Explained: How to Start a U.S.-China Cold War | The National Interest Blog
Last month, a majority of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate sent an .
In it, they declared that any deal on Iranian nuclear technology between Tehran and the Obama Administration might be undone by Republicans in Washington, especially if they re-take the White House in 2016. This was widely understood as an effort to undermine President Obama's search for a nuclear deal with Iran. There was much soul-searching about whether the GOP , the Republicans' “” disdain for President Obama, and so on.
But what I found most notable is how dangerous these sorts of
would be if they were applied in Asia.
As I have argued elsewhere (; ), neoconservatism is handicapping America's ability to pivot to Asia. Although the Middle East is objectively less important to America's future than Asia, the Middle East plays a far greater role in our politics and activates far more social mobilization and political attention, particularly on the right.
For example, the foreign policy “litmus tests” (ie. where public opinion is deeply informed and highly committed) for GOP presidential contenders all turn today on Middle Eastern questions such as Israel, ISIS and Iran.
in the presidential campaign debates four years ago, and I predict will
in the next 18 months. And in classic neocon style, the “right” answer to those litmus tests is almost always more hawkish chest-thumping,
or negotiations, accusations of , higher military spending, and so on – what Daniel Larison once aptly called “.”
To my mind, this is reckless and arrogant, the sort of “exceptionalist” imperiousness that much of the world finds so fatiguing about Americans. But it is also politically feasible in the Middle East, because America's opponents there are so weak.
Yes, ISIS is terrifying and an Iran with a nuclear weapon is unnerving. And certainly the forces of Islamism across the region espouse values deeply antithetical to our own. In that sense, they pose a serious, long-term philosophic challenge to liberal modernity. But all the actors in the region – state and non-state – are actually quite weak. GDP militaries are weak and shot-t states are fragile with highly illegitimate 'institutions'; many governments barely control their whole territories. And non-state actors, terrorist or otherwise, are eve for all their ideological-theological fire, Islamist groups have had a hard time actually building durable organizations, parties, and states. That Israel, a country of just eight million people, is considered the region's dominant military power signifies just how secure America is from the region's dangers.
In short, America enjoys the luxury of an enormous power buffer in the region, and that asymmetry creates the space for mischief making like . The U.S. can absorb the costs of domestic irresponsibility and constitutional in-fighting, posture belligerently and abjure deals and negotiation, all because the costs are rather low (for the U.S.). Even were the US to bomb Iran, the conflict would be far from the U.S. homeland with a minimal (or at least not very visible) impact on most Americans. Indeed, the U.S. managed to fight an entire war in the Middle East that went horribly wrong and alienated much of the planet, yet without seriously jeopardizing its regional hegemony. That is astonishing asymmetric power.
None of this applies at all in Asia.
One of my greatest concerns for U.S. foreign policy in the coming decades is that this neocon “omnidirectional belligerence” will, in time, come to the Asia-Pacific. Neocon belligerence and recklessness are not feasible in Asia as they are in the Middle East, in Cuba or Venezuela, or even in responding to Putin. John McCain brought this type of thinking to Europe when he famously said “” after the 2008 Russian invasion. Russia's stagnant GDP and population made such talk more feasible.Pages1Describe what the two closing arguments look like in the case. How do the lawyers address the jurors? What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument made? | In Cold Blood Questions | Q & A | GradeSaver
towards the end of the book
CR7 #483921
Last updated by
Answered by
The court’s inability or unwillingness to sustain Dr. Jones’ testimony is, on some level, a symbol that the world is not yet ready to accommodate the complexity and fundamental difference of these men within its narrow definitions of acceptable society. Dick and Perry are social misfits on multiple levels: their mental illness, their implied repressed homosexuality, and their status as ex-convicts place them outside the accepted parameters of conventional (or “normal”) living as they existed at this time in American history. They are the very definition of “other,” and the comfortable, complacent world that the Clutters represent has turned its back on them, shown no responsibility towards them. In Cold Blood is, on some level, a parable about a society coming of age, failing to cater to its more destitute ranks, and coming face-to-face with the consequences of this failure. The defence really cannot mount any argument that the jury might accept. In the closing remarks of the trial, the beleaguered defense lawyers appeal to the mercy of the jury, attempting to dissuade them from exacting the highest form of punishment. After a forty-minute deliberation, the jury finds both Dick and Perry guilty on four counts of murder in the first degree, and sentence them both to death.
GradeSaver
Log In To Your GradeSaver Account
Remember me
Create Your GradeSaver Account
First Name
Email Address