That hasn't really happened - the band of major economic and global players just below the US/Russia/China have largely *not* balanced against the USA and continue to show serious skepticism about doing so, even as they are pushed in that direction by POTUS. 6/20
-
-
None of which is to say that the USA, NATO and the USA's other security partners shouldn't be having a hard rethink about what the relationship is for and how it should best be structured for that new reality. Of course we should.... 17/20
Näytä tämä ketju -
But I'd say that NATO provides value worth the cost even when it does *nothing at all.* Now that's a hard sell for the American voter, to be sure. But I don't think it is an impossible sell - should someone want to sell it, and I'd like to see it tried... 18/20
Näytä tämä ketju -
Alternately, we can stick with the current plan, which is 'under/mis-inform the American public, conduct security policy in obscurity wherever possible, and act surprised when we get a fool-isolationist who objects to policies we never bothered to build public support for.' 19/20
Näytä tämä ketju -
...a plan on vivid display with the recent Afghanistan papers. Or, maybe we can try coming up with a overall strategy, explaining it *clearly* to the voters and congress, getting approval for it, so that regular folks understand what something like NATO is for. end/20
Näytä tämä ketju -
I come off harsher than I mean to sound to the Net Assessment podcast folks - their discussion is, I think, well informed and very useful - I am heartbroken that
@ConsWahoo is leaving the podcast. Do give it a listen, link at the top of the thread. end+1/20.Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.