1. "A Kinder, Gentler War on Terror?" Interesting analysis on the Obama administration & national security.
Representative Sample: Obama and his hard-left allies controlling Congress have no real enthusiasm or stomach for the arduous task of defending this country against the very real and existential threats that confront it, whether they be Islamic terrorists armed with WMD, or staggering levels of debt that will increasingly place our fate in the hands of our creditors
2. "Yet another end of civilization scenario" Because contemplating worst-case scenarios and evaluating their likelihood is always fascinating.
Representative Sample: western civilisations have busily sown the seeds of their own destruction. Our modern way of life, with its reliance on technology, has unwittingly exposed us to an extraordinary danger: plasma balls spewed from the surface of the sun
3. "What to Do With Afghan Detainees?" Max Boot argues that the recent ruling on detainees is narrowly focused and therefore less dangerous than it appears. I see it as a hard push down a slippery slope.
Representative Sample: U.S. forces can continue to detain terrorism suspects captured in Afghanistan without instituting U.S. criminal court proceedings.4. "Educating Peter: how education increases churchgoing but erodes belief" A strange correlation at first glance.
Representative Sample: In the USA, better educated people are more likely to go to church services. Yet, when you look across different religious denominations, those that have a generally better educated membership have the lowest level of attendance.
5. "The Af-Pak muddle" Proof that Stephen Walt is capable of good analysis when not building conspiracy theories about the "Israel Lobby."
Representative Sample: We have enough trouble getting reliable, efficient, and corruption-free government here at home (think Rod Blagoevich, Jack Abramoff, or the State Legislature here in Massachusetts, where the past two speakers had to resign in the face of scandals). So what makes us think we can root it out on the other side of the world?
To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.
Alternatively, perhaps Walt's analysis was mostly good all along this Likud Lobby (as Chas Freeman prefers to call it) actually isn't a conspiracy any more than, say, the AARP.
ReplyDeleteI know the Israel Lobby isn't a conspiracy. Walt seems to think it is though. I read his column & the other FP columns pretty regularly. His stuff in the aftermath of the Chas Freeman affair was irrational.
ReplyDeleteOther than inside your head and that of others who employ antisemitism or "language of antisemitism" invectives, Walt & Mearch do not consider the lobby a conspiracy:
ReplyDelete> One of the most prominent charges against us is that we see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy. Jeffrey Herf and Andrei Markovits, for example, begin by noting that ‘accusations of powerful Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-semitism’ (Letters, 6 April). It is a tradition we deplore and that we explicitly rejected in our article. Instead, we described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behaviour
—Walt & Mearch, Letter to the London Review of Books, May 2006
A self-described rational realist like you should not be tilting at straw men.
That's pretty funny because almost everything they've written indicates that they view things in conspiratorial terms. There's a reason Walt has to try and deny it. I'm hardly the only one who sees it that way. All you have to do is look at Walt's reaction to the Freeman controversy.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion that "his stuff in the aftermath of the Chas Freeman affair was irrational." does not a conspiracy make.
ReplyDeleteHis reaction to the withdrawl is here, and I see no conspiracy claims.
It would be helpful if you provided a link and a quote of the reaction you're referring to.
Moreover your new language of "view things in conspiratorial terms" is vague and arguably distinct from "building conspiracy theories", so it would also be helpful if you clearly defined what you're talking about so we can understand what you're objecting to.
"His reaction to the withdrawl is here, and I see no conspiracy claims."
ReplyDeleteReally? The whole article is a prime example. Congress is "in thrall" to AIPAC.
"the lobby went after Freeman so vehemently; in an era where more and more people are questioning Israel's behavior and questioning the merits of unconditional U.S. support, its hardline defenders felt they simply had to reinforce the de facto ban on honest discourse"
pure conspiracy theory nonsense. There's no "ban on honest discourse."
"defenders of the "special relationship" can't win on facts and logic anymore. So they have to rely on raw political muscle and the silencing or marginalization of those with whom they disagree."
they did win on facts and logic. Walt thinks it was all a big conspiracy instead.
"Yet to those who defended Freeman’s appointment and challenged the lobby's smear campaign"
What "smear campaign"? Nothing was used against Freeman but his own words and positions. But Walt sees an evil conspiracy in operation.
"it was abundantly clear to everyone what was going on and who was behind it."
Yeah, if you are whackjob conspiracy theorist like Walt.
" Slowly, the light is dawning and the lobby's negative influence is becoming more and more apparent"
Yeah, he doesn't think the Israel lobby is some sort of sinister conspiracy does he? Where would I get that idea?
Being "in thrall" does not imply a conspiracy, much less the kinds that are associated with antisemitism. People --in which I include myself-- have said much the same of other interest group lobbies such as (in my case) the public school teachers' unions. Do I get to be a conspiracy theorist, too?
ReplyDelete> pure conspiracy theory nonsense. There's no "ban on honest discourse."
The discourse in this case refers to that of Chas Freeman iconoclasticism. There were vehement call for him to be banned from serving at the NIC because they didn't want his 'discourse' to be involved in analyzing U.S. intelligence. Walt objects to this call and suppression of dissent. You don't, because you disagree with it. Fine. But where's the conspiracy claim?
> they did win on facts and logic. Walt thinks it was all a big conspiracy instead.
See above.
> What "smear campaign"? Nothing was used against Freeman but his own words and positions. But Walt sees an evil conspiracy in operation.
You yourself have smeared Freeman. But of course you don't agree --you think the smears of equating his views to anti-semitism are valid. I could insert a few choice words for what I think about that.
But supposing for the sake of argument that you have indeed smeared him, would this make you part of an evil conspiracy?
I venture that it possible to be very wrong, as I think you and the Likud Lobby have been very wrong in the past. But for me to hold this position is hardly alleging some evil conspiracy. The same applies to Walt.
> Yeah, if you are whackjob conspiracy theorist like Walt.
So now his observation of a simple matter of fact makes him a whackjob conspiracy theorist? Maybe you need to read up on all the people who initially opposed Freeman's nomination, such as e.g. TNR folks. I'm pretty sure they qualify as being part of this Likud Lobby.
> Yeah, he doesn't think the Israel lobby is some sort of sinister conspiracy does he? Where would I get that idea?
Once again, the idea is in your head. Many interest groups have a negative influence in U.S. politics. The Likud Lobby just happens to be the most pernicious in foreign policy, which is Walt's area of expertise.
"Being "in thrall" does not imply a conspiracy"
ReplyDeleteIt does when you look at everything else he says.
" You don't, because you disagree with it. Fine. But where's the conspiracy claim?"
Because Walt doesn't consider anything other than the supposed influence of the Israel lobby.
"You yourself have smeared Freeman. But of course you don't agree --you think the smears of equating his views to anti-semitism are valid."
I haven't smeared him at all. I said he uses the language of anti-Semitism about supporters of Israel -- which he does. I don't know if he's an anti-Semite or not. But I see why some might accuse him of it.
"But supposing for the sake of argument that you have indeed smeared him, would this make you part of an evil conspiracy?"
Walt would probably think so.
"So now his observation of a simple matter of fact makes him a whackjob conspiracy theorist?"
Except it's not a fact.
"Once again, the idea is in your head."
Yeah, mine and millions of others. It's called reading what people write. When someone actually goes so far to write a book condemning the Israel Lobby, and then seems completely obsessed with it when anything involving Israel comes up, and ignores any other possible factors or explanations, then yeah, it's reasonable to categorize him as a conspiracy theorist.
" The Likud Lobby just happens to be the most pernicious in foreign policy"
Advocating support for Israel is pernicious? I don't think so. Many of those who do tend to be conspiracy-theorists -- like Walt.