Great debate. I agree with Jamie when he asked what is your alternative and all I heard was when we failed as a answer. We know history so we can learn from it. Brett comparing WW 1 treatment of Germany by the League of Nations, France to WW 2 treatment by the USA was a perfect example of how we learn. There are powers and forces in this world who do not wish to chat for a diplomatic solution. Let's not kid ourselves, a deterrence is a defense.
This fascinating discussion got me thinking more deeply about these issues. To pose my challenge— It seems to me that in principle, Bret Stephens side is correct. But in practice, Matt Taibi’s side is more often correct than not.
It isn’t a theory that kept us from fascism.it was sacrificial action , a practice that is necessary as long as despots are willing to attack other territories
It seems like the pattern in these debates is that almost no one changes their views based on what they just heard. This suggests that they are either poor debaters (doubtful) or that even the most engaged and motivated to be thinking about these important issues never change their minds (likely). If so, that is the sad reality of our times.
Thanks for another debate on a critical issue. After watching the entire exchange, I was amazed by the audience's voting, both pre & post. I couldn't help wondering what those votes might have looked like if the debate were held in Butler, PA and the price of a ticket were $25? How might Stephens' final snarky interjection about offering a free duvet to anyone who voted "Yes" have gone over there? This counterfactual ties into the back and forth about class and who among us bears the cost of our post-Soviet interventionism, a matter that apparently troubles Stephens and Kirchuk very little.
The purpose of debate is not to determine which side wins or loses. It is what we learn from each side of the argument that could contribute to a new perspective. Frankly, I think both side had great insights.
One opportunity for greater understanding was missed. Matt Taibbi had a unique perspective on US volunteer military troops that captured what I experienced listening to my “guide” at the Army War College National Security Seminar https://apps.armywarcollege.edu/nss/ during the Iraq war around 2005-6. They felt betrayed by their leadership and their fellow citizens. They felt as though they lived in a different world. Let’s just say that Cheney’s endorsement of Harris will not win their vote for her.
The purpose of the NSS is to bring together future US military, ally military leadership, and American citizens to discuss National Security. My seminar group included a dozen colonels/lt.colonels, - a Saudi general and a Mali general. The most fascinating discussion was held at the on-base home of the Saudi general. We all sat under a tent outside on a carpet, drinking tea. The conversation was different than any other we had in the seminar room. All I can say is leaders need to do more of this.
I enjoyed the debate and found it informational and mostly civil. I wish the debate was longer so the debaters had more time to go in depth and to take more moderator and audience questions. For example, I don't think this subject can be adequately vetted without addressing that other incentives besides safety/security influence our reasons for wanting to police the world and choices about when/where we put boots on the ground; namely the profit motive.
Great debate! I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but I'm disturbed by the analogy of military intervention as getting rid of a "cancer." This is a way to dehumanize the thousands of children that are killed and mutilated by our bombs, so we can pretend it's not happening and justify war.
We have no business being the world's police when our own country is such a mess.
I’ve often thought that this topic would be easier to discuss if military service were mandatory (like Israel). No dispensation for wealth, influence etc.
Every citizen having skin in the game would result in much different elections and politics in the U.S.
If China can provide me a new shinny BYD for 15k which is something America can't then fine let them win. Long live President Xi! Every politician and corporation in America is beholding to China. China has already won you just will not wake up and see it.
I took offense to the man that excused Matt of having a "Self hatred of America". When you start attacking the person and not the substance of the debate you have lost the debate.
The debate didn’t actually fall off the rails. It was never on the rails to begin with.
Absent from the debate was ANY acknowledgment of the MORAL issues behind the policy decisions under consideration.
The debaters talk about the Iraq war being wrong --- but nobody clarifies the actual MORAL issues at play. Nobody is asking who the GOOD guys are and who the BAD guys are, and why.
Until the leaders of Iran (and their Proxies) are identified as evil, as MORALLY evil, then there will be no clear thinking possible when we’re asking ourselves what the US should do --- whether the US should crush the Iranian oppressors, or should merely “police” them, or should just ignore them altogether.
Very good with lots to think about. I believe both sides need to consider the financial costs of policing the world or not doing so, and who is the immediate primary beneficiary of such actions.
I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, the first I have listened to since the FP debate on whether the Israeli-Hamas conflict is a just war. The latter fell apart due to a lack of effective moderation and the absence of anyone preventing Briahna Joy Gray from derailing it with a relentless screaming tantrum.
The stated aim is to model civil disagreement and this requires clear and unequivocal moderation. Fortunately these debaters, with the exception of Kirchick, were civil. For some incomprehensible reason, Bari Weiss at one point encouraged the debaters to be less polite and Kirchick gladly obliged, talking over others and issuing ad-hominem snark. That sort of infantile sandbox behaviour is where I start to stack my decisions as to where to spend my limited funds on paid subscriptions. Life's too short to give my attention to such bad faith behaviour.
Thanks, Bari, for once again giving us relevant and stimulating content. It seems like in the blink of an eye you have become a leader and a strong intellectual force in the journalism community. I hope the sky is the limit for your endeavors.
Having listened to the debaters, I would say that James Kirchick was head and shoulders above the others as a debater. It is not hyperbole to say that he dominated the debate. His "abolish the police" meme registered powerfully.
The arguments of Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang, IMHO, lacked factual basis and accurate perspective on the motivations of our enemies. MT postulates that US interventions have resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths and misery around the world, which is highly questionable. But his unspoken premise--that these same civilians would have lived in peace and harmony if only the US had not intervened--is completely unfounded. Kirchick makes this argument forcefully citing examples around the world where people desperately sought to escape totalitarian regimes. The best example may be the experience in China. The Communist Party came to power in 1949 as the US, exhausted from its recent experiences in WWII and Korea, withdrew to its own shores. What resulted in China over the next dozen years in Mao's irrational efforts to create a command economy is an unparalleled story of human depravity. Between 1958 and 1962, as Mao implemented his Great Leap Forward to catch up with and overtake the West in less than fifteen years, 45 million Chinese people were worked, starved or beaten to death. (I highly recommend: "Mao's Great Famine, "The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62" by Frank Dikötter.)
Lee Fang revealed weak logic and poor command of history. His statement about the reason for WWII--French intervention in the Alsace-Lorraine in 1923--is facially preposterous and supported by no respected historians. Likewise, the proposition that one must be in the military (have "skin in the game") to expound on the wisdom of the country's military strength is unsupportable in a constitutional democratic republic. (In fact, a better case can be made for the opposite proposition.)
I think Bret won the debate. The other three were so nervous that it impacted their ability to make cogent arguments.
Great debate. I agree with Jamie when he asked what is your alternative and all I heard was when we failed as a answer. We know history so we can learn from it. Brett comparing WW 1 treatment of Germany by the League of Nations, France to WW 2 treatment by the USA was a perfect example of how we learn. There are powers and forces in this world who do not wish to chat for a diplomatic solution. Let's not kid ourselves, a deterrence is a defense.
This fascinating discussion got me thinking more deeply about these issues. To pose my challenge— It seems to me that in principle, Bret Stephens side is correct. But in practice, Matt Taibi’s side is more often correct than not.
It isn’t a theory that kept us from fascism.it was sacrificial action , a practice that is necessary as long as despots are willing to attack other territories
It seems like the pattern in these debates is that almost no one changes their views based on what they just heard. This suggests that they are either poor debaters (doubtful) or that even the most engaged and motivated to be thinking about these important issues never change their minds (likely). If so, that is the sad reality of our times.
Bari, et.al.:
Thanks for another debate on a critical issue. After watching the entire exchange, I was amazed by the audience's voting, both pre & post. I couldn't help wondering what those votes might have looked like if the debate were held in Butler, PA and the price of a ticket were $25? How might Stephens' final snarky interjection about offering a free duvet to anyone who voted "Yes" have gone over there? This counterfactual ties into the back and forth about class and who among us bears the cost of our post-Soviet interventionism, a matter that apparently troubles Stephens and Kirchuk very little.
The purpose of debate is not to determine which side wins or loses. It is what we learn from each side of the argument that could contribute to a new perspective. Frankly, I think both side had great insights.
One opportunity for greater understanding was missed. Matt Taibbi had a unique perspective on US volunteer military troops that captured what I experienced listening to my “guide” at the Army War College National Security Seminar https://apps.armywarcollege.edu/nss/ during the Iraq war around 2005-6. They felt betrayed by their leadership and their fellow citizens. They felt as though they lived in a different world. Let’s just say that Cheney’s endorsement of Harris will not win their vote for her.
The purpose of the NSS is to bring together future US military, ally military leadership, and American citizens to discuss National Security. My seminar group included a dozen colonels/lt.colonels, - a Saudi general and a Mali general. The most fascinating discussion was held at the on-base home of the Saudi general. We all sat under a tent outside on a carpet, drinking tea. The conversation was different than any other we had in the seminar room. All I can say is leaders need to do more of this.
I enjoyed the debate and found it informational and mostly civil. I wish the debate was longer so the debaters had more time to go in depth and to take more moderator and audience questions. For example, I don't think this subject can be adequately vetted without addressing that other incentives besides safety/security influence our reasons for wanting to police the world and choices about when/where we put boots on the ground; namely the profit motive.
Great debate! I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but I'm disturbed by the analogy of military intervention as getting rid of a "cancer." This is a way to dehumanize the thousands of children that are killed and mutilated by our bombs, so we can pretend it's not happening and justify war.
We have no business being the world's police when our own country is such a mess.
If the totalitarian countries prevail, our country will be in a worse mess
I’ve often thought that this topic would be easier to discuss if military service were mandatory (like Israel). No dispensation for wealth, influence etc.
Every citizen having skin in the game would result in much different elections and politics in the U.S.
If China can provide me a new shinny BYD for 15k which is something America can't then fine let them win. Long live President Xi! Every politician and corporation in America is beholding to China. China has already won you just will not wake up and see it.
Awful post! China will make you a slave rather than an owner of a shiny auto
I took offense to the man that excused Matt of having a "Self hatred of America". When you start attacking the person and not the substance of the debate you have lost the debate.
The debate didn’t actually fall off the rails. It was never on the rails to begin with.
Absent from the debate was ANY acknowledgment of the MORAL issues behind the policy decisions under consideration.
The debaters talk about the Iraq war being wrong --- but nobody clarifies the actual MORAL issues at play. Nobody is asking who the GOOD guys are and who the BAD guys are, and why.
Until the leaders of Iran (and their Proxies) are identified as evil, as MORALLY evil, then there will be no clear thinking possible when we’re asking ourselves what the US should do --- whether the US should crush the Iranian oppressors, or should merely “police” them, or should just ignore them altogether.
Very good with lots to think about. I believe both sides need to consider the financial costs of policing the world or not doing so, and who is the immediate primary beneficiary of such actions.
I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, the first I have listened to since the FP debate on whether the Israeli-Hamas conflict is a just war. The latter fell apart due to a lack of effective moderation and the absence of anyone preventing Briahna Joy Gray from derailing it with a relentless screaming tantrum.
The stated aim is to model civil disagreement and this requires clear and unequivocal moderation. Fortunately these debaters, with the exception of Kirchick, were civil. For some incomprehensible reason, Bari Weiss at one point encouraged the debaters to be less polite and Kirchick gladly obliged, talking over others and issuing ad-hominem snark. That sort of infantile sandbox behaviour is where I start to stack my decisions as to where to spend my limited funds on paid subscriptions. Life's too short to give my attention to such bad faith behaviour.
Just got to listen in. Thanks for hosting this. Really excellent.
Thanks, Bari, for once again giving us relevant and stimulating content. It seems like in the blink of an eye you have become a leader and a strong intellectual force in the journalism community. I hope the sky is the limit for your endeavors.
Having listened to the debaters, I would say that James Kirchick was head and shoulders above the others as a debater. It is not hyperbole to say that he dominated the debate. His "abolish the police" meme registered powerfully.
The arguments of Matt Taibbi and Lee Fang, IMHO, lacked factual basis and accurate perspective on the motivations of our enemies. MT postulates that US interventions have resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths and misery around the world, which is highly questionable. But his unspoken premise--that these same civilians would have lived in peace and harmony if only the US had not intervened--is completely unfounded. Kirchick makes this argument forcefully citing examples around the world where people desperately sought to escape totalitarian regimes. The best example may be the experience in China. The Communist Party came to power in 1949 as the US, exhausted from its recent experiences in WWII and Korea, withdrew to its own shores. What resulted in China over the next dozen years in Mao's irrational efforts to create a command economy is an unparalleled story of human depravity. Between 1958 and 1962, as Mao implemented his Great Leap Forward to catch up with and overtake the West in less than fifteen years, 45 million Chinese people were worked, starved or beaten to death. (I highly recommend: "Mao's Great Famine, "The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-62" by Frank Dikötter.)
Lee Fang revealed weak logic and poor command of history. His statement about the reason for WWII--French intervention in the Alsace-Lorraine in 1923--is facially preposterous and supported by no respected historians. Likewise, the proposition that one must be in the military (have "skin in the game") to expound on the wisdom of the country's military strength is unsupportable in a constitutional democratic republic. (In fact, a better case can be made for the opposite proposition.)
So you believe in the America should police the world? Does that include your family on the front lines doing the fighting?