You are here:   Civilisation >  Books > Democrats v Autocrats
 
Kagan agrees that in the long run, rising prosperity in China and Russia may well produce political liberalism, but this, he points out, “may be too long to have any strategic or geopolitical relevance”. Tellingly, he cites a sardonic joke about how “Germany launched itself on a trajectory of economic modernisation in the late 19th century and within six decades became a fully fledged democracy.” But, of course, the intervening 60 years were quite a different story.

This well-aimed humour makes it all the more surprising that Kagan devotes so little attention to what he calls “the hopeless dream of radical Islam”. His contention, not entirely persuasive, is that radical Islam will be unable ultimately to resist the forces of modernisation. However, like the long run, “ultimately” can be much too long a time, particularly ­given the possibility, which Kagan himself acknowledges, that the connection between terrorists and nuclear weapons may soon be made.

This dismissal of radical Islam is at least partly tactical. Kagan does not hide his concern that placing too much emphasis on the danger of Islamic terrorism may promote “illusions” about the possibilities of cooperation with Russia and China. Elsewhere he has argued that basing foreign policy on US political principles can attract more support abroad than appealing to the danger of terrorism. But even if one believes that managing the rise of new major powers is a greater challenge for the future than Islamic extremism, there is no way to avoid dealing with both at the same time.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
gabe
August 6th, 2008
8:08 PM
Intersting that Wolfowitz was writing about how it might be nice to have anotherterror attack at the same time that Cheney turned out to be planning one according to Seymour Hersh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDP8lXk1QSw

James
July 30th, 2008
12:07 PM
Good and interesting review, though, I don't agee with all of it. Personally I'm a lot more optimistic about China and Russia.

Brinkman
July 26th, 2008
3:07 PM
So the Kagan/Wolfowitz case is that democracy and peace ("international convergence") doesn't work, democracies and market economies are no good as they foster tyrants (look at Germany), governments will never become practical servants of the people but always have ulterior motives based on a sinister and centuries long unchanging belief system, together with whole religions out to get America with the worst possible weapons. To counter this immense threat, Kagan/Wolfowitz feel obliged that USA "shoulder the burden of responsibility" and grab global leadership in the "great power conflict" from history and which is on the return. As their previous attempt at global safekeeping left them "flawed" due to the resulting holocaust for the people of Iraq, that "divine right" can now only be continued assured with a new name and an increase in perceived threat, Wolfowitz closes with some examples of calamities that has worked well in the past.... What deep seated paranoia and desperate pessimistic view. What arrogance and self-righteousness. What intolerable hypocrisy and what a harrowing and chilling read. Millions are dying. The suffering of some people is beyond imagining. Yet that is nothing to K&W compared to the great power game between the blocks of previous centuries and the need to play it. Have they learned nothing from history? What happened to Never Again after 1945? How can one possibly be a force for good and claim to represent democracy in the world when genocides like Rwanda, Sudan, and Iraq are taking place and not stopped and some even initiated? How can it possibly be for the betterment of the world that USA assume the role of self-appointed champion of democracy and human values when that itself is the cause of many of the antidemocratic and antihuman violations the world over and has been consistently so since 1945? Yet Kagan/Wolfowitz is undying in their belief that it is their divine right to take control and the promise is of more "calamaties" to come. What happened to the teachings of tolerance and understanding of humanity? The faith in mankind? What all the religions and non-religions are ultimately about? And what do they think people in the future will say about this time in history? That USA was right seek global dominance even if it meant millions killed as collateral damage? I don't think so. They will likely see that motives were based not on the good of the globe and the security, peace and dignity of all, but for the advancement of certain groups over others, and the mania and delusions of yet another ideology and superstition gone mad. A league of democracies is a wonderful concept, but when hijacked as a tool in some monstrous power game from past milennia that tramples peoples underfoot in the name of human values, it is not only hypocricy at its worst, it is betrayal of civilization, nothing less.

Anonymous
July 25th, 2008
9:07 PM
This from one of the primary architects of the Iraq war. I rest my case.

Anonymous
July 16th, 2008
8:07 PM
Wolfowitz states: "However, like the long run, “ultimately” can be much too long a time, particularly ­given the possibility, which Kagan himself acknowledges, that the connection between terrorists and nuclear weapons may soon be made." it sounds like Wolfowitz might know about a "connection" that he hopes/thinks will be made soon. I wonder if he is privy to another operation northwoods already in the works?

Gabe
July 14th, 2008
7:07 PM
Wolfowitz worked closely with Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer in 1975. President Ford appointed Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated American laws. Amazingly Lemnitzer was one of the leading figures advocating that america use false falg terror tactics in Operation Northwoods. And here we have Wolfowitz rationalizing false flag terror attacks again.

Gabe
July 14th, 2008
7:07 PM
It sounds like Kagan is helping to legitimize the idea of our government using false flag terror attacks.

Anonymous
July 12th, 2008
8:07 AM
Ramesh, You are living in a demented fantasy of your own making.

Ramesh Raghuvanshi
July 9th, 2008
8:07 AM
U.S.foreign policy completly depend on fear,Pople of U.S.dont tolret bit of opposition,When Japan want to surrendered U.S.attact with atombomb on Japan kiled millions of people. who attcted on 11/9 till no one know but U.S.destroyed Afghan people. A genocidal mentality indubitably at the very heartof American psyche and that repeating again and again.Why U.S.destroyed Saddam Hussain?If there is no enemy U.S.will creat imgenary enemy to fool the citizens.

Jackson
July 7th, 2008
6:07 PM
And so, as the opening act - The Global War on Terror - plays it's last tune ("Compelling Crisis") the headliner waits to take the stage for the big show everybody's been waiting for.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.