- oD 50.50
No to TTIP
When Americas hyperpower status was challenged by 9/11, the response was the Bush Doctrine. Will it now make the world safe for America? Charles Pena says no and makes a clarion call for the US to return to its tradition of putting the homeland first. Philip Bobbitt responds with a passionate justification of Americas need for legitimate pre-emption that can ensure global safety from weapons of mass destruction that can escape into terrorist hands. Their clash brings to the fore Washingtons military, legal, moral and international strategy. What should it now be?
The Bad Democracy award for October the last before openDemocracy's grand poll for the year's worst democrat became the object of Hungarian passion and the target of the country's hackers, reports Tom Burgis.
The United States's linkage of pre-emption and failed states reflects a shift of rhetoric that leaves untouched the freedom to wage endless war, says Mariano Aguirre.
Donald Rumsfeld is the neo-conservative architect of war, Colin Powell the cuddly multilateralist. Right? Wrong. Behind the caricature is a titanic Washington struggle far more complicated and interesting.
Part 5 of The new information ecosystem: networks of power and freedom
Charles Peña, Philip Bobbitt, and John Hulsman and Eric Hamilton alike view Americas good as the worlds gold standard. The age of cosmic debt, climate change, and terror demands a larger vision. The United States needs clarity of mind, public diplomacy, humility and friends.
What should a National Security Strategy for the United States in the 21st century look like? Two Heritage Foundation analysts see twin dangers in Charles Penas focus on homeland security and Philip Bobbitts emphasis on alliance-building: isolationism and internationalism. The challenge for the US is to avoid both neglect and overstretch, and to pursue a realist foreign policy that can ensure its global hegemony for centuries to come.
The USs national security document of 2002 is a partial answer to the global challenges of terrorism and weapons proliferation. Charles Penas critique, by contrast, recommends a disengagement from the world that would entail even greater danger for the homeland. The real US need is to articulate a strategic doctrine that puts military pre-emption in the service of wise politics, alliance-building, and eventually a new understanding of international law.
A year after 9/11, the Bush administration articulated a new security doctrine that committed the country to worldwide military intervention in pursuit of democracy. This strange fruit of Wilsonian idealism and neo-conservative ambition is triply misconceived: it will guarantee damaging over-extension of resources, fuel bitter resentment of the United States, and abandon homeland security to the chimera of global control. It is not empire that the US needs, but modesty.