Comments on: America in (Relative) Decline?

By: XYZ

XYZ — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:32:38 +0000

But friends, you are not aware of the cunningness of the ruling Punjabi-Muhajir eilte of Pakistan…They have thousands of mullahs ready and at their pay-role to stage dramas like Lal Masjid and fool their friends in Washington. Musharaf once had said in a private meeting, refering to the game he is playing with the West, that in his childhood he would climb the roof of his house in Dehli and throw stones at Hindu Congress nighbours whereas in the day he would be friend with them.

By: XYZ

XYZ — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:06:40 +0000

I agree with Joshua Fouster on Barnette Robin. BR’s assesment of that region’s issues is really weak. He doesn’t have that scholarship and insight into the things pertaining to that region.

By: Joseph Steinberg

Joseph Steinberg — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:29:09 +0000

I agree with your points, which I myself have made in a few grad school papers and in countless discussions with grad students/military officers. Barnett’s a darling, as much as Huntington these days. My biggest sticking point is economic determinism, too. Your point about ideology is well-taken, but PS and IR, like Economics, are looking for clean, simple theories, not description.

I bring up Barnett because there is a place for undetermined diplomacy as an art (the forgotten side of IR). I view Barnett as an advocate without portfolio. Once in awhile, there are surprises, unmapped by scientists and unforeseen by journalists.

By: Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:23:27 +0000

Narcogen - 2001-3. Joseph - I agree that collaboration is far superior to competition. However, both China and the U.S. view each other as rivals, not partners - at least on the military side of things, which, unfortunately, is what counts. I tend to discount most of what Barnett says (see here and here) -- his scholarship is, at best, weak, and really poorly argued. Not that he's important, but he's important in a Sam Huntington way - showing why he is wrong is far more instructive than looking at what he's actually trying to say. In fact, I find his over-reliance on economic determinism, which is at best a weak force in international relations, to be the biggest reason his thoughts on both Iran and China are meangingless (that, and his apparent ignorance of history).

By: Joseph Steinberg

Joseph Steinberg — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:46:04 +0000

There is a brighter side to this.

If we consider what Barnett argues in Blueprint for Action, then:

1. Al Qaeda’s threat is that it can challenge the appeal of globalization for developing states in Eurasia;

2. Both China and the US need globalization;

3. Therefore, both China and the US should form a strategic partnership against al Qaeda.

To do that, China and the US should forge a regional alliance between Pakistan, India, and Iran.

Of course, this is the stuff of vision, but China and the US working together is better than a competition.

By: Narcogen

Narcogen — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:14:55 +0000

BECOME so neutered? This implies a contrast with a previous period where the opposite was true.

When was that, exactly?