Sat/Med - PM ~ TheFrontPageCover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
'Rise of the Revisionists: 
Russia, China, and Iran'
by Gary J. Schmitt
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Carter Center Sued for Providing Support to Hamas
H-aEdUjOjHJMRQ5ZgT-aAF7SnzNXApGYzxqQFKHd3So2tzjAMXfXoTZIzSRyrNsRDOUffeDfSNe5tEm8o3ncLhCESMtOYV8WFhs2LVpGTWK-sbcNwCRgz53f2M3myFHbFUig_GrIhYOOH-RF0AD6zaM3OqWWC-lH2M022FNxLOFvOggcYNQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450
by Robert Spencer
{ frontpagemag.com } ~ The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that the Zionist Advocacy Center is alleging in a suit that former President Jimmy Carter’s nonprofit organization... the Carter Center, “has used taxpayer funding to provide material support to international terrorist groups, including Hamas.” Given Carter’s longstanding and abundantly established hatred for the Jewish state, this allegation is no great shock. Nonetheless, the specter of an American President’s foundation funding a jihad terrorist group demonstrates how far we have fallen. The Zionist Advocacy Center further alleges that the Carter Center “received more than $30 million in taxpayer grants while violating federal statutes barring it from using the cash to provide material support to terror groups.” Not only that: “The plaintiffs maintain the Carter Center has violated the law by hosting designated terrorists at is facilities, as well as by providing various forms of assistance to the Palestinian terror group Hamas and other known terror entities.” No one who has watched Carter over the years can really be surprised. Back in 2008, Carter claimed that Hamas was prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.” He had no grounds for saying so, and it wasn’t remotely true, but this claim helped him perpetuate the fiction that the Israelis, not the Palestinians, were responsible for the failure of all peace talks and the ongoing tensions between the two...
.
Federal judge dismisses Paul Manafort’s 
civil case against Robert Mueller
qIpUFTcN2MWLaK4DtIo9O_ObNafL_UY_jb5S9dDNFal2b0y5N72zo6KmgsXubjNaAfnZr7IGiQ3D5YpUYSJ-NLwO0EjaGrvDURK04ubd3BuOwo8NM_54k3J44b-UFSQ2gPuxrYDyDFYcbqPuu2Xl0ady8NaNGhCs=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
by Kelly Cohen
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ A federal judge has dismissed the civil case brought by Paul Manafort... in which he argued special counsel Robert Mueller exceeded the scope of his investigation. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing the case against the former Trump campaign chairman in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case in a 24-page court ruling filed Friday. “A civil case is not the appropriate vehicle for taking issue with that a prosecutor has done and where he might be headed in the future,” Jackson wrote. "It is a sound and well-established principle that a court should not exercise its equitable powers to interfere with or enjoin an ongoing criminal investigation when the defendant will have the opportunity to challenge any defect in the prosecution in the trial court or on direct appeal,” she explained. “Therefore, the Court finds that this civil complaint must be dismissed."...  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/federal-judge-dismisses-paul-manaforts-civil-case-against-robert-mueller 
.
65% of White Democrats Don’t Believe 
in ‘All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving’ God
1zOMl6od4Az794lW3AUQHOKBqQTMEkW6EsaXZptdU6_8fCn3pwRjaODjW32gIjhq8gApQ7ref5jKntFp1irXrmRrwCyQY-osU4HGU7top7lNwSBRCGz2Q4cKali7_210E3moLfkPWCvPEx8PkA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
by Craig Bannister 
{ cnsnews.com } ~ Two-thirds (65%) of white Democrats do not believe in a God or higher spiritual power that is “all-knowing... all-powerful, and all-loving,” Pew Research Center reported Wednesday. Pew released results of a new survey of more than 4,700 U.S. adults regarding their views on the existence and nature of “God, higher power or spiritual force” showing that 95% of Republicans and 95% of nonwhite Democrats believe in God/higher power. But, only 78% of white Democrats believe in the existence of God/higher power. And, while two-thirds of both Republicans (67%) and nonwhite Democrats (64%) say God is “all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving,” only a third of white Democrats (35%) share this belief...
.
GOP kills Democratic push to investigate House chaplain ouster
m68V_PSSikEiRiIJqHWnKnkANl4PEtZpJwc4zwtl11qdgCkqofy9TcoYIVOXzm_QU5txiyZRPkRM__S1IpcHylc9S-p4z9lSxMI-5mHQZJg5_TvqkAV4irqCWbGX30-6G7uaGjK0sL5TqXv8Nwv7nlsf7z_UcnbOgMnztetDby5XzevaUbYE6FORtnfrpwPtk4OlcCkOe4ba5_10wxCaSv642LsukxdOTmJ5Y8a26Le1aKZTVWd-uqiUeOyl8QbgObpnGxzgzwX2is4ceCTkPj0cybrM8JSWILZ51WVuav5vzw0K7O_BSW06MjUtlU66APc7947UlDwwMKXPzJlDX3g=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450
by Al Weaver
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ House Republicans on Friday killed a request from Democrats to investigate House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to remove... Rev. Patrick Conroy, who has served as the House chaplain since 2011. Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., brought a privileged resolution to the House floor calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate Conroy's ouster. But Republicans moved to table that resolution, effectively killing it, and almost every Republican supported that motion in the 215-171 vote. Conroy's resignation is effective May 24. The Wisconsin Republican's office has refused to explain why Conroy was removed. But it has rejected the theory from some Democrats that Conroy was removed because of a prayer he offered in November that could be seen as critical of the GOP tax cut...   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/gop-kills-democratic-push-to-investigate-house-chaplain-ouster 
.
North Korea’s phony peace ploy 
vQ6jQNIPPVdJAPySxCBdPYZ0961aW6KY22xb55TZhSIFuOfR0YAZWgNCZrPIxanSAoUVtXo_VP1Rd08yl9Gx1hFIZwW-Z_uVWHnbSHTQfoL_3wKsMc6u3DZ9MDGK7bCQGa-M4-blrdEn1rxcGz17KeBAYetmEAyVEjLTVKWjcz9DL5sJwHxxw-Kcjg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?width=450
by Nicholas Eberstadt 
{ aei.org } ~ When the government of South Korea announced last week that it would begin work on a formal peace treaty with North Korea... to be discussed at a summit meeting on April 27, its so-called Sunshine Policy of engagement gave way to P.T. Barnum-style, a-sucker-born-every-minute diplomacy. Fighting in the Korean War ended in 1953 with just an armistice, and South Korean officials are calling for a “permanent peace.” But it is not merely unrealistic to hope that Kim Jong-un, the leader of the North, will offer the South real and lasting peace; it is delusional. If the past is any guide, the North will offer the South unenforceable verbiage. And if the South accepts a phony peace ploy, it will expose itself to more manipulation by the government in Pyongyang — not only in its domestic politics, but potentially also in its alliance with the United States...  http://www.aei.org/publication/north-koreas-phony-peace-ploy/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpjeU1tVTRNRGN6Tm1ZeiIsInQiOiJKYkVROEthdkRGQzFDWVExTm0wZlFXblwvTDZOSkNlT0poOFwvVmFBMzV6MWJQV2prNFFSM3ZDU3Q3Nm04TUVMSjNhbFUwTm8wSDFxZWx2eG1SbitSbWRcL3BnWlwvQWpFdldaM0xGTHNoWXIxejluZXhadjQ2cDBJeFhXV1JqSTJIUm0ifQ%3D%3D
.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
'Rise of the Revisionists: 
Russia, China, and Iran'
bmaVr7fP0BwsSoj9Q5nb2jh_1JRgcaMA-aO9M495mPJFj8nWgUtQ_JjGMOhH2bcxW9LHY-1i8-lKzzPH0NrzxP8PBwm-UNOcVE_gGKeuLQoBvSmLMg4wB0eKKruVh-VT=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=

by Gary J. Schmitt
{ aei.org } ~ If the vast majority of foreign policy analysts and commentators agree on one thing, it is that "the unipolar moment" has passed. American dominance—be it political, economic, or military—is no longer so overwhelming that history can be said to have ended. To the contrary, the security challenges the US confronts are spread across the globe and are as complex as any the country has faced since its infancy.

While al Qaeda, ISIS, and North Korea present deadly serious problems, America's geopolitical situation is unique in that we are confronted by the rise of revisionist powers in each of the three regions traditionally seen as crucial to our own peace and prosperity and to the larger goal of global stability: Russia in Europe, China in East Asia, and Iran in the Middle East. If the US is to develop effective, sustainable policies that truly serve its national interests, we must first understand the roots and the character of the challenges these three countries pose.

The chapters that follow Frederick Kagan's "Russia: The Kremlin's Many Revisions," Dan Blumenthal's "China: The Imperial Legacy," and Reuel Marc Gerecht's "Iran: The Shi'ite Imperial Power" attempt to spell out the specific nature of each country's revisionist drive and how, broadly speaking, the US and its allies should respond. The volume concludes with Walter Russell Mead's "Not a Trap but a Minefield: The Thucydidean Challenge to American Foreign Policy," which argues that, when properly read, the great Athenian historian's analysis of war, regimes, and statecraft is far richer and more nuanced than what current international relations theorists can offer for coming to terms with China, Iran, and Russia and for understanding the potential and pitfalls of a democratic nation's response.

The essays make no effort to consolidate the revisionist drives of China, Iran, and Russia into one overarching model. Each is unique—a fact that makes America's possible responses no less difficult.

As Kagan notes at the start of his chapter, Russia's revisionist behavior is driven by a trio of factors: overturning what Moscow argues are flawed, unfavorable agreements with former Soviet states; revising what it means to be Russia and Russian; and upending the existing international order. Each would be difficult enough to address alone. Combined, they make doing so even more complicated—but also, Kagan writes, just as necessary: "The superficial validity of some of Russia's grievances must not blind us to this reality. The West must find a way to uphold the settlements of the early 1990s, defend the principles of international law and order, and help Russia settle on a new identity within those parameters."

In the case of China, Blumenthal argues that the People's Republic is intent on revising the balance of power in East Asia by returning China to its central place in the regional order, with its past "imperial" rule defining and guiding its efforts to become East Asia's hegemon. Uniquely, Blumenthal writes, "Beijing rules over the world's last remaining multiethnic empire," and the drive to reclaim "lost" territories and prestige and secure that empire both domestically and internationally explains much of Chinese statecraft. But in key respects, Blumenthal notes, "China is in imperial overstretch," and it should be America's strategy to "begin to take advantage of this."

As for Iran, Gerecht posits that, while the Islamic Republic has seen itself as revolutionary since 1979, the broader Islamic agenda has largely "lost its mojo." It has effectively been replaced by a "militant Shi'ite fraternity" designed to give the regime new legitimacy at home and, potentially, a hegemonic position within the Middle East, by playing the Shi'ite card in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and among the oppressed Shi'a in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. But, Gerecht argues, "Iran is a volcano of [internal] contradictions," and Washington would do well to "accentuate those contradictions, especially the century-old Iranian quest for representative government."

In the concluding essay, Walter Russell Mead explains why international relations realists are inclined to define a state's behavior narrowly. As a result, they do not provide an adequate road map for policymakers to use in developing strategies to confront that behavior. "Thucydides was no realist in the modern, American, and academic sense of that term." Today's realism "is a weak and denatured creature, compared to the complex vision of Thucydidean realism, and the costs to analytic coherence are serious."

Certainly, in the limited sense of physical security, none of the three states can honestly claim their own behavior is driven by fear of an American-led invasion. With the end of the Cold War, both Russia and China were more secure than ever and, indeed, remained secure with the significant decline in military spending by the United States and its allies. Even Iran, which from the revolution onward has defined its foreign policy as anti-American, has never been confronted with an American administration determined to overturn its rule. If Tehran faces a possible military strike by its adversaries, it is largely because of the Islamic Republic's own ambition to acquire nuclear weapons.

In Mead's account, in the world of Thucydides, peoples and leaders are moved by a complex mix of interests, fate, and passions, and "no concept could be less congenial" to the Father of History "than the idea that domestic politics and regime type are largely irrelevant to the study of international relations"—which holds true for both autocratic and liberal regimes. In short, it pays to know, in depth, what is driving a state and its leaders; to understand that those drivers cannot be divorced from a country's internal governance; and to realize that, even with such an understanding, unknown and uncontrollable factors will still intercede to shape and limit any strategy.

As important as it is to keep all this in mind, we should not be blind to the one thing that does tie the three revisionist powers together: ambition. None of the three states has been satisfied with an American-led international order, but their ambitions to challenge that order, at least regionally, were initially constrained by their relative lack of economic and military strength, compared to that of the United States and key allies. With the end of the Cold War, that dominance was unprecedented. America and its treaty-bound partners accounted for more than 70 percent of both world-wide military spending and total global gross domestic product (GDP).

Faced with such dominance, China's strategy was "hide our capabilities and bide our time." Similarly, Russia, humiliated by the loss of its super-power status, had to wait until the spike in oil and gas prices unleashed a flood of new revenue to begin to try to reverse the various "capitulations" Yeltsin and Gorbachev had made to Washington and the West out of Soviet, and then Russian, weakness. And while Iran has never concealed its willingness to challenge the United States, its recent assertiveness is undoubtedly tied to the disarray in American Middle East policy, brought about by its multiyear fumbling in Iraq, half-hearted commitment in Afghanistan, and indecision over Syria and the chaos resulting from the Arab Spring. With the combined decline of American and allied economic and military power in recent years, and a general reluctance to use that power assertively, all three states have seized the opportunity to push their revisionist agenda forward.

Policies designed to satiate each of the three countries have not worked. In the cases of Russia and China, American administrations of both political stripes have tried to reset relations and have invited them to join various world forums (such as the World Trade Organization and G20) and generally to recognize their place in the international system. The results have at best been underwhelming. Although some common interests have emerged that have allowed for some cooperation, broader diverging interests and agendas have undermined any real progress toward either Russia or China accepting the responsibilities of having a seat at the table. They have been willing to take advantage of the international order—especially economically—but unwilling to support that order.

China, Iran, and Russia have each been willing participants in the global trading system. But expectations that such participation might help generate internal reforms or at least moderate behavior internationally have gone unmet. If America faces the problem of its own allies free riding in military affairs, it faces an even greater problem of revisionist states free riding by using the open global economic order to generate revenues to fuel their strategic plans.

Until the sanction regime was tightened appreciably during the Bush and liar-nObama years, Iran not only benefitted from the open global economic order but also used the massive amount of traffic generated by that order to hide its clandestine efforts to acquire needed elements for its weapons program. President Barack liar-nObama hoped that Tehran—freed from sanctions and with its nuclear prospects supposedly postponed for a decade by the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action—might use the intervening period of lessened tensions to establish a modus vivendi with Saudi Arabia in the region and to reestablish normal trading ties with the rest of the world. Although it is too early to pass final judgment on liar-nObama's strategy, it appears that with sanctions removed, Iran's leadership has accelerated its plans for the region.

The question that needs to be asked is: Do the ambitions of the revisionist powers have recognizable limits? That is, are there concessions to be made, spheres of influence to be accepted, or strategies of appeasement or policies of retrenchment to be adopted that might result in a peaceful status quo? History suggests not. Every gain by a rising power results in a new set of uncertainties within the region and new security interests to be taken into account. As has been noted, Rome conquered the known world with one "defensive" war after another. Success typically opens the door to greater ambition, not less. Building on gains is what rising powers do.

Although the US might for some short time concede greater sway in a region to a revisionist power, the immediate neighbors are not likely to take this advance with equanimity. Either they will take their turn at appeasement, stoking the revisionist power's own views of what it can get away with, or those who can will build up their own military capabilities in response. With Russia and China having nuclear arsenals and Iran potentially on its way to joining them, it is not hard to imagine any number of countries countering with their own weapons programs—programs and capabilities over which the US will have little or no say. A proliferating nuclear arms race is not a recipe for stability.

When a regime's character is factored in, tensions appear virtually inevitable. China, Iran, and Russia all assert a civilizational challenge to the Western liberal democratic order. It is difficult to know how deeply the three countries' general populations hold their leaders' views, but for the leadership in each, ideology is certainly an important source of legitimacy for their non-liberal rule at home.

Coexistence with prosperous, relatively powerful democratic neighbors, whose own relations are largely based on the trust and norms that come from similarity of rule, is a circle hard to square. Even Iran, whose neighborhood is hardly filled with liberal democratic states, must continually strive to keep Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria in a state of chaos, lest a more liberal, majoritarian Shi'ite state emerge and threaten the Islamic Republic's claims to be the only legitimate form of rule for its sect. And the notion that a nation carries a special civilizational role becomes even more important for the leadership to sustain when their ability to meet domestic needs and expectations appears to come up short—a problem Russia, Iran, and, increasingly, China have had.

Of course, the question is: Why should we care? None of the three states directly threatens the United States. Indeed, arguably, if relations are tense, it is largely because Washington has pushed back against revisionist efforts—often about matters far from our shores and at times over issues for which we have no formal opinion for example, about who has sovereignty over this or that islet in the South China Sea, no treaty obligation as with Georgia or Ukraine, or no historical tie as in Syria.

The answer is that, since World War II's end, Washington has understood that, strategically, Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East are the three most important theaters to the United States and that general peace and global prosperity depend on deterring non-liberal, would-be hegemons from disrupting those regions' stability. If history is any guide, the lesson learned has been that ignoring trouble on those fronts only postpones the difficulty and raises the cost of eventually dealing with it.

Arguably, the Middle East is less important today for the United States, given changing oil and gas markets in the United States. But even so, instability in the region can affect the global energy picture and hence the world economy, provide openings for terrorism directed at the West, threaten Israel, generate a massive refugee crisis, and produce an arms race that may end with more states attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. American administrations have at various times and for various reasons tried to disentangle the US from the Middle East, but absent US engagement, the region inevitably becomes more anarchic, not less, and generates problems from which Washington has not been able to walk away.

That said, the US faces two major problems in addressing the three revisionist powers in these three key theaters.

The first and most obvious problem is that the revisionist powers are there. From a geostrategic perspective, the historical advantage of being separated from Eurasia by two large oceans becomes an obstacle to the US when it comes to creating credible deterrents.

But rather than worry about sustaining a costly forward presence, strategists have offered "offshore balancing" as an alternative. Under this strategy the US will only intervene when one or more powers threaten to gain a hegemonic advantage in a region.

But deciding when to intervene is never easy, since it almost always comes with the prospect of conflict. As a result, democracies in particular are apt to delay intervention until the circumstances are even less advantageous. Moreover, effective and decisive intervention from offshore still requires a military force second to none.

The second major issue is that the costs of deterring another power are clear and felt upfront, but the benefits are unclear and delayed. Arguments in favor of deterrence speculate about what might happen if the US steps back from its forward presence, but until something untoward happens, it remains conjecture. When the public has fresh memories of failing to stop an ambitious power and the country has had to pay for that failure with a costly conflict, it is easier to convince that same public and its representatives that forward-leaning deterrence is the right course. But successful deterrence can also breed complacency—the feeling that the peace and prosperity brought about by that strategy is the natural order of things, not a result of policy decisions made and sustained.

Moreover, it can be difficult to maintain a credible deterrent when the issue at stake—be it territory or some aspect of international law—is important to regional stability but is, at first glance, of only secondary interest to the United States. Such efforts can look even more speculative and costly to the public when, as has been the case in recent years, they have been poorly conducted or inadequately thought through.

Undoubtedly, the Great Recession of 2008 and the costly, indecisive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have soured large segments of the American public and their representatives on adopting a forward-leaning American strategic posture. With economic problems at home following the recession of 2008, the benefits of such efforts have appeared less than satisfactory.

But this invites two questions: What would the regional and geopolitical situations have been if Washington had not acted? And, as noted already, were the indecisive results a product of strategic overreach, flawed implementation, or a lack of sustained commitment to the task at hand—or some combination of these? The point is not that a forward-leaning posture can prevent costly policy mistakes but rather that one should not simply assume that the larger strategy is to blame for those mistakes.

Nor should we assume that we cannot afford a forward-leaning strategy for Eurasia. Although its primacy is more contested today than in the after-math of the Cold War, the United States remains the world's only superpower. And while the West—the US and its democratic allies—has seen its overwhelming share of global economic and military power shrink in recent years, it still accounts for some 60 percent of the world's wealth and military spending. Moreover, although the contesting, revisionist powers have the advantage of operating in their own neighborhoods—meaning the US has the more complex and diverse task of responding to challenges far from home—the US has significant, close allies in each region that have begun to spend more on their militaries in the face of the threats posed by China, Iran, and Russia.

Nor have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan bankrupted the US. At the height of the campaigns, total defense spending personnel, procurement, operations, etc. as a percentage of GDP never rose above 5 percent, well below Cold War levels. Today, the base defense budget hovers at 3 percent or less.

In short, if the US and its allies wanted to do more to contest these revisionist powers in the realm of hard military power, they could. It is really a matter of policy choices and priorities.

To take the revisionist challenge seriously requires the American body politic to relearn the value of American leadership in defending the liberal order it largely created after World War II. It requires political leaders to make the case for the benefits that leadership and primacy bring to America. Like an understanding and appreciation of American government itself, this is something that every generation of Americans must re-learn. Left untaught, it—and the historical memory of its import—will fade.

If there is any "good news" here, it is that recent administrations' decisions to pull back from America's traditional leadership role, to retrench, and to lead from behind have not resulted in a less problematic world. To the contrary, China, Iran, and Russia have all read Washington's reluctance as an opportunity to advance their own plans and have done so in a manner that the American public has noticed. Even absent a major confrontation, American politicians may sense greater instability and greater prospects for conflict. This may lead them to argue the case for reversing course and, with the help of our allies, obtaining the benefits of deterring and containing the revisionist powers. To paraphrase Tocqueville, when it comes to American statecraft, Americans need to relearn the merits of acting on "self-interest rightly understood"—that is, looking not simply to one's immediate interest, but understanding that today's sacrifice may produce a longer-term and more substantial advantage.

But the task at hand is even more complex. China, Iran, and Russia are political models that, at their core, challenge the idea of liberal democracy. Each in its own way sees itself in civilizational opposition to the liberal West, of which the United States is the most prominent exemplar. So the competition cannot be reduced to material and arms. The spirited rejection of liberalism—a seemingly inevitable and repeating byproduct of liberalism's success—needs to be met with a renewed attachment to liberal democracy and the liberal order it fosters.

What sustained America in its fights against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was not simply the threat they posed but the view that there was something exceptional about our way of life that deserved to be preserved and spread, where possible. Ronald Reagan's call to "tear down this wall" was not so much a specific policy proposal as the spirited advancement of an agenda around which the US and its democratic allies could rally.

It may be, as President liar-nObama once suggested, that all nations consider themselves exceptional. But by definition they cannot all be exceptional. And more to the point, such relativism undermines the sense of right that must ultimately animate any democratic statecraft that aims to be sustainable over time. In fine, resisting the rise of the revisionist powers requires knowledge of the character of those states, an understanding of the benefits in doing so, a sense of how best to go about the task, and, finally, as Abraham Lincoln might say, a singular dedication to the proposition that liberal democracy is the most just form of government and that its preservation and advancement is good both for us and for the world.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center