Team B (from Outer Space)
Gordon Mitchell, author of Strategic Deception
, has recently penned a paper that investigates the process by which decisions about the quality of American intelligence are made. He highlights the role of Team B, a group of far-right conservatives who routinely debated against Team A, usually consisting of mid-level intelligence analysts. These debates were a commonplace during the cold war, and through a series of enthymemetic narratives that altered the conditions of proof, Team B was able to successfully beat Team A (time and time again) and move foreign policy further and further to the right. The cold war ended, and Team B ended with it. But now Team B is back in the form of the OSP, and the same movements are happening, this time challenging and compromising moderate foreign policy, including the more moderate portions of the Bush Doctrine. Is this structural device possibly to blame for the Iraq intel snafu, rather than some overt desire to lie and deceive? Your thoughts?
posted by hank_14
on Aug 5, 2003 -
- Does Frontier Psychology drive America in a direction that the rest of the world cannot comprehend? Roughly defined as "the effort on the part of Americans to come to grips with untamed elements of nature and, by taming them, to reorganize their society
" We see it everywhere, even in Buffy
. Europe appears to value stability over mobility and change, in opposition to America. Prof. Richard Slotkin
has written extensively about these concepts. An interiew with audio clips is here
Are America's recent domestic and international policy decisions attempts to tame "untamed elements" around it?
posted by Argyle
on Apr 30, 2003 -
When U.S. Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy
"Does the Bible foretell regime change in Iraq? Did God establish Israel's boundaries millennia ago? Is the United Nations a forerunner of a satanic world order?
For millions of Americans, the answer to all those questions is a resounding yes"
"Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition."
posted by thedailygrowl
on Feb 21, 2003 -
It seems that there is some disconnection between the foreign policies of the American administration and the beliefs of a significant part of the population. In many countries, direct action is seen as a normal response. Will that happen here
? Or here
posted by Nicolae Carpathia
on Feb 2, 2003 -
The United States should lead, not dominate.
A piece by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. "From the dawn of human society up to the present time, we have been bedeviled by a persistent curse: the compulsion people feel to define the meaning of their lives in positive terms with reference to those who are like them racially, tribally, culturally, religiously, politically, and by negative reference to those who are different"
posted by four panels
on Dec 19, 2002 -
War With Iraq - As Predictable As Chess
There is still a good chance we can avoid war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein has never won a war, and his military forces surely foresee their own destruction. Numerous assassination attempts by them (some involving the Republican Guard) have failed. They are likely trying again, even now. Therein lies our best hope.
What if they fail again? Then invasion by the U.S. is inevitable.
posted by daHIFI
on Nov 22, 2002 -
US Foreign Policy Goals
- Condoleeza Rice. Only $29.95 from C-SPAN, well worth it. Will clear up many misconceptions. Unfortunately, thanks to macho chest thumping and grunting by prominent talking heads on camera, the Rice message isn't getting across
. (Free transcripts instead of $29.95 tapes might help.) Intelligent criticism of the sea change in foreign policy, from elder statesman George Kennan.
What good does it do us to have information available on the web if we can't afford to buy it?
posted by sheauga
on Oct 3, 2002 -
Pat Buchanan the voice of reason?
in times of insane government decree's of "with us or against us" and "shoot first ask questions later." Its amusing that wackos like Buchanan's viewpoints start making sense. So what is the price of the american empire?
posted by vincentmeanie
on Jun 5, 2002 -
Merchants of Morality Which global injustices gain your sympathy, attention, and money? Rarely the most deserving. For every Tibetan monk or Central American indigenous activist you see on the evening news, countless other worthy causes languish in obscurity. The groups that reach the global limelight often do so at dear cost—by distorting their principles and alienating their constituencies for the sake of appealing to self-interested donors in rich nations.
posted by Rastafari
on Apr 21, 2002 -
U.S. Foreign Policy: Attention! Right Face! Forward, March.
"...with no foreign policy experience, Dubya was essentially a blank slate, and U.S. foreign policy has been up for grabs since he took the oath of office. As everyone now knows, the main contestants consisted of two factions: one headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who represents continuity of policy with both Bush's father and Clinton; the other, led by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose vision is far more sweeping, not to say Manichean. Since September 11, the latter faction has emerged as dominant and is using the 'war against terrorism' to impose its own, quite radical ideas on U.S. foreign policy and the global order. At their core, those ideas call for a world order based on U.S. supremacy and enforced by U.S. military power--a unipolar world in which the U.S. imposes the rules but, because of its own self-evident goodness, is not necessarily bound by them."
Ah, not quite lebensraum
(yet), but "benevolent" Bushists
posted by fold_and_mutilate
on Apr 8, 2002 -
Bush plays peacemaker.
Having refused to honor several international treaties since taking office, the Bush administration sees itself as a legitimate peace broker. Opinions solicited, is this likely to improve the situation or cause it to deteriorate further?
posted by jack-o
on Apr 4, 2002 -
The Next World Order.
A fascinating article suggesting that the new guiding principle of American foreign policy, originally formulated by Cheney and Wolfowitz during the first Bush administration, is the prevention of the rise of any other great power which could rival the U.S.
posted by homunculus
on Mar 27, 2002 -
Naomi ('No Logo') Klein on Charlotte Beers' work to manage the US 'brand'. Sitting outside the US, a lot of what Klein says about external perception of the 'brand' (and of Beers' actions) seems quite believable to me, but I'd be interested in hearing an insider view.
Klein's assertion that "...America's problem is not with its brand-- which could scarcely be stronger--but with its product
" seems relatively solid, and if it is, it seems that Ms Beers' mission is all-but-impossible, or at the very least misdirected.
That said, the thrust of Klein's argument is the assertion that the US's values are basically incompatible with the whole idea of branding, and I'd suggest that the same could be said of many countries. I suppose the point here is that this specific exercise is rooted in the US's positioning of itself in the world at this point in time.
posted by jonpollard
on Mar 18, 2002 -
Chomsky on MSNBC
talks about recent events! That would be news all by itself. I know that a lot of people on the right disagree with him, but who can argue with what he says here? Also from left field an incisive Q&A about Afghanistan history
and the current situation by Tariq Ali.
posted by talos
on Oct 8, 2001 -
"What has America done wrong?
In the days since September 11, its president and people have done nothing but demonstrate dignity and restraint. Bush will lash out, the chatterers said. But he hasn't yet. Bush is a bumbling hick, they sneered. But he isn't."
posted by Steven Den Beste
on Sep 23, 2001 -
This piece counters the arguements of the self-laceration folks who blame the attack upon America as the result of our foreign policy, as though there can be no other explanation for Jihad. An apt title, since we are now seeing the split between far Right, Middle and far Left.
Readers will, no doubt believe or argue with this relative to their perspective.
posted by Postroad
on Sep 21, 2001 -
The positive impact of America
can be overlooked in the chatter of how bin Laden is the bastard offspring of our malicious foreign policy, so the flip side should be highlighted. How about a Nobel peace prize winner who has saved literally millions of lives worldwide, but even 99% of Americans would fail to recognize? What will we reap from his sowing?
posted by quercus
on Sep 18, 2001 -
Another thoughtful article
Open the Washington Post to it's editorial pages, and war talk dominates:
Henry Kissinger: Destroy the Network.
Robert Kagan: We Must Fight This War.
Charles Krauthammer: To War, Not to Court.
William S. Cohen: American Holy War.
There is no column by Colman McCarthy talking peace.
posted by mapalm
on Sep 14, 2001 -
why they hate us
Attack on freedom? On liberty? How about retaliation against the biggest bully on the planet? It's our turn to learn how the other half lives.
excuse this if it is a double post; I didn't find it in search and it's an important article thanks meg
posted by christina
on Sep 13, 2001 -
the answer? We've discussed the inadequacies of various policies. Is the ultimate answer simply to strive to make the Middle East free?
posted by marknau
on Sep 12, 2001 -
that this will be offensive to many (seriously; if I didn't think this was important, I wouldn't post). It's an article linking American foreign policy to the terrible events yesterday.
posted by andrew cooke
on Sep 12, 2001 -
US drone lost over Iraq
- It seems it's only a matter of time before they shoot down a piloted plane (even if by accident). What are we still trying to accomplish over there and what would the reaction be if they succeed?
posted by revbrian
on Aug 27, 2001 -
can states have a foreign policy?
the Supreme Court today will review whether state and local governments can protest human rights in other nations by restricting purchases from companies that operate in those countries. the court will decide whether states, by restricting purchases, are making foreign trade policy, which, under the Constitution, is the duty of the federal government.
posted by palegirl
on Mar 22, 2000 -