Comments on: Democracy and Unipolarity

By: yave begnet

yave begnet — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:43:09 +0000

I don’t understand all the hatin’ in comments on this post. This isn’t AmericaBlog or DialyKos, i.e. populist and passionate, and the academic analysis of this post is in keeping with the blog in general.

Also, Henry’s argument has the added benefit of making sense. You simply can’t boil the Iraq War and the country’s subsequent reaction to it down to the mantra “Bush was an idiot and Republicans are too.” There’s much more to it than that. And this prediction makes me warm and happy inside:
the crazies are much less likely to exert meaningful political influence than they were in 2001-2004.

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:19:37 +0000

“For Dan, it offers some support for the claims that military preponderance is not ipso facto imperialism”

What literary theory brings to politics: A discussion of taxonomy wrapped up in excess and pseudoscientific verbiage, making one or two solid (but obvious) points.

By: e julius drivingstorm

e julius drivingstorm — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:25:18 +0000

Let’s see…according to the pdf, one hundred per cent of the eighty-five per cent of the thirty-four per cent evangelical part of the republican base which supported the Iraq invasion, continue to believe it was the right thing to do even after it became plain that there were no WMD’s nor any Iraq/al qaeda connection.

Evidently they believe, as he does, that God talks to George W. Bush.

By: Bai aticle « GardenWorld Politics Douglass Carmichael

Bai aticle « GardenWorld Politics Douglass Carmichael — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:26:59 +0000

[...] A BRIGHT SHINING WEDGE ISSUE….Why did we invade Iraq? Henry Farrell highlights a paper today that says it’s because the Republican leadership needed a new wedge issue and 9/11 gave them one: [...]

By: links for 2007-08-23 at Jacob Christensen

links for 2007-08-23 at Jacob Christensen — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:25:18 +0000

[...] CrookedTimber – Democracy and Unipolarity The paper tries to answer the question of why America invaded Iraq and, more broadly, what the invasion of Iraq says about America’s strategic position, foreign policy choices and public opinion over foreign policy. (tags: academic politicalscience foreignpolicy iraq research) [...]

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:04:16 +0000

I find it odd that anyone would think there was anything beyond the 2002 midterm elections behind the decision to invade Iraq. At the time it seemed such a transparently brazen ploy, and they halfway admitted it back then: “You don’t roll out a new product line in August”, or words to that effect.

Who would think this administration would do anything that didn’t offer an immediate political advantage?

By: Harald Korneliussen

Harald Korneliussen — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:55:18 +0000

“…the domestic politics of polarization.”

I’m not so sure the Bush administration started the Iraq war as part of a grand plan to retain domestic power. I rather doubt they are half as conscious about such things as “wedge strategies” and political ownership of ideas as political scientists are… rather I suspect there are things in the US system which unnaturally strengthens certain fringe views (for instance, that opportunistic wars are great).

For that matter, I think I see what it is. It’s that there are plurality elections in the primaries.

By: Megami

Megami — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:41:50 +0000

I think this takes the award for highest level of academic wankery for this week. And lets not forget, there is always a lot of competition.

Seriously, isn’t this type of stuff why so many people think academics are buffoons?

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:37:09 +0000

Especially as we seem to be missing a bunch of Democratic foreign policy Serious People, who’d have had two reasons for opposing the invasion: it was stupid and wrong, and it would have helped the opposing party.

We seem to have one set, who don’t mind stupid, don’t mind wrong, and act as if the GOP was the primary political party in the USA.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:49:03 +0000

Didn’t read carefully, but it seems like a good example of bloodless academic rationality that misses the point. Wake me up if I’m wrong.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:43:07 +0000

Like Matt, I find the framing of the question odd. Why did we invade Iraq? Because the President and the people surrounding him wanted to before they even came to power, and 9/11 offered them the perfect opportunity to do so.

“How did they get away with it, and how do they continue to get away with it even now?” would be a much more suitable way of posing the question, IMHO.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:27:10 +0000

One of the few episodes of the old TV show “The X-Files” that I actually liked involved a person who was killing supposed psychics. He would ask them a question and when they could not answer he would kill them. Finally he came upon a guy were really was psychic in one sense- he could tell when people were going to die. The killer asked the real psychic his question, “Why am I doing this?” The reply was “Because you’re a homicidal maniac, that’s why.” It was just the right answer. Sometimes when I read sophisticated analysis of why we invaded Iraq I can’t help but think that the answer like the one given in the TV show, “because you’re a crazy, spoiled country of fools” or something, would really be the more truthful and useful answer, too.