tom has said many times, political-military commentators have to try and stay relevant and preaching long-term, patient economic solutions is too boring to sell.

[anand]

I can't believe that Kagan actually believes some of the stuff he just wrote. You are right, Kagan is much better than this. What happened to him?

What does Kagan think America's global objectives should be? What should the global objectives of the other great global free democracies be? How much interaction does Kagan have with global business people and innovators? Does he remember that America only has a fifth of global income, and that America's share is dropping? Does he remember that America has a smaller share of global wealth than we do of global income because we love to borrow from foreigners?

[David Sutton]

People have to sell copy, not that I imagine Keegan is short of funds. But any writer needs to stay in the public view and this piece, while I disagree with the ideas, is catchy for those who feel the same way. Plus it makes a few bold statements about man's propensity to evil and the horrors that may unfold, which is great for those sitting on they fence.

As a rally cry for those who have not made up their minds about the long term strategic struggle that we face – i.e. most of the general public, this piece makes good reading. It sets up the bad guy in obvious fashion. Avoids all the quagmire issues related to the Long War and parcels it all up wish great quotes and bits from people most of the general public won’t have heard of.

As such it’s almost a puff piece, rather than a serious piece of reportage on the current conflicts in the Caucasus.

I expect more from people of Keegan’s stature.

[Chris Mewett]

David -- What I don't understand is why a "puff piece" would involve devolution into explications of IR theory that Kagan seems plainly not to understand. Do the fence-sitters and undecideds need or want a poorly-painted portrait of an intellectual tradition that is only peripherally relevant to the party that he really seeks to criticize, the anti-war liberal internationalists?

Other than staking out politically appealing (but specious) rhetorical ground (and maybe angling for an administration job?), I just don't see what Kagan hopes to accomplish with this piece.

[Bill C.]

The other Kagan (Frederick), along with co-author Thomas Donnelly, have a new book out: "Ground Truth: The Future of U.S. Land Power.

James Jay Carafano, in the September "Army Magazine" reviews this book and notes:

"The authors point out the folly of trying to predict the precise nature of the next conflict and use of fortune-telling as an excuse to scrimp on force structure. Not surprisingly, they opt for a capabilities-based force that can effectively conduct a range of missions, from rooting out insurgents to battling conventional battalions."

Fortune-telling? Or a better view of the dynamics of the current age?