tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post3254970614477635412..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: BEFORE I CONTINUERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-18385714809401388042018-12-24T21:29:53.615-05:002018-12-24T21:29:53.615-05:00Discussions in the abstract about "grand stra...Discussions in the abstract about "grand strategy" or "the national interest" (a phrase with no objective definition, beyond a v. narrow core) are often less than illuminating.<br /><br />Usu. better I think, perhaps esp on a site such as this one, to discuss particular policies. Much of the foreign-policy "establishment" sees Trump's rhetoric and some of his actions as deeply harmful to the US "national interest" -- e.g. withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, from the Iran nuclear deal, from the INF treaty w Russia. The "establishment," wrong about some things, is right on these particular pts. Trump's defense budgets are even more enormous than the preceding administration's. His immigration and border policies, which can be seen as both domestic <i>and</i> foreign policy, are a disaster. His Middle East policy is an incoherent mess, again worse in some respects than the predecessor admin. Rules of engagement for US mil activity, e.g. the bombing campaign vs ISIS, were loosened under Trump, resulting in more civilian casualties than wd have been the case otherwise. Support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen is so obviously immoral and counterproductive that the Senate, w a Repub majority after all, recently voted to de-fund it (unfortunately the House won't go along, at least not until next month).<br /><br />So one can debate particular policies and also broader stances (some of which have not changed from one admin to the next) but none of this is much advanced by pointing out that "the national interest" is a phrase devoid of much substantive or any objective content, since that point is already obvious. Walt and Mearsheimer are prob just using it as a shorthand for their particular view of what the U.S. strategic posture etc shd be. One might find their view persuasive or not, but picking on their use of an admittedly largely meaningless phrase seems somewhat beside the point.LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91347649891195155862018-12-23T19:53:40.969-05:002018-12-23T19:53:40.969-05:00Self interest, like time or the self, might be a p...Self interest, like time or the self, might be a primitive that can be identified but not strictly defined. One of those things you know when you see it. It might be something there is a consensus regarding in their foreign policy circles.<br />Anyway, can it be much harder than defining the self interest of people?Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com