Robert Kagan was (I think that's the correct tense) a member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This is the group, a core of which formed an influential cadre within the Bush Administration, whose doctrine helped guide America into its war with Iraq and has helped to set much of its foreign policy in the nearly eight years of Bush's "reign."
As a member of this group, Robert Kagan is one of the last people I would expect to find myself agreeing with. However, if you haven't already read this article, (found at WorldAffairsJournal.org and linked to at RealClearPolitics.com) you should. I can't vouch for all his facts, but a casual first reading of it didn't set off any real warning bells. He offers a very sober view of American history and behavior, and a very balanced view of the current foreign policy and cultural debates in our country. I found it to be an excellent article that based on my own understanding of our history, flawed as it might be, rings true.
I think all contributors and readers at Contributing Factors will find something of value in it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
David, that was a good link to a piece that I think speaks directly to the nature of the debate here. Like most things, I don't agree with all of the points the author makes, but it is a solid piece throughout.
As a side note, Robert Kagan is the son of Donald Kagan one of my favorite history authors who also happens to be friends with historian and political commentator Victor Davis Hanson, whose recent influence on my own political worldview I cannot deny.
That's funny. I was going to link to the same article.
A friend of mine, whose historical acumen I trust far more than my own, said it "pretty much hits the nail on the head." His take on Kagan's historical accuracy was that he generally has all of his facts straight and isn't unfairly characterizing events.
I found the entire piece (all 10000 words of it) a clear, historical commentary on American foreign policy that puts the invasion of Iraq (among other things) into much better perspective than the current national discussion seems capable of.
Thanks for linking.
Not to ask for an essay or anything, but what did y'all walk away from that essay with?
I'm still processing a lot of it, but the immediate thing I came away with was perspective. I suppose that's the word for it. Maybe "reality check" is a better phrase.
Kagan makes clear the fundamental agreement that underlies the national debate and thus highlights the nature of the disagreement, namely whether there is an emphasis on military or diplomatic/social solutions to the world's problems. Even at that, there is a lot of cross over. It was just a very clear, non-partisan look at "reality."
I don't know if it altered my own opinions much, but it will hopefully serve to modify my tone and inform my opinions. When you get really close up to a small crack, it can look like a chasm. I think that's what has happened with the debate here and on a national level. Kagan's article showed me that.
Good thoughts. I like the "analogy of the crack."
I think there's a good C. S. Lewis quote about "chronological snobbery." I think that's something that Kagan did a good job of starting to liberate us from.
Just as an aside, I think Kagan's article also lends support to my view of how ultimately useless labels like "liberal" and "conservative" and even "Democrat" and "Republican" are or can be.
I found it particularly interesting to see (and I've been aware of this on a less specific level) how each of the two main political parties have actually adopted each others positions on foreign policy and social issues over the years. What we see as Democrat and Republican isn't a good indication of their historical leanings in any given period.
Post a Comment