The Duck of Minerva

The Joys of Tech Central Station, Part XXIV

Featured

by Dan Nexon

12 July 2005, 0358 EDT

Can someone give me a good reason why Michael Totten’s latest essay is any better than his first published piece? Because, for the life of me, I can’t understand what the point of the thing is.

Totten argues that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon is a good precedent for a future US withdrawal from Iraq. The reason? It undermined Hezbollah and has led to a general improvement in Israel’s strategic position in Lebanon. Putting aside whether that is true, I simply don’t understand how:

1. Anyone can claim that the cases are remotely comparable;

2. Anyone can write an entire article on the putative benefits of the Israeli pullout without addressing the possible role of the withdrawal in fueling the Second Intifadia.

And then there is, of course, the key conditional in the essay:

The propaganda victory for both the Sunni Arab insurgents and the terrorists from outside the country could turn into a pyrrhic one. There is such a thing, after all, as a tactical retreat. It could work to our advantage if we don’t do it prematurely, if the Iraqi government really is strong enough to mop this up on its own.

Because, you know, there are all those people out there who say a US pullout would be a really bad thing even if the Iraqi government could defeat the insurgency on its own.

Filed as:

Website |  + posts

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Website |  + posts

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

0 Comments