I recently criticized the New Republic, so I should point out that this week’s cover story is really very good. It collects the most forceful criticisms of the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism program, and puts them into a larger framework. Scoblic argues that the Administration’s focus on regime change led them to target Iraq in large part because it was the least painful to overthrow. At the same time, their logic led them to de-emphasize, or even sabotage, efforts to reduce the threat from Iran and North Korea.
Unfortunately, regime change was not only the administration’s preferred end in Iraq, but its preferred means everywhere else, as well. If negotiating with evil regimes equals appeasement, then diplomacy to resolve rogue-state nuclear threats is out of the question. But, aside from military action, conservatism suggests few courses of action, and, with the bulk of our combat forces tied up in Iraq, forcible regime change was not an option in North Korea or Iran. So, not only did conservatism lead us to war against a nation that was not threatening us, it paralyzed us from dealing with those nations that were.
I don’t see that the faults that Scoblic identifies are endemic to conservatism as such- I could imagine a very different course, pre- and post-9/11, under a different Republican President- but it’s still worth the cover price. The critique of Bush’s approach to North Korea is especially maddening.
[click to continue…]
by Henry Farrell on August 1, 2005
Today and tomorrow, I’m guestblogging at Steve Clemons’ “Washington Note”:http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/. It seems to be a somewhat different crowd of readers and commenters than here at CT – more policy wonks than academics. Normal service will be resumed shortly (and I may cross-post one or two posts in the meantime).
by Chris Bertram on August 1, 2005
I’ve just wheeled the latest issue of Imprints (8:3) to the post office and it will shortly be sent out to subscribers. Having just done this, I’ve noticed there’s *a typo on the cover* Crossland for Crosland — aargh!! Still, if you can get past that there’s a great deal of interest inside:
bq. * An interview with Joseph Raz
* Philip Bielby on equality and vulnerability in biomedical research
* Kevin Hickson on revisionism from Crosland to New Labour
and reviews by — cue drumroll — Crooked Timber stalwarts Harry Brighouse and Kieran Healy of, respectively, Anne Alstott’s “No Exit: What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195162366/junius-20 and Eric Klinenberg’s “Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226443221/junius-20 . Kieran’s long-awaited “review was pre-published here on CT”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/03/22/hot-in-the-city/ .
by John Q on August 1, 2005
Here’s the first draft of my Hugos preview. Comments much appreciated.
Thanks to all who contributed. Australian readers can see the final product in Friday’s Financial Review
[click to continue…]