Kaplan: Civil Society Requires Perpetual War
One of the best things about not working at The Atlantic anymore is not counting Robert Kaplan among my professional colleagues. Here’s his take on modern-day Europe:
Europe, having been liberated from nuclear terror at the conclusion of the Cold War, proved unable to muster the gumption to deal with Yugoslavia on its own, or, as the case of Afghanistan shows, to demonstrate much enthusiasm for any great collective effort. Which leads to the question: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Thus, with their patriotism dissipated, European governments can no longer ask for sacrifices from their populations when it comes to questions of peace and war. Ironically, we may have gained victory in the Cold War, but lost Europe in the process.
Spencer Ackerman observes that there’s something rather crazy about the view that the Cold War was waged “so that European soldiers would one day become our cannon fodder.” One might further note that it’s not at all clear that the American public has any real desire to sacrifice anything in Afghanistan. It seems to me that one of the key props of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been the consensus on both the right (Bush, The Weekly Standard) and the center (Blue Dogs, The Washington Post) that it’s not necessary to raise hundreds of billions in tax revenue in order to pay for hundreds of billions in war expenditures. By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan.
In a larger sense, however, Kaplan is merely highlighting the fundamental difference between neoconservative thinking and thinking undertaken by people with a moral compass. As Alex Massie says, present-day Europe’s state of peace, prosperity, and physical security is a good thing. Neoconservatives, however, see war and death as good things. Irving Kristol told Corey Robin that market-oriented conservatism is too “boring” (”The notion of devoting your life to it is horrifying if only because it’s so repetitious. It’s like sex.”) so you need to inject some death and destruction into the mix to keep things interesting.
The world would be a better place if people looking for cheap thrills would stick to the black metal scene or maybe take up extreme sports rather than foreign policy punditry. But the point is that it’s extremely dangerous to take advice from people with this mindset—they’re not even trying to enhance the country’s security, they’re trying to embroil the country in wars.
119 Responses to “Kaplan: Civil Society Requires Perpetual War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wow, MY — I often disagree, even dislike, things you write, but this is an absolute first-rate, must-read post, IMO.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wait… Irving Kristol thought sex was boring? Is this common among conservatives? If so, it would explain a great many things.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
One of the best things about not working at The Atlantic anymore is not counting Robert Kaplan among my professional colleagues.
…
In a larger sense, however, Kaplan is merely highlighting the fundamental difference between neoconservative thinking and thinking undertaken by people with a moral compass.
…
But the point is that it’s extremely dangerous to take advice from people with this mindset—they’re not even trying to enhance the country’s security, they’re trying to embroil the country in wars.
Sometimes I really want to have your baby, Yglesias.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
This isn’t to disagree with you, Matthew, but following the link to the Corey Robin article, I should note that the lines you quote were actually issued by William F. Buckley, not Irving Kristol. Your point still stands, of course, since Kristol stil makes that imperialism-for-the-thrill-of-it argument, in even crazier words, later in the same paragraph.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
they’re not even trying to enhance the country’s security, they’re trying to embroil the country in wars.
…in which, it should be noted once again, they refuse to fight themselves or send their children to die.
War is exciting and noble when it happens thousands of miles away and doesn’t involve anybody you know. Decorated keyboard commando Kaplan reaches new lows; but he won’t go away, ever, because he’s very serious and the military industrial complex makes the NRA look like ACORN.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Isn’t this exactly why you endorsed the Iraq War? Didn’t you think it’d be exciting to bring bike paths to Baghdad?
I’m still waiting for you to properly apologize for supporting that war. You make technocratic excuses: “I calculated that this and that would happen, but I forgot to carry the one.” You’ve still never acknowledged that you were playing dice with people’s lives. Even if things had worked out just as you had predicted, your arguments still lacked a “moral compass.”
Your current posts about Afghanistan, etc., are great, so I’m confused why you’ve never admitted that “cheap thrills” drove you to advocate for a war of choice in Iraq.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Kaplan’s just being a juvenile idiot. The idea that there should be more to life than existing comfortably should not lead one to embrace the concept of perpetual war.
However, the fact that the people who enjoy “present-day Europe’s state of peace, prosperity, and physical security” were totally unwilling to stop the rape, murder and ethnic clensing going on in their own backyard does lend support to an argument that not all is right in the Euro heart and mind.
Mike
November 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Would not the logical conclusion of Kaplan’s “thinking” be conscription? How can Americans avoid becoming decadent if only a fraction of 1% are in the armed forces and involved in our great collective effort.
Since nutters will never advocate for the draft, then shouldn’t he support a massive reduction in American defense spending and a curbing of our military commitments so those damn Euros can not get a free ride on us?
November 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
[...] Also here. [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Spot on, #5. I think the conservatives’ obsession with war isn’t merely a matter of being bloodthirsty asshats without a shred of empathy for any other society on the planet. Governing a country is hard work. There are a lot of little details to fuss over, and not a lot of glory to be had. Naturally lazy, conservatives when given domestic power immediately abdicate the role of governing. When it becomes apparent that simply ignoring domestic policy makes conservatism unpopular, they have to gin up an existential threat or some shiny war to distract the easily distracted. Is it really such a surprise that whenever Reagan ran into a domestic problem, he attacked someone militarily? When invading Panama didn’t shove the economy off the front page, Bush I needed the Gulf War.
I can guarantee that whenever a GOP member sits in the White House, we will be in a shooting war with Iran within three months. And their kids won’t be the ones dying.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan.”
THAT is a GEM of an idea. I love it.
Yes, $685 Billion Plus per YEAR for WAR, but we can’t spend a sixth of that for Health Care, because as Holy Fred Hiatt says, the latter may bankrupt our country. And of course, horror of horrors we would all much rather die of cancer without treatment than in one of those extremely rare terrorist attacks.
I’m so, so, effing sick of the thinking of these idiots who seems to be in charge of flushing the Empire down the toilet.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Wait… Irving Kristol thought sex was boring? Is this common among conservatives? If so, it would explain a great many things.
It is an ugly business, but they have to do it so the next generation of Podorhetzes and Kristols can explain why it is necessary to invade Norway and bomb Niger.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yeah, like his boy Billy.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Big time demerits for not linking to the magisterial NY Press joint review of End to Evil and Lords of Chaos.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
If the neocon/AIPAC/zionist cabal didn’t exist, would these sorts of ideas have currency in the US?
Yes, we would still have the MIC crowd promoting eternal conflict; but war for philosophical reasons, rather than merely profit, would not get such play.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
they refuse to fight themselves or send their children to die.
Not, in fact, true across the board. By recollection, Ledeen is a genuine true believer who has sent both a son (military) and daughter (civilian) to Iraq and Kristol just sent a son to Afghanistan. I want to say that Muravchik also sent a kid there, but I’m not sure why.
Obviously, God willing, none have died or will die, and they’ll come home safely and whole.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The fact that Europe is peaceful and prosperous is indeed a surpassingly good thing that should be viewed as a human achievement of the first order. But there is a real concern that peace and prosperity might leave people unprepared for struggle when struggle becomes truly necessary. The problem in this case, like in many other cases, is that the people who are most vocal in calling attention to this (legitimate) concern are the worst possible people, with the worst possible policy prescriptions. Specifically, the people who talk about the issue are mostly insane warmongers who think war is what gives meaning to life. This makes the issue one that no anti-warmonger would want to be associated with, which forces them to reject the reasonable version of the concern and to embrace its opposite.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society
The only thing more pathetic than a brilliant, morally retarded, crazy person (Strauss) is a mediocre acolyte (Kaplan) of a brilliant morally retarded crazy person. And just about all of Strauss’ acolytes, either direct or at-remove, are deeply mediocre, people who can’t handle peer review, real debate, etc. Real life zombies.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I sympathize with people who feel that they need to make some kind of sacrifice for a greater cause and find something insufficient about securing a safe and materially prosperous life for oneself and ones’ friends and family.
However:
1) There are immense challenges in the world which are amenable to being helped (if not entirely solved) by people forgoing material comfort in favor of a larger cause, without ginning up new ones. Maybe, very optimistically, in a two hundred years, global warming will no longer be a problem, everyone in Bangladesh has enough to eat, CAFOs will be abolished and no more pigs will be tortured, the Gaza Strip has enough clean water, etc, and then maybe we can face the horror of a world where there is no great cause to which one might sacrifice oneself. For now, though, the world has enough problems to keep anyone wishing to make a meaningful sacrifice busy for the foreseeable future.
2) I said I sympathize with people who feel that they need to make some kind of sacrifice for a greater cause and find something insufficient about securing a safe and materially prosperous life for oneself and ones’ friends and family. I sympathize much less with people who feel that other people need to make some kind of sacrifice for a greater cause and find something insufficient about other people securing a safe and materially prosperous life for themselves and their friends and family — especially if these people seem very disinclined to make such sacrifices themselves. (Even someone who does make such personal sacrifices really shouldn’t be telling people that their lives of relative safety and comfort are hollow and meaningless — perhaps that they are being selfish and should do more for others, but not that they are doing a disservice to themselves — but it’s especially obnoxious coming from those who seem to think that they are capable of finding meaning and purpose in a safe and comfortable life that others are only capable of finding in bloody trenches.)
November 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I’m sorry, but caption, please? What relation does the photo bear to the post? I don’t even know what I’m looking at.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I’m sure Kaplan heartily approved of the previous Euro vision of unity and military willingness to kickass in the 1930s and 40s.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
but war for philosophical reasons, rather than merely profit, would not get such play.
You really believe these maniacs would get as far as they did without help from the garden variety war-for-profit forces? Hmm. I think they are just the froth on top.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
What could be more decadent than the income disparities the US now boasts — not to speak of the revolving corporate employment of our congressional and military servants?
Ans.: the existence in the public discourse of brainless shills like Kagan and Kristol comes to mind.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
today’s theme: shooting at indians
November 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[...] For The Day Matt Yglesias, observing the manner in which American warfare has become completely disassociated from the demands and sacrifices of [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
He might think that he’s commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I can’t think of a better time for Kaplan to make this argument than in the week of November 11th.
Kaplan is a cut-price Kipling, as Andrew Bacevich noted four years ago. Kipling, of course, lost his only son in Flanders: “”If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied.”
November 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Sometimes I wanna have your baby too, but just don’t try to destroy the post office m’kay?
Love. This. Post.
Woooord.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Irving Kristol is a first rate horse’s ass, but I’ll take Emperor or Satyricon over 3rd Eye Blind any day.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
My understanding of how the CBO works is that a congresscritter sends them a letter with a request for financial analysis. Dennis Kucinich can send a letter asking the CBO what it would take to make the Iraq and Afghanistan wars deficit neutral. It would be interesting reading.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Shorter Kaplan: War is the health of the state.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Yes, we would still have the MIC crowd promoting eternal conflict; but war for philosophical reasons, rather than merely profit, would not get such play.
It doesn’t matter what their philosophy is. If tomorrow they all converted to buddhism and started to promote non-violence and pacifism, the military industrial complex would find a new kind of warmongers to grace the pages of the Washington Post and the Atlantic.
It’s like free-marketeers and their trickle-down Laffer-curvism in economics: the soundness of the theory and empirical proofs don’t matter, it is their policy proposals that give them disproportionate support in the media and “think tanks”.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
In other words, “War is the Health of the State.”
November 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Sorry for the duplication. D–n intertubes!
November 10th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
War is the natural state of man.
Sorry. That’s “other people’s wars are the natural state of man.” The natural state of neo-cons is to profit from
the sideline.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I like to look people like Kaplan in the eye and say, “You know, there are worse things in the world than a pacifist Germany.”
And then hold the eye contact until I see my point occur to them.
Europeans aren’t militaristic enough? Oh, boo-fuckity-hoo.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Yeah, because the bracing excitement of war worked out so well for Europe in the last century, it could only be decadence that would account for their lack of interest in the blood and iron of armchair Bismarks like Kaplan.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
That should be “Bismarcks”, of course……..
November 10th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Neo-cons, being Scoop Jackson Democrats in drag, are war-mongering nut-cases who shouldn’t be allowed in polite society.
When a Neo-con is mentioned on TV, a “fair and balanced” media would immediately remind the viewer that “OMG, this guy’s a Neo-con!!”
P.S. While channel surfer this morning, I inadvertently came upon the ghastly “Fox and Friends” who were interviewing Laura Ingraham. They all agreed that when Obama sends the new troops to Afghanistan that Republicans (unlike those cowardly Democrats) will support the president all the way.
Pitiful.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Hey Bob, you know what would stop war? GOOOOOOOLLLLDDDDDDD. also property rights and Christianist discipline. and the Confederacy. and no black people to practice “critique of culture” on.
Ass.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
And one last thing: countries like the UK, Spain and Italy sent thousands of troops each to invade and occupy Iraq. NATO is, of course, occupying Afghanistan today.
So what is Kaplan actually saying? That Afghanistan and Iraq were/are not real wars? Or that European countries should start wars of their own in, say, Africa instead of merely sending a few brigades to assist American troops in their Asian imperial adventures?
November 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Scoop Jackson Democrats believed in universal health care, civil rights, and other core elements of contemporary liberal ideology.
There is not a single prominent national figure who can be described as as neocon who holds such beliefs.
So, no.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Scoop Jackson Democrats believed in universal health care, civil rights, and other core elements of contemporary liberal ideology.
There is not a single prominent national figure who can be described as as neocon who holds such beliefs.
So, no.
But….but……….GOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLDDDD!!!!!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Because it’s repetitious, sex is boring? So…if it weren’t so damned repetitious, it would be less boring and that would be better?
Neo-con thinkers favor less repetition when it comes to sex. So, they want it to be over with ASAP?
These folks are sick.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Can’t we just buy the neocons a good video game to keep them occupied. There’s lots of first person shoot em ups that they would probably enjoy.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Anthony, you pathetic dolt.
Enforced property rights by definition would stop war. You can only have war by violating property rights. Duh. Like if the guy who owned a Bed and Breakfast on Normandy Beach could have enforced his property rights, the Nazis wouldn’t have been able to tear down his place to build their fortress Europe or kick down the door to seize some Jewish people hiding in the basement. Thanks, progressive intectuals, for helping rid the world of property rights.
Of course, gold would also stop war. Without funny money, the military madmen would have to explicitly increase taxes to pay for the war and the masses would probably revolt. It’s just a coincidence that the banksters created the Federal Reserve one year prior to the WWI slaughter, eh?
Speaking of the WWI slaughter, it was the fulfillment of the progressive intellectuals.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
And why is that, exactly? Who are their enemies? Upon whom do we wage “perpetual” war? I’m not disagreeing with you but please, if you will, answer these questions.
A nation at perpetual is perpetually subservient to the warmongers.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
@44: Any game where aggression has a downside and can backfire (that is, anything with the slightest semblance of game balance) is a game neocons would stink at. And most of them are too old for twitchy games and don’t exactly display a gift for strategy.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
the Nazis wouldn’t have been able to tear down his place to build their fortress Europe or kick down the door to seize some Jewish people hiding in the basement.
Good point! Somebody should have passed a law! That would have saved Jews from Nazis!! And, of course, GOOOOOOOOLLDDDDD!
November 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
the bracing excitement of war worked out so well for Europe in the last century
Oh, Straussian neocons don’t care about the outcome of a war, or the cause or issue being fought about, either ostensibly or really – not in the least. This is not hyperbole; they actually don’t care. War is desirable – no, necessary – because it gives meaning. Really.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Just to pile on, Cold War Liberals were obnoxious and harmful in many ways, but they were liberals except when the weren’t. Neocons never are.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
In fact, a perfect indication of our culture’s true political decadence is the fact that a guy like Kaplan is treated as anything other than some fringe nut.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I’ll just offer a contrarian view here – I personally respect Robert Kaplan, have read most of his books and prior to the Iraq War, he never struck me as a war-mongerer.
I couldn’t disagree more with the quote from Mr. Kaplan’s article – there’s nothing wrong with peace and you don’t need conflict to have purpose in life. He is correct that the European Union failed miserably to deal with the breakup of Yugoslavia. Still, thats an improvement over Western Europe’s earlier tendency to start wars and commit genocide.
Regarding Mr. Kaplan’s support of the Iraq invasion, I was very disappointed with him as I was with most writers, most Democratic members of congress and over 60% of the American public. I was equally disappointed with liberals who’d managed to put Bush in office by voting for Nader in 2000. There’s lots of blame to go around for this horrible decade and I think it’s unfair to simply lump in Mr. Kaplan with all the blood-thirsty idiots writing for the Weekly Standard.
I look forward to Mr. Kaplan regaining his level-headedness and writing great articles and books again. I’m thinking this is a bad phase he and much of the country went through in response to 9-11. Someday soon, America is going to make a comeback. We can all then take a mulligan on the last nine years and the US can go back to being what it was before Bush – the greatest force for good, human decency and the progress of mankind in the history of the world.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Note to Robert Kaplan: as an expat living in old Europe, I say screw you.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Also, Bob, weren’t the Nazis just interested in doing a little “critique of culture”? Would critiquing a few cultures out of existance also reduce war?
November 10th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
1) At the same time, there is something disconnected about Obama telling troops at Fort Hood’s funeral ceremony –re Hasan’s shootings — that “No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor”
just before Commander-in-Chief Obama tells those same troops “Now go over to Afghanistan and kill me some people”.
2) Going after Al Qaeda is justified –they attacked our people. But the best way to destroy Al Qaeda is to honestly address the grievances that Al Qaeda uses to gain sanctuary and support in the Islamic world — the three reasons Bin Laden gave for attacking the USA. Do that and people in Southwest Asia will pick up the phone and tell you where Al Qaeda is.
3) Instead, Obama is continuing Bush’s Big Lie –his con of the American People — and ramping up to engage in a bloody Civil War in Afghanistan to support a demonstrated gang of crooks.
3) That is going end up making President Obama looking as if he shares the moral pathology of George W Bush, the Neocons and Hasan.
And some of those same troops who have survived are going to find death in Afghanistan — are going to discover that Hasan’s attack was nothing more than a training exercise.
4) But then if you welcome Bibi Nathanyahu to the White House –after Bibi helped lie the US into an unnecessary war that killed 4500+ Americans — then you pretty much have shown where your moral compass points, no?
November 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system?”
Well, I suppose freedom of movement, collective prosperity, and settling disputes peacefully are painfully boring compared to the Somme or the Battle of the Bulge. But I think most people would compare the number of wars between European nations prior to the establishment of the European Community, and the number since that time, and view this change as a feature rather than a bug.
World War II Envy really is a crippling and debilitating condition on the American Right, isn’t it? Grandpa got to save the world from fascism, and all I got is this lousy peace and prosperity.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I’ll just offer a contrarian view here – I personally respect Robert Kaplan
Great. Now take his dick out of your mouth and tell us what you think. He’s a fucking moral monster. If that isn’t clear to you at this point–especially after reading the quoted bit–it’s a pretty good bet that so are you. Lumping him in with the rest–pretty much any “rest” at this point–is obscene.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
If Robert Kaplan likes struggles, he could always move to Sierra Leone or Pakistan. How he came to be stuck in a boring place like Massachusetts with boring people like me is an unfathomable tragedy.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
#45 is some of the best parody I’ve ever seen.
That bit about the property rights of the Normandy bed-and-breakfast owner deserves an award.
And also…Gold, dagnabbit!
November 10th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I’m picturing a French gendarme, talking with a German tank commander, and rifling through the Civil Code volume dealing with property rights.
“Hmmmmmmm, perhaps…but not. Right you are, Oberst. There is nothing in here that forbids you from shelling these houses. I tried to tell those socialists…Well, no matter. On your way, then.”
November 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
For anyone who doesn’t know Bob, I should say that we currently, of course, do have property rights. What Bob means by “property rights” is the right to hold slaves as property. Or the right not to have your property “stolen” by inflation. You see, “Dr.” Paul told Bob that the 16th amendment was never really ratified, so he shoved all his GOOOOOLLLLDDDD into his mattress so that it couldn’t be converted into the Amero. He has a pamphlet that explains the whole thing.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Kaplan just has a bad case of Orwell ennui. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Don’s points are hard to dispute.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Anthony, you pathetic miserable little shit.
You mock my example of poor Jews escaping National Socialist fiends and then suggest that I support slavery.
Please explain how slavery is consistent with my relentless four-decade long insistence upon self-ownership of one’s own body and methodological individualism, you lying bastard.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Please explain how slavery is consistent with my relentless four-decade long insistence upon self-ownership of one’s own body and methodological individualism, you lying bastard.
This is possibly the greatest sentence ever to appear on the Internets.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The EU does not stand for any welfare system whatsoever. Sometimes even against them when they colide with free trade. “Self employed sub contractors” from the poorest countries work all arround Europe for next to nothing without any social safety net. Atemps to give the EU any meaningfull responsibility on social issues gets blocked by the usual candidates, the UK mainly. They even opted out from some microscopic powers comeing with lisabon.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.” “Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.”
Amazing how smoothly those two quotes fit together. I’d tell you who said the second part, but that would violate an internet law . . .
November 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Kaplan: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Verr-r-r-y interestink! It would be interesting to read a hypothetical exploration of what Kaplan would struggle for if he happened to be a European – say, a citizen of Germany. I think he should write another book exploring this line of thought. It would be an inspiration to all Europeans. He could entitle it “My Struggle.” In German, of course.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I’d like to say that I am all in favor of more decadence on this side of the Atlantic.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
You are joking.
Kaplan can be a dolt but the guy has authored 13 books, one of which is widely credited with influencing Clinton to get off his ass on the Balkans. He has traveled to more war zones than all but a handful of correspondents, including Iran-Iraq in 1984 and Ethiopia in the 1980s, He actually knows the US military and is taken seriously as an adviser there. Last I looked, he was serving at Center for a New American Security, a place you seem fond of.
You don’t miss him? The cred of the Atlantic jumped a notch the day you left and I doubt that Kaplan hasn’t spent a lot of time wondering what happened to you.
BTW, your title is complete horseshit. Kaplan never said or suggested that Civil Society Requires Perpetual War, he said that it requires a willingness to confront tyranny and that Europe, notwithstanding having been attacked by Al Qaeda, has been weak in its response.
That’s more fact than and it remains a fact regardless of your view of US policy in Iraq or Af-Pak.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“in the grim dark future, there is only war.”
November 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
This is possibly the greatest sentence ever to appear on the Internets.
It is pretty good. I’d like to be able to use it myself sometime, but I haven’t insisted on methodological individualism for 40 years.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Oh, and in case you missed it, Kaplan’s endorsement of Obama’s view of internationalism and an interesting call for global civil society here http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910u/obama-global-internationalism.
Explain slowly why you dislike this guy, Matt? Because he countenances the use of military power?
November 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
You know who else was Austrian? Hitler.
(Since #45 is clearly parody, we might as well go that route.)
November 10th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
No, BlueTopGirl, because he views the use of military power as the prime concern of the state. That predilection leads him to find and hype threats to attack, and comes with an indifference to people’s actual lives.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You mock my example of poor Jews escaping National Socialist fiends and then suggest that I support slavery.
No, asshole, I mocked the idea that “property rights” would have saved them. As a Jew, thanks but no thanks.
As for slavery, you support some of the most vile racists in America and then write it off as “critique of culture”.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Kaplan can be a dolt but the guy has authored 13 books, one of which is widely credited with influencing Clinton to get off his ass on the Balkans.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Tell me more, Crazy Lady.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@69, Kaplan can be a dolt but the guy has authored 13 books
Who says he’s a dolt, he’s just an ordinary fascist. I watched him interviewed on cspan once (”booknotes” or something, years ago) where he was describing his ideas of how the national leaders should have a different sort morality than ordinary people and stuff like that. Usual fascist stuff.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
It’s time to revisit John Hobo’s ‘Dead Right’ essay which just passed it’s 6th anniversary by the way.
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2003/11/dead_right.html
The neocon proto cognitive itch exceeds all others by several orders of magnitude. I think we will liken this to Hobo’s discussion of the edifying qualities Stalinism engendered in some people. Without Stalin there would have been no Solzhenitsyn. By Kaplan’s calculus I’d guess he would think that Stalinism was worth it.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Anthony:
1.
2. Property rights are only effective if they are respected. When the right not to be murdered is not respected by the Nazis, is that an excuse to denigrate the right not to be murdered?
November 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
2. Property rights are only effective if they are respected. When the right not to be murdered is not respected by the Nazis, is that an excuse to denigrate the right not to be murdered?
No, it means touting that right as something that could’ve saved Jews is pretty dumb.
a) Which “racists” do I support?
b) Give examples of their racism.
O please. You’re a Paulite. We’ve been through this.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
This entire post is fighting a poorly constructed straw man. Perhaps Yglesias thought it too intellectually taxing to address Kaplan’s primary point that Russia, Yugoslavia, and Iran all present emerging challenges to Europe, and Europe shows little political will to deal with any of those issues.
Oh, and I think the best thing about Yglesias no longer being at the Atlantic is that a reputable magazine is no longer sullied by Yglesias’s incredibly self-assured writing based on dreadfully half-assed thinking.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Re: I can guarantee that whenever a GOP member sits in the White House, we will be in a shooting war with Iran within three months.
Good grief, not that again. How many predictions of iminent war with Iran proved false during the Bush era?
Re: the best way to destroy Al Qaeda is to honestly address the grievances that Al Qaeda uses to gain sanctuary and support in the Islamic world
You are assuming that all their grievances are all just, or indeed that we are capable of addressing them? Should America dethrone the House of Saud and put some radical fundamentalist imam in power as Caliph? Good grief.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
[...] Matt Y on Kaplan [...]
November 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Ah . . . that was the reason why 19th Century imperialists liked colonialism even when there was no profit involved. It gave their youth something to fight and toughen themselves up.
For the same reason, Germany never planned to conquer all of Russia in either world war. They wanted to establish a frontier somewhere near the Urals where young German men could “blood” themselves against the barbarian Slavs and Asiatics driven off into the wilderness.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Amy I wrong or did Yglesias support both intervention in Yugoslavia (I realize he was a kid back then) and invading Afghanistan?
If so, does that mean that he agrees with Kaplan in practice but just enjoys enmeshing policy in a slightly different rhetorical flourish?
November 10th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Oh, if you haven’t read this before, go do so, right now! One of the best pieces of writing ever on the internet, and very pertinent to the topic under discussion.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I came across this by accident and found it rather annoying. I live in europe and I would agree that europe has lost its teeth. Peace can only be sustained with Force and having Force itself is of no use unless you demonsrate that you are willing to use it. There will always be someone who wants to take over one country or another, if Europe is attacked again who will fight?? Will we ask the USA to come and fight for us. What is the point of having high tech equipment if it has not been tested in war or there is no will to use it. I agree that Europe needs to flex its muscle to stay FREE.
PS- If you follow my link to http://ladyGod1va.wordpress.com don’t be fooled by the nudity bit, that is just something I have an interest in and trying to get it popularised!!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Perhaps Yglesias thought it too intellectually taxing to address Kaplan’s primary point that Russia, Yugoslavia, and Iran all present emerging challenges to Europe
Yes, why won’t Yglesias talk about the emerging threat of Yugoslavia?!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I want to fight Robert Kaplan.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
I too fear for those lazy Europeans. Which of those lazy Europeans will do the fighting with spears and stones after the nuclear war?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
What the hell is the photo and what does it have to do with the post?!? Looks like people milling about outside a rock club.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Should America dethrone the House of Saud and put some radical fundamentalist imam in power as Caliph?
Really, that wasn’t one of the reasons…
November 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I assume it’s a bunch of Euros that become decadent. Someone just needs to organize them and get them marching towards the Polish border.
Oh yeah, because prior to WWI, there were no wars at all.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The quote about sex was actually from Buckley, not Kristol. I clicked through to the interview:
“”The trouble with the emphasis in conservatism on the market,” Buckley told me, “is that it becomes rather boring. You hear it once, you master the idea. The notion of devoting your life to it is horrifying if only because it’s so repetitious. It’s like sex.”"
November 10th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“What is the point of having high tech equipment if it has not been tested in war or there is no will to use it.”
I admit, this is a point I’ve never come across before. Was that the justification for using mustard gas in World War I—that once it was invented there was a moral imperative to use it?
“don’t be fooled by the nudity bit, that is just something I have an interest in and trying to get it popularised!!”
Yeah, you might want to work more on building a credible persona if you’re going to be posting on blogs.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
is that a reputable magazine is no longer sullied by Yglesias’s incredibly self-assured writing based on dreadfully half-assed thinking.
hahahahaMcArdlehahahaha.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Well I’d certainly rather Europeans be fodder for our wars than us for theirs as we were twice, but happily that is not the state of affairs.
That said, Ackerman seems to hint at the Lisbon Treaty. But most of the continent HATES that. You wrote yourself that politicians are doing so because Europe is ruled by elites openly.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
IF sex is boring and repetitious, then you’re not doing it right.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I find it interesting that Robert Kaplan completely ignores the fact that it was because of Europe’s two world wars, and the near annihilation of most of its infrastructure and human capital, which provided European neighbors such as France and Germany the impetus to form a small, coal-trading pact after the Second World War, which would eventually, piece-by-piece, develop into today’s European Union.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Oh, and I think the best thing about Yglesias no longer being at the Atlantic is that a reputable magazine is no longer sullied by Yglesias’s incredibly self-assured writing based on dreadfully half-assed thinking.
========================================================
True. But on the other hand his grammar and spelling suck
November 11th, 2009 at 12:20 am
is that a reputable magazine is no longer sullied by Yglesias’s incredibly self-assured writing based on dreadfully half-assed thinking.
hahahahaSullivanhahahaha.
====================
Fixed that for you.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Shorter Kaplan:
November 11th, 2009 at 7:07 am
@Bob Roddis: Imminent domain trumps individual property rights…that is all a conquering power is doing to the subjugated, writ large, right?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:27 am
MY “By far the fastest way to end the war in Afghanistan would be to ask General McChrystal’s staff to produce a plan to make it deficit neutral and find sixty votes in the senate for his financing plan.”
Indeed it would. But who is going to ask him? No one.
That’s not the way it works. The military sets the domestic spending agenda, and Congress, due to self-preservation principles, willingly tags along. The military also sets our foreign policy agenda. An incoming President can only try to guide that agenda, seek to tweak and tinker, but that is about it.
And the military will gladly fight brush wars for us, IT LIKES WAR, but only if money to pay for that war does not come out of its budget. The budget is sacrosanct.
First and foremost, the majority of the military’s budget must be expended on the equipping and expansion of its worldwide network of bases. And new American bases are popping up at an astounding rate. South America and Central America will soon be dotted with new American military bases -seven new bases are scheduled to built in Columbia alone. New bases that will support our hunter/killer missiles systems are being planned, or have already been constructed, in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Norway, Turkey, Greenland and the Aleutians.
We have bases in places we never dreamed of having them, in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and of course, in Iraq, where we have built numerous bases, including three joint Army/Air Force mega-bases.
And, perhaps most shockingly, for the first time in its 61 year history, Israel has invited a foreign troop presence onto its soil. American and Israeli military personnel are currently running joint ICBM missile/killer exercises, and American personnel are scheduled to stay behind and help build out Israel’s new forward looking American radar system, the kind of radar that will allow Israel to peer deep into Russia and see most if not all of Russia’s ICBM launch sites.
It seems the United States military has deemed it acceptable that Israel can develop, if it chooses, a first strike capability over Russia. Oh yeah, it’s a crazy world out there, its the US military’s world, and we, and the President for that matter, are just living in it.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Matt, I think your original link is busted. It points not to a call for 1984-style perpetual war, but a call for Europe to care about potential threats to its hard-won peace from Russia and Iran.
You should fix the link.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I would pay good money to watch Robert Kaplan walk from one side of a pub to another, where he’s wearing a Chelsea shirt and everyone else is Millwall.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Re: Perhaps Yglesias thought it too intellectually taxing to address Kaplan’s primary point that Russia, Yugoslavia, and Iran all present emerging challenges to Europe
Yugoslavia has not been on any current map of Europe in quite a few years, and its constituent pieces are either in the EU or clamoring to be. Where’s the challenge there (emerging or otherwise)?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
MBunge Says:
“However, the fact that the people who enjoy “present-day Europe’s state of peace, prosperity, and physical security” were totally unwilling to stop the rape, murder and ethnic clensing going on in their own backyard does lend support to an argument that not all is right in the Euro heart and mind.”
The USA is a world-spanning empire with bases in over a hundred countries around the world; the rulers and elites of the USA generally regard as their backyard any d*mn place that they feel like. However, when it was confronted by ‘rape, murder and ethnic cleansing’ in Rwanda, the Congo and Sudan, the elites of the US were totally unwilling to stop that. And that’s just three of the more recent examples, and I’m not counting the numerous countries in South/Central American where the US generally *supports* really nasty sh*t.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:12 am
The other aspect of the Afghanistan and Iraq dynamic that needs to be mentioned is that our military now farms out about half the work to private contractors. I think the reason we do this is that not enough American’s really support either war in any kind of whole-hearted way. You can’t get enough volunteers for the military to staff these operations, and if you tried to draft for them, you would unleash a firestorm of protest against them. There is something sort of decadent and Decline of the Roman Empire about this picture.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Amazing. A semi-acknowledgement from a “progressive” that “market-oriented conservatism” is quite different from war-mongering neo-conservatism.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
But Bob, where does he stand on the Negro Problem and other “cultural” questions? Isn’t that a primary concern for you?
November 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
[...] Think Progress, Matt Yglesias writes that “Kaplan is merely highlighting the fundamental difference between neoconservative thinking and thinking undertaken by people with [...]
November 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
tomemos –
“Yeah, you might want to work more on building a credible persona if you’re going to be posting on blogs.”
Not sure if you meant it.. I find your comment rather condescending;
Couldn’t find an email address for you and you don’t seem to have a recent post on your blog. so let me explain here…
I come from a military family and know enough about the history of wars in Europe. My comment on equipment/weapons above can be related to the strategy used both by the USA and USSR during the cold war. Both had to show that they WOULD use nuclear weapons thereby painting the ‘mutual destruction’ picture and avoiding another war. The USA has probably the most advanced military equipment through having gained the knowledge and experience of technical development whilst involved in various conflicts. The rest of the world knows that the USA has and that it has and would use it. Europe on the other hand has spent a large sum on developing the euro fighter for example, but they are not sending it into the war zone..yet. Other than the UK, the European countries are not willing to provide a serious military contribution to any defense/war effort that is being fought on their behalf as well as other. My point is very simple.. no matter who you are, if you are carrying a weapon, it is a pointless device unless it is clear that you have the guts and the courage to use it if the need arises… (if this explanation is not clear enough try watching one of John Wayne’s Westerns!)
Your ref to my persona based on my nudity blog seems to indicate your lack of knowledge. If you read any of my stuff you will have realized that I have MSc in IT and own and run 2 IT companies. I am quite capable of forming an opinion, this or any other blog does not have prerequisite on the contributor to be a PhD student… If you want to discuss this further feel free to email me on ladygod1va@hotmail.co.uk .
November 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
DaveL Says:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Matt, I think your original link is busted. It points not to a call for 1984-style perpetual war, but a call for Europe to care about potential threats to its hard-won peace from Russia and Iran.
You should fix the link.
=========================================================
Good point. This is about the most dishonest post I’ve seen from MattY since his pathetic mini-jihad against Sen. Burr earlier this year. Remember where he turned an off-hand remark Burr made in a couple of speeches about the panic he felt during the financial crisis last fall (asked his wife to go to the ATM machine) into the lame assertion (tiresomely repeated) that Burr was trying to start a run on banks?
DaveL is right – all Kaplan is saying is what good is the EU peaceful social democracy if it can’t face difficult foreign policy issues. Sometimes those require the threat of or use of military force. The prime case is EU failure to confront Serbian genocide until Bill Clinton kicked NATO’s butt into the undeclared war to stop it. I assume MattY approproved of that.
For all his sneering about Kaplan’s bloodthirst, MattY had the same policy position on Afghanistan and Iraq that Kaplan did in 2002-03.
I’m not here to defend everything Kaplan says, but this is a total distortion of his position.
Kaplan is a reporter who’s lived abroad for many years and traveled extensively (perhaps obsessively). Whether you agree with him or not, when you read something he’s written, you can tell he’s most likely been there, talked to people involved, knows the history and culture and something about the institutions involved.
Contrast with MattY who gets paid to sit on his ass in DC, read “interesting pieces” in the NY Times, and spin commentary to make the Democratic Party look good. Ms. Palmieri is just down the hall to check up on him. Oh, and make heaps of howlingly embarrassingly ignorant assertions about stuff he has no real world experience of.
I doubt Kaplan ever even noticed MattY was around at the Atlantic, and rightly so
November 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Interesting to learn that neocons find sex not just “boring” but ‘”horrifying.” But then, it is what I would have guessed. Come to think of it, I think sex with a neocon probably would be both boring and horrifying. And, personally, I’ve never objected to repetition in sex.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I think that there are more problems with Kaplan’s musings that Mat noticed. Was it Reagan who visited South America and returned quite astounded with an observation “there are actually different countries down there”? Europe, my dear children, actually consists of different countries.
And different countries have different goals and priorities. When you add them up, you get something close to zero.
Item: confront Russia over something, or just buy more natural gas? And if confront, what should be the outcome? Subjugate the South Ossetians to restore the control of their rightful Georgian overlords? There are question of feasibility, desirability and unpleasant consequences (like miffed Russia builds pipelines to China and stiffs European customers).
Much more interesting item: what if Europe became “bold” on the matter of Palestine/Israel? Do we want “bold” Europe or obedient Europe? Of course, we want “boldly obedient”, but even Poland would not go all the way in that direction.
Europe has a lot of issues and priorities, and would it become “bold”, our neocons would rue the day.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:31 am
[...] a quick one This is a must-read for all of my right wing friends. The problem with neocon thinking in a nutshell. [...]
November 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Nice plug for Lords of Chaos. That book really needs higher circulation at my local library. Oh, wait, I had to order it from ILL. NVM FOLKS
November 13th, 2009 at 2:56 am
[...] it’s not just religion. Matthew Yglesias here is rather amazed, and not in a good way, by Robert Kaplan and his take on modern-day [...]