Michael Lind on “US Foreign Policy After Bush” — Live on C-Span Today at 12:15 pm EST


michael lind.jpg
This is an alert for a program I will be chairing today with my colleague Michael Lind speaking on the subject: “What Comes Next? American Foreign Policy After Bush.”
The event will air LIVE on C-Span from 12:15 pm to 1:45 pm EST. I will be offering my own comments and reactions as well.
If you can join us in person, all the better. Just come over — no time to RSVP. Use my name at the door.
From the invite:

Michael Lind, author of the provocative new book The American Way of Strategy, will argue that trends in the years ahead favor conflict, not peace, both in the Middle East and the world, and that not only neoconservatives but also “realists” may be too optimistic about the remaining two years of this presidency and the first few years of the next.

— Steve Clemons


9 comments on “Michael Lind on “US Foreign Policy After Bush” — Live on C-Span Today at 12:15 pm EST

  1. Jon Stopa says:

    This is the problem in being an empire. You gotta crank up the size of your army if it can’t keep the resisters down while at its present size. That’s the price of failure in Iraq. Always more expense.


  2. Den Valdron says:

    Resource policy, particularly energy resource policy is critical.
    At the same time, the tools available to pursue those policies will be in short supply and unquestionably weak.
    Sadly, we are entering an era when America’s foreign policy will, as often as not, be dictated upon it.


  3. Matthew says:

    Would Jesus just hurry up and rapture all these phony “Christian” End-Timer shitbags now! Stop breathing my oxygen. It’s time that the Prince of Peace was worshiped by real Christians, not by re-packaged Jim Crow-ers and Luddites. I’d prefer to dine with tax collectors and prostitutes than these strip-mall church neanderthals.


  4. John says:

    Steve departed from the flow of the presentation at the end to raise the fundamental issue: what is America’s strategic purpose? Once we agree on that, what kind of foreign and military policy does that strategic purpose require?
    Unfortunately most of Lind’s discussion focused on a “realist” view of the world, which looks at managing the power relationships between countries. Essentially, realism is the political equivalent of mercantalism, devoid of any discussion of underlying economic interests. Most realists seem to have a blind spot for competing economic interests, which paralyzes them from dealing constructively with future energy contingencies. As a result, I came away from Michael Lind’s talk feeling that he was theoretically elegant didn’t have his feet on the ground, unprepared to address critical economic and energy issues.
    Despite their dishonest rhetoric, Bush/Cheney and all those energy executvies in the WH clearly seem motivated by energy security. Of course, they have gone about it in the most ham fisted way possible. They have succeeded in proving that you cannot increase oil production by occupying a country (though by some miracle oil production levels are being maintained in Iraq.) Bush/Cheney may soon prove that you cannot pry open Iran’s enormous energy market through bombing (though we already proved that in Iraq in the 1990’s). They have also succeeded in alienating other major oil suppliers, Russia, Venezuela, and probably Saudi Arabia, which is doing more deals with China.
    Given the WH energy executives total failure to provide energy security, what is their strategy now? A long war (costing tillions and destined to fail) that purportedly will bomb the natives into supplying oil and natural gas?
    I applaud Steve for saying that he wants to increase Americans’ awareness of the need to reduce our addiction to ME oil and open a discussion of future energy contingencies. When will these discussions enter the public forum? Hopefully it will include an honest appraisal of the current energy strategy and come in time to prove that bombing Iran does nothing to enhance energy security.


  5. Marcia says:

    This was one of the most interesting conferences I have heard in a long time. Michael Lind very undogmatically explored the diplomatic solutions he considers adviseable and possible in what I would call quite not-American, not un-American, but embracing the complexity of the world situations on a level to which we are unaccustomed in public and I venture to think private diplomacy.
    There is great matter for thought, not beliefs.
    Diplomatic skills are so lacking in the present administration that is was an ever greater pleasure to follow, even on the net, his line of thought.
    Happy Holidays.


  6. Den Valdron says:

    I think that the dominant strains of US foreign policy after Bush will be the effective end of the United States as the pre-eminent world power.
    The truth is that the United States economic domination of the planet is exceeded by Europe, rivalled by Japan and challenged in various ways respectively by several other states, notably Russia, India, China and Brazil.
    American military power has been severely compromised by the current adventures and the limits of that military power have been laid bare.
    America has largely lost its capacity to lead or influence Europe. It’s efforts in the Iraq war were based largely on bribery and influence splitting, neither tool is available for the future.
    Meanwhile the distraction of the middle east has resulted in the effective collapse of latin American policy, and the emergence of a Mercosur economic and political coalition that includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia and Venezuala. Essentially, South America as a whole has been developing a latin American centred political and trading bloc. The United States is now on the defensive in its own back yard. Of its remaining assets, Columbia is unstable, Mexico is a basket case, and Central America and the Caribbean are bastions with major weaknesses.
    In the far east, American influence has been dropping away steadily as Japan loses its faith in American protection, and China begins to emerge.
    In the middle east, Bush’s disasters will result in a permanent loss of influence and destabilization of the region. Whoever ends up as top dog there, it will not be America.
    In the end, America ends up in the situation of China circa 1989-2004. Essentially, geopolitical circumstances turn about to remove the capacity to influence or alter events. The US becomes an impotent spectator on the world stage, a quarrelsome shuttered giant.


  7. Carroll says:

    I see Lind is not fond of Washington’s no entangling alliences.
    The problem I think some have is that they don’t know where to draw the line on globalism in trade or intervention. It becomes some kind of religion to them and they add to it and add to it…soon it is out of hand. They institute their theories and then when they don’t work as advertised they keep adding more layers insteading of revising.


  8. Matt says:

    As a true believer in the Holy Bible and its prophesy of the the coming Tribulation and Armageddon, I will be fervently listening to Michael Lind bringing us more bad news and rumors of wars; although Hal Lindsey is way way ahead of anyone on giving the low down on the further ever deepening inevitable debacle descending upon us that will culminate in the Second Coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Are you ready?


  9. liz says:

    Personally, I hope and pray that our foreign policy goes back to being more American after Bush.I really hope an entire revolution in political nature occurs and people remember the characteristics that this country was founded upon. I’m only 46 but see everything in the world going backwards towards laissez faire liberal policies and guess what? That didn’t work back then for the same reasons it will not work now.. because it does not work.
    I hope and pray for moderation and for the retraction of the word ” homeland” because that in itself has become offensive as the name Bush at my home. Homeland Security sounds reminiscient of Germany……..and none of this is American, or what most Americans define as American anyway.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *