Charlie Rose

Gelles  01/16/2012 08:33 AM Report

Dempsey is the most articulate general in the army. He is not an authority on austerity.

The paradox of austerity (like the paradox of thrift) is at the heart of this century's problems. None of our leaders care. They are not trained to lead us to the promised land. Martin Luther King had an inkling of the problem. He was killed by a bone-head who never heard of anything worth knowing or believing in. That is another problem: bone-heads may predominate among the great unwashed. And even one of them can do a lot of harm.

Gelles  01/16/2012 08:21 AM Report

"Kennan was confident the state of affairs in Western Europe had developed to the point where positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet Union."

POSITIVE DIALOG (far from appeasement by reasoning rivals of one or more of their number who are tyrants to the bone and at best wolves in sheeps' clothing)is the goal so that arms races and wars are prevented.

Is such dialog possible with Islamic enemies today. Was it possible with Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, or Japan under Hirohito and his army's commanders, without "political victory" by more civilized military powers?

(What is "political" victory in the nuclear age? Russia can never be "defeated" when all sides fear mutually assured destruction.)

Doves want dialog. Hawks want arms races. Both birds believe they have an accurate vision of the future -- and their opponents are fundamentally twisted away from truths we can know if we want to.

The second great issue before us is poverty and under-development (in terms of industrial power to overcome scarcity, human adversity, and natural disasters).

And now we have the paradox of motivational money: the harder the arms race the further and faster industrial development proceeds.

The more we spend to go to war with Mars, the higher median standard of living we will achieve -- UP TO THE POINT OF REAL FULL EMPLOYMENT OF BRAIN AND MUSCLE (COMPARABLE TO CAPITAL AND LABOR IN CURRENT SYSTEMS).

I listened to US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey at Duke University on 12 January -- speaking on "American Grand Strategy in an Age of Austerity".

He failed to put the paradox of "less than full employment" SPENDING before his audience.

All of here, but me, fail miserably in this matter.

So where is the new Kennan? Maybe closer than it appears.

Gelles  01/15/2012 10:59 PM Report

Correction:

"... comments of my CR forum friends preceding this Wikipedia brief are not concurred in BY me" [how sad to see so many errors. I will write my next post off line and hope to have no errors in it.]

Gelles  01/15/2012 10:53 PM Report

[Copy of the beginning of the Wikipedia entry:]

George Frost Kennan (February 16, 1904 – March 17, 2005) was an American adviser, diplomat, political scientist and historian, best known as "the father of containment" and as a key figure in the emergence of the Cold War. He later wrote standard histories of the relations between Russia and the Western powers.

In the late 1940s, his writings inspired the Truman Doctrine and the U.S. foreign policy of "containing" the Soviet Union, thrusting him into a lifelong role as a leading authority on the Cold War. His "Long Telegram" from Moscow in 1946 and the subsequent 1947 article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" argued that the Soviet regime was inherently expansionist and that its influence had to be "contained" in areas of vital strategic importance to the United States.

These texts quickly emerged as foundation texts of the Cold War, expressing the Truman administration's new anti-Soviet Union policy. Kennan also played a leading role in the development of definitive Cold War programs and institutions, notably the Marshall Plan.

Soon after his concepts had become US policy, Kennan began to criticize the foreign policies that he had seemingly helped launch. Subsequently, prior to the end of 1948, Kennan was confident the state of affairs in Western Europe had developed to the point where positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet Union.

His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and Kennan's influence was marginalized, particularly after Dean Acheson was appointed Secretary of State in 1949. Soon thereafter, U.S. Cold War strategy assumed a more assertive and militaristic quality, causing Kennan to lament over what he believed was as an aberration of his previous assessments.

[comment on choices today and the above account of yesteryear follows. Posting this opening informs me of useful fact and opinion. The comments of my CR forum friends preceding this Wikipedia brief are not concurred in my me.]

SharkswithfrikingLazers  01/13/2012 01:59 AM Report

The second half of the century was better than the first half because of containment?

Charlie, a few questions here.

Creating bigger bureaucracies, like the NSA, is better? Political appointments instead of professional diplomats are better? The growth of the military-industrial complex, with self-perpetuating cycle of cooperation in allocating government funds in Congress for the military to buy weapons that it would contract businesses to build, which would create more jobs, making the Congress more popular, and electable, is better? Anti-communist hysteria of the '50's is better? The use of universities to develop game-theory and think tanks and even new weapons is better?

Even in the final days of the crumbling USSR Reagan continued to build the military wasting money and running up our debt.

I am not sure enough was said to defend the premise that containment is better.

If Dr. Gaddis would have studied at A&M, instead of UT, he would understand "whipping out" (extending your hand for a handshake).

FeliciaV  01/12/2012 11:31 PM Report

Excellent interview with John Lewis Gaddis. Elated to see him talk about the need for the generalist in foreign affairs and the problem with our current educational system not training generalists who are able to "see connections" between seemingly related topics. Liz Coleman of Bennington College made a very similar statement at a TED Conference, when she discussed how she had changed Bennington's curricula to address this very problem.

Howard Gardner in his book "The Unschooled Mind" speaks extensively about how educators can design curricula to help students learn how to think across discipline and teach to more than one kind of learner. Thinking across discipline requires general knowledge about many different topics, which the person can then apply to the problem at hand. Obviously, this kind of thinking isn't only needed in our educational system, but in Washington as well.

FeliciaV  01/12/2012 11:29 PM Report

Excellent interview with John Lewis Gaddis. Elated to see him talk about the need for the generalist in foreign affairs and the problem with our current educational system not training generalists who are able to "see connections" between seemingly related topics. Liz Coleman of Bennington College made a very similar statement at a TED Conference, when she discussed how she had changed Bennington's curricula to address this very problem.

Howard Gardner in his book "The Unschooled Mind" speaks extensively about how educators can design curricula to help students learn how to think across discipline and teach to more than one kind of learner. Thinking across discipline requires general knowledge about many different topics, which the person can then apply to the problem at hand. Obviously, this kind of thinking isn't only needed in our educational system, but in Washington as well.

tabs  01/12/2012 02:47 PM Report

Now Comes Part 3:

The question to be answered now is, has the the Leadership of the United States continued to have the same kind of myopic lack of clarity in its pursuit of the War On Terrorism as it did during the Cold War? Which has or will cause a series of missteps, because the Leadership of the United States sees a Johnny Jihad under every rock and behind every bush? Before one opinionated faction in the United States jumps up and down with the glee a little child. Let one remind that they too are not without the fault of raising their hands in agreement of following that policy. While it is of no use to cry over the spilt milk of the past decade. It may be wise to at least rethink ones position as one would check a math equation to insure an accurate appraisal.

tabs  01/12/2012 12:32 PM Report

Now comes Part 2

Putting aside the matter Mr Putin, who to state it in as few words as possible is a mere shadow of Stalin and his governing tendencies. As Putin was brought up under men who had served under Stalin but were not of the same tensile strength as Stalin. Thus Mr Putin is even softer than they were.

More disturbingly was the lack of clarity in exactly what the United States was containing in the Post War/Cold War period. The leadership of the United States thought we were fighting an ideological menace in Communism which had world wide expansionist tendencies. Instead the reality was that the United States was facing a Totalitarian regime led by a ruthless Dictator and later by the proteges of his system of governance. While containment of the USSR was necessary this lack of clarity on the part of the United States led it to take a series of miss-steps. For the United States saw the bogey man of the Red Menace under every rock and behind every bush. The United States very rarely ever saw Nationalistic, culturalist and religious rationals for the actions of various parties in the world. This lack of clarity has cost the United States untold treasure in lives, wealth and good will. It has been one of the causative agents of the predicament the United States is in today.

tabs  01/12/2012 11:42 AM Report

One does not want to waste much time on this as one has covered this before. Both Hitler and Stalin were aberrations of the 20Th century. Stalin was a psychopathic Dictator who only cared about expanding his power base, only giving Communist ideology lip service as a cover for his ruthlessness. Thus the US as leader of the Free World was not containing Communism but a ruthless Dictator.

What is noteworthy is that the USSR imploded with the coming to power of Gorbachev, who was the FIRST LEADER of the USSR NOT to have been an operative under Stalin's tenure. Once the men who had been brought up to power under Stalinist rule faded away so did the system of governing. In other words once the men who learned their method of governing from Stalin went away so did the Stalinist system. Which gives credence that Stalin and the state he represented was an aberration of history as it had no sustainability.

REMant  01/12/2012 11:11 AM Report

Unlike the preceding, Prof Gaddis certainly knows the subject, but I found it puzzling, because I think containment, at least in practice, proved a disaster, not only for us, and the Soviets, but clearly the whole world. And we are still at it. Too, the Soviet Union collapsed not because the Russian ppls were imposed upon, but because there was never any hope for them, and that had nothing to do with Communism. If by containment Kennan meant just leaving them alone and trying to maintain a balance of power it would put him in good company. JQA, the author of what is known as the Monroe doctrine*, was probably the most accomplished diplomat this nation has ever produced. I'd suggest, too, that Gorbachev was the real communist, which no doubt is why he seemed puzzling. The notion of an "Arab Spring" is ludicrous and to hear it continually put sbout IMHO is all of a piece with talk of Romney's imminent coronation. Obviously, Kennan would not agree with the idea anymore than he did Vietnam or Iraq, which can only mean his opinion of American character was no more favorable than of the Soviet's. The "autocrats" are for the most part the legacy of this "Cold War," not the reason for it and even so, their absence would guarantee no more than it does in Russia today.

*Essentially we would defend the southern hemisphere if attacked, but we were not otherwise going to anything but wish them well: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."