Suchergebnisse

Disruptive environmental protest has become a hugely controversial issue in the UK, both politically and legally. It is likely to be a wedge issue in the upcoming General Election. Both major political parties are talking tough on the issue, and the government has instituted draconian new laws. The courts, for their part, are permitting ever more 'Mega Persons Unknown injunctions' and imposing increasingly longer prison terms for peaceful – but disruptive – protests. Part of this is an international trend, caused by the indisputable evidence of global warming and the increasingly activist environmental movement. But from a UK practitioner's perspective, it is deeply worrying that there are now a large number of peaceful protesters in the prison system, or facing huge bills for legal costs, or both.

An American envoy and a Bahraini academic posed for the camera at a Washington hotel in October 2020, grinning ear to ear. They held a copy of an agreement between the U.S. State Department and the King Hamad Global Center for Peaceful Coexistence to combat antisemitism in Bahrain. Ellie Cohanim, then the U.S. assistant special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, called it "a model for a society that actively espouses religious freedom, tolerance and diversity of peoples."Thousands of miles away, in Bahrain itself, Sheikh Zuhair Jasim Abbas was sitting in a solitary confinement cell. His family had not heard from him since July. They would not again for several more months. According to a UN panel, the Shi'a Muslim cleric was allegedly beaten, starved, sleep-deprived, chained, attacked with water hoses, forbidden from using the bathroom, threatened with execution, and prevented from practicing his religious rituals.The Abraham Accords, the diplomatic agreements between Israel, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, have been hailed as a victory for religious tolerance. The image of Muslims and Jews dancing together has convinced American policymakers from both parties that peace is breaking out across the Middle East. The Biden administration is reportedly offering the Saudi government a huge bribe — perhaps even a commitment to go to war on the kingdom's behalf — to get Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords as well.New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman seems to sum up the Biden administration's logic: that a Saudi-Israeli agreement would "open the way for peace between Israel and the whole Muslim world" and "dramatically reduce the Muslim-Jewish antipathy born over a century ago with the start of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict."But the Abraham Accords are attached to a social order that is deeply unequal, divided along ethnic and religious lines. While Israel allows foreign Muslims to visit Jerusalem, it rules over millions of Palestinians against their will. (That conflict is more about nationalism in the here and now than "Muslim-Jewish antipathy.") And while some monarchies in the Persian Gulf are beginning to embrace foreigners of different religions, those same states — especially Bahrain — treat their native Shi'a Muslims as a potential fifth column.For the past few years, some of the Gulf monarchies have been engaged in a project to replace Israel with Iran as the main enemy of the Arab masses. On one hand, these countries have repressed pro-Palestine activism and promoted an image of Palestinians as parasitic ingrates. On the other hand, they have encouraged fears of Iranian power, often conflating Iran with Shi'a Muslims as a whole. Israel has encouraged both prejudices as part of its outreach to Middle Eastern publics. Rather than a victory for religious tolerance, the Abraham Accords are the culmination of an attempt by Israel and its new Gulf allies to rearrange their official enemy lists.In 2018, as Israel was beginning direct talks with Emirati and Bahraini diplomats, Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee turned into a fountain of anti-Shi'a incitement. Quoting medieval Sunni scholars, Adraee claimed on video that Shi'a Muslims are "fundamentally hypocrites and liars who invent falsehoods to ruin Islam." A few months later, he complained that Iran is "transforming citizens into Shi'a" across the Arab world.After the Abraham Accords were signed, Adraee ranted that Sunni Palestinians who prayed alongside Shi'a were leaving the fold of Sunni Islam: "How do these 'believers' justify praying behind those who stab the back of the Sunni world?" The spirit of Muslim-Jewish reconciliation, with its emphasis on interfaith photo ops, clearly does not apply to Sunni-Shi'a relations.It's worth noting that, although Iran is the largest Shi'a-majority state, most Shi'a Muslims live outside of Iran, in India, Pakistan, and the Arab world. And religious Shi'a have been at the forefront of resisting the Iranian theocracy, both inside and outside Iran. However, casting all Shi'a as Iranian agents serves a political purpose. Unrest in areas like eastern Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, where the majority of the population is Shi'a, can be dismissed as foreign terrorism, rather than a case of Arab citizens demanding equal rights. In the words of one Saudi commentator, Arabs who embrace Shi'a identity politics "have sadly become Persian."While trying to terrify Sunnis about the Iranian menace, the Israeli government has also worked to turn Iranians against Palestinians. Last year, when a few Iranian protesters were filmed stomping on a Palestinian symbol, the Israeli foreign ministry loudly promoted that image. The ministry's Persian-language account is filled with sarcastic jokes about the "oppressed Palestinians," along with claims that "they teach hatred and violence" to their children.As the Abraham Accords were finalized, the Gulf states that moved closer to Israel also began to take more of an anti-Palestinian line. Americans celebrated, and rightfully so, when Saudi television or the Emirati school system presented a more sympathetic view of Jews. At the same time, however, Saudi and Emirati media figures got louder about what they considered Palestinian "treachery." In the words of a Saudi soap opera character, the average Palestinian is an ingrate who "doesn't appreciate you standing by him, who curses you day and night — more than the Israelis." Given the heavy censorship that Saudi and Emirati media are subject to, this change in tone must have reflected official policy. Just as political concerns led Gulf states to tone down anti-Jewish prejudice, different political concerns could lead them to tone down other prejudices. At times when Israeli authorities aggressively asserted their sovereignty over Islamic holy sites — especially under the ultra-nationalist Israeli government elected in 2022 — the Gulf has returned to a more pro-Palestine tone. After Saudi Arabia mended ties with Iran earlier this year, Saudi authorities loosened restrictions on Shi'a pilgrims, and prominent Saudi propagandist Hussain al-Ghawi embraced Shi'a as his Muslim brothers. Ironically, American media did not celebrate the Saudi-Iranian pact as the dawn of religious harmony, but instead raised the alarm that Washington was losing its influence in the region.The American cultural understanding of the Middle East is centered on Israel, and anti-Palestinian racism is normalized in U.S. politics. On the other hand, Washington views Sunni-Shi'a sectarianism as a geopolitical game. During the occupation of Iraq and the decades of war that followed, U.S. policymakers treated "Sunni" and "Shi'a" like pieces on a chessboard, debating which side to favor at any given time. Instead of seeing this sectarianism as a terrible policy failure, U.S. politicians blamed Muslims' own attachment to "tribalism" and "conflicts that date back millennia," as former President Barack Obama put it.And so the Abraham Accords help flatter American elites. Israel and its Gulf allies can make a big show of overcoming Muslim-Jewish tensions — which Americans see as the central moral question of the Middle East — with U.S. support. The other prejudices involved in maintaining the system simply don't register on Americans' radar.Other states are starting to appeal to the West through the same strategy. Azerbaijan is fighting a brutal ethnic conflict against Armenia. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani government has made a big show of hosting foreign Christian and Jewish delegations. Those guests often go on to praise Azerbaijan as an oasis of Muslim tolerance — rather than a secular nationalist dictatorship whose ethnic hatred of Armenians outweighs any religious concern.It's noble to want American diplomats to resolve conflicts and promote harmony between religions. But the Abraham Accords are intentionally misleading in that regard. Under the guise of peacemaking, the alliance helps authoritarian governments maintain divisions, albeit among communities that U.S. elites don't care about. The real path to peace comes through justice and mutual respect, not simply rearranging enemy lists.

The United Nations (UN) deploys peacekeepers worldwide to help build peace and security. Meanwhile, a serious problem persists: sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) perpetrated by peacekeepers. Despite extensive efforts, including codes of conduct, sanctions, and training, reports of sexual abuse by peacekeepers continue within mission contexts. By drawing on UN documents aiming at ending SEA by regulating peacekeepers' behaviour, this blog article examines the gender dimensions of the rules. I argue that a military masculinity culture is reflected in the UN rules that perpetuate instead of fight the risk of SEA.
Author information





Julia Sigrid Radke



Julia Radke ist Praktikantin im Projekt "Coercion in Peacebuilding" und studiert Politikwissenschaften im Master an der Uppsala Universität in Schweden. // Julia Radke is an intern within the "Coercion in Peacebuilding" project and a master student of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden.

|



Der Beitrag Beyond Zero Tolerance: The Persisting Challenge of Sexual Abuse by UN Peacekeepers erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Even at schools with solid speech policies, many students show little tolerance for opposing political beliefs.

On Thursday, news broke that the German government had agreed to incorporating the previously rejected Crisis Regulation into the EU's new asylum and migration pact. The decision was a radical change of course since Germany had previously consistently opposed its inclusion. Framed as allowing for more 'flexibility' in case of migratory surges, the Crisis Regulation's adoption will, in effect, suspend the EU asylum system as we know it for the time being, given that recorded sea arrivals are currently nearing the 2015 levels. A crisis in need of regulation, if you will.
In this blogpost, I highlight the dangerous fallacy that underpins our tolerance for the illegality that has come to characterize contemporary border control. In particular, our failure to oppose the constant expansion of the limits of the law that occurs in the name of crisis and political necessity rests on the mistaken assumption that we have nothing to lose in this race to the bottom.

By now, it should be obvious to just about everyone that goods whose availability we once took for granted are in short supply. Blame COVID-19 lockdowns affecting countries where these goods are being produced, a breakdown in air/sea/land transport logistics, and so on. The pre-COVID-19 world was built on distributing manufacturing facilities where things could be made most efficiently, assuming fairly inexpensive shipping even across vast distances. Is that world now gone? We'll have to wait and see if and when the pandemic subsides. In the meantime, here's another not-quite-amusing example for those encountering these shortages: A few days ago, I noticed that my supplies for the exercise supplement creatine monohydrate were running low. I experienced sticker shock while scanning current selling prices. Briefly, what creatine does is replenish the body's supply of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which fuels muscle contractions such as while performing resistance training. It turns out that most of creatine's precursors come from (surprise!) China. As many of you are probably aware, China has taken a zero tolerance approach to confronting COVID-19 outbreaks. With production centers and major port cities not immune to these recurrent lockdowns, creatine supplies have taken a hit. Here is a detailed and enlightening discussion of the ongoing creatine shortage from the Natural Products Insider:Strict export regulations and regional COVID-related limitations are
slowing China-originating supply chains for two top sports nutrition
energy ingredients, caffeine and creatine. Outside of China, suppliers
and manufacturers are clamoring to beef up inventories of these
increasingly hard-to-find materials but face steeply rising prices for
whatever supply they can secure [...] Similarly, the price of creatine has risen from its consistent $4 per kilo to between $10 and $14/kg.There is more good detail: More unique to the sports nutrition industry is creatine, which
factors into energy production in the body and is popular with core
market users, namely bodybuilders and athletes looking to boost muscle,
performance and recovery. "There is a worldwide creatine shortage," confirmed Jeff Golini,
Ph.D., executive scientist for All American Pharmaceutical, who
confirmed all the raw material to manufacture creatine comes out of
China, meaning this shortage impacts all forms of creatine, from
monohydrate to hydrochloride (HCl).

Thus, while suppliers such as AlzChem Trostberg GmBh (Creapure) and
All American Pharmaceutical (Kre-Alkalyn) make their ingredients in
Germany and Montana, respectively, their starter materials come out of
China, placing even these suppliers in the impact zone. What's behind the shortage is not quite clear and asking different
"insiders" results in varying answers, including lots of guesswork and
perspectives.

Vitajoy sells both caffeine and creatine, and Crane said as far as he
can tell the shortage is related to the pandemic. His sources suggested
COVID-related issues in the northern area of China, where most creatine
factories reside, caused production facility closures. "I believe that
is what might have started the ball rolling," he reasoned. "From there
it was reported that there were some starting material issues and,
before you knew it, any availability in creatine was gone."

Worse yet, the US-China trade conflict seems to be worsening availability:  Golini attributed the shortage to changing world politics, including
the recent U.S. presidential administration transition, and the ongoing
global power struggle involving trade. "China now is saying we have a
shortage of everything in order to re-control the world market, create
demand and raise pricing," he said. "From creatine to resins to make
plastics to pipe to erythritol to you name it."

"Creatine is $14/kg if you can find it," Kneller lamented. Crane noted pricing went from around $4 to more than $8/kg in a
matter of months. "We feel like we might be seeing some daylight
regarding supply in the coming months, but it's hard to pinpoint exactly
when," he reasoned. Golini sees a longer struggle. "This shortage for creatine—as a
matter of fact, there is none [available]—will continue this entire
year, and you will see pricing go through the roof," he warned.Then there are the aforementioned regional shutdowns for COVID-19 containment--including areas crucial for creatine supply chains. These include Wuhan itself:

Creatine producers appear
concentrated in the northeastern province of Hebei, near the Yellow Sea
separating China from both Koreas and Japan [...] In January 2021, Chinese officials locked down the city of Shijiazhuang,
the capital Hebei, and other areas of the province due to a COVID
outbreak. Hebei Hangwang Import and Export Trading Co. Ltd., Sure
Chemical Co. Ltd. Shijiazhuang and other creatine producers are located
in this city. However, this restriction was lifted March 25, leaving only the city of Wuhan, Hebei, still under a lockdown that was lifted April 7. According to Made in China, several creatine suppliers are located in Wuhan, where COVID was first detected in China.

The bottom line is supply chain disruptions have become more common
and rolling over the past several years due, among several reasons, to
trade wars and the pandemic. Many supplement companies have grown to
accept this fact, take steps to be better prepared and hope situations
improve. "We expect global supply chain disruptions to follow COVID," Titlow
summarized. "The better COVID is managed (e.g. vaccines), the better the
supply chain."There's even an amusing video online about bodybuilders regarding the creatine shortage as a harrowing event of enormous proportions. These are not quite the best of times for global supply chains; that much is clear.

Normal
0




false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
















































































































































































































































































































































































































/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}





I'm
a political scientist—with an emphasis on the science.  I've viewed my role in the public sphere as inserting
into debates what political scientists have learned about political processes
and institutions—and to try to keep both sides faithful to the empirics. At
heart, I've always been a skeptic and my training as a political scientist
makes me even more so. I'm not one to join partisan frays. It's not my style. I just go where data lead.



The election of Donald Trump, someone who had zero political
experience, certainly sent my skepticism into high gear given the data. Limited
political experience does not often equate with political success. One major
exception is Dwight David Eisenhower, but he is the exception who proves the
rule. Eisenhower was an exceptional student of leadership and, as Supreme
Allied Commander in Europe, developed a well-honed ability to convince,
negotiate and compromise with many talented, egoistic generals as they fought
the Third Reich to rid the world of Nazism.


During the fall campaign, a video of historian David
McCullough made the rounds on social media. I've long admired McCullough's accessible
and well-written history, especially his biography of Truman.





In the video, McCullough draws our attention to Eisenhower's
four qualities of leadership, noting that Trump exhibited none of those
qualities. He had neither character, ability, experience, nor responsibility. In
short, McCullough did not believe Trump was suited for the presidency. He
was especially not suited to articulating a clear moral purpose and acting as
the conciliator in chief in times of national sorrow and crisis.



Trump's repeated failure as a leader over the past eight
months should not surprise. He was as prepared for the presidency as I am to do any kind of home or car repair.



Yet the president can be a poor leader and the nation can survive:
We managed the ineptitude of Hoover and Carter. What is most troubling is that
Trump himself, through apparently carefully contrived acts, may be encouraging
values antithetical to the Republic itself.



That causes me great alarm and concern, as it should every
American regardless of party.



There are certain moral certainties, bright lines in the
sand, that are not debated in civilized society. Racism, white supremacy, and support
for Nazism are among them. No race, no people, no ethnicity is superior to any
other. Advocating violence against someone else because they are different than
you is wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong. Full stop.



An easy test of leadership, methinks, is denouncing
yesterday's terrible events in Charlottesville with clarity and precision. "Nazism,
racism, and violence are acts of terrorism, and have no place in our Republic
and receive my strongest condemnation" would've been a good start. Perhaps you might have taken a cue from Vice President Pence, who had no problem naming who was the blame for yesterday's events: "We have no tolerance for hate and violence from white supremacists,
neo-Nazis or the KKK," said Pence, calling them "dangerous fringe groups" today in Colombia.



Instead, the President issued a statement that was ambiguous
at best, but spoke volumes: Calling out racism, Nazism, and white supremacy wasn't
on the table. Best case? He's a coward and inept. I'm less inclined to believe this is the case: He's spoken out clearly concerning acts of terrorism undertaken by Muslims in the past. And Trump certainly has no trouble telling us what he thinks most of the time. That leaves the worst case: He's sympathetic
to their cause.


Many Americans voted for Trump because they were angry at
what they believe our country had become. Others voted for Trump simply because
he was the Republican nominee. Still others voted for him because they couldn't
stomach Hillary Clinton. It is not for me to judge a person who voted for
Trump. That's their business, and frankly, that's water under the bridge



We've seen Trump can't stomach doing what's right when the
path is clear, and may be conspiring with forces seeking to undermine the very
foundation of our Republic. It doesn't matter how you voted, but how you answer
the question: "What now?"



If you are troubled with what you've seen, at least we have
a constitutional system with multiple points of access. Write to the president;
tell him how you feel (although I'm skeptical that would matter). Write to your congressional delegation: Remember,
ambition counters ambition in our system of separated (but shared) powers. Write
to your state parties and tell them to make changes to the primary system that
will make it more likely better candidates survive the nomination process
(ironically, that may mean a little less democracy in the primaries and more
control to party elites who were overwhelmingly opposed to Trump). But do
something. Be heard, while you still can.



We have a democracy. That is, as Ben Franklin said, as long
as we can keep it. We've kept it for more than 200 years.



Whether we keep it for another 200 depends on the choices
you make now.



Just in case you need a refresher course on leadership, here's
how great leaders should behave:



1.      
Responsibility. Eisenhower, on the eve of D-Day,
prepared this statement should the landings fail:









"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed
to gain a satisfactory foothold and I

 have  withdrawn
the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on  the  best information available. The troops, the
air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches
to the attempt it is mine alone."



2.      
Character. George W. Bush after 9-11.





3.      
Ability and Experience. LBJ and the Voting
Rights Act.





4.      
Fortitude. Ronald Reagan in Berlin at the
Brandenburg Gates.





5.      
All of the Above. Churchill. 1940, as France
fell and Britain stood alone.





Ask our members of Congress to display the leadership our President will not.

Mustafa Akyol and Neal McCluskey


America's culture wars are sometimes perceived as conflict between "conservatives," who defend the values of white Christians, and "progressives," who defend the rights of minorities. But there is something new these days complicating this always too‐​simple dichotomy: Some minorities are also quite conservative in their moral standards, and they are raising their voices against impositions from the progressive side.
This is evident in ongoing protests by Muslim and Christian families, among others, from Maryland to Los Angeles, against public schools pushing lessons about gender and sexuality that contradict religious values. "Protect our children" these families have called together, adding, "Protect religious freedom."
On June 24, in National Review, we highlighted this new development in a co‐​authored article: "Defuse the Culture War with Liberated Education."
First, we argued that the newly emerging Muslim‐​Christian alliance for traditional values offers interesting lessons:
There are lessons for both political camps. America's assertive progressives should realize that theirs is a counterproductive campaign. By advancing their ideals through assertion and coercion, instead of persuasion, they are alienating many people, including some minorities they claim to defend. Among Muslims, they are also giving ammunition to hardliners, who preach that Western freedom is a lie, that it only means freedom from religion and tradition, and thus Muslims should reject it everywhere.

On the other hand, America's conservatives should reconsider their distance from minorities, including a rigid stance against immigration, symbolized by Donald Trump's famous "Build the Wall" campaign. Those on the political right should realize that they may well share values with some of the people that they want to push behind that wall.

Then, we also proposed a solution to these increasingly intense culture wars in American education:
We believe that the best strategy is to keep government out of decisions about values and culture whenever possible, including — perhaps especially — in education, which is about nothing less than shaping human minds. This requires allowing more choice, so families can decide for themselves what their kids will learn. Instead of diverse people being forced to fight, they can freely pursue what they think is right.

The solution, in other words, was in going back to the classical liberal foundations of America:
Government should not discriminate against LGBTQ individuals, nor should it discriminate against people with traditional values. The only way to treat all equally, while advancing genuine tolerance, is the good old American value of limited government.

Read the whole article here in National Review. Read more about School Choice here. And see our catalogue of culture war in public schools – the Public Schooling Battle Map – here.

Prospects for democratic gains in West Africa have taken two major hits so far in 2024. First, on January 28, the military-ruled Sahelian countries Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger announced their withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional economic and diplomatic bloc. Second, on February 3, Senegal's term-limited President Macky Sall unilaterally postponed the country's presidential elections, scheduled for February 25; a pliant legislature voted two days later to place the new election date on December 15.The U.S., which has looked to ECOWAS as the key front-line diplomatic actor in responding to West Africa's crises, has cause for concern as well as reasons for reflection — especially about how its aversion to seriously criticizing civilian incumbents has helped lead to this juncture.The crises in Senegal and within ECOWAS are interrelated in several ways. ECOWAS has been vocal but severely inconsistent in attempting to uphold democratic norms in the region. ECOWAS intervened militarily to oust longtime Gambian President Yahaya Jammeh after he conceded his country's 2016 elections but then tried to reverse that decision; the intervention represented the high-water mark of ECOWAS's enforcement power in recent years. Before and after, however, ECOWAS reacted tepidly to relatively blatant power grabs and executive overreach by West African leaders, setting the stage for coups and other forms of upheaval.Civilian presidents' overreach included several instances in which legal systems targeted prominent opposition figures at moments that were highly politically convenient for incumbents; for example, in Niger under President Mahamadou Issoufou and in Senegal under Sall. ECOWAS had little criticism to make of those maneuvers, or of dubious third term bids by leaders in Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire, or of a deeply flawed legislative election in Mali, all of which took place in 2020.Post-election discontent contributed directly to coups in Mali (2020) and Guinea (2021), suggesting that ECOWAS's (and Western powers') reluctance to criticize civilian incumbents can actually feed, rather than tamp down, political instability. ECOWAS's tolerance of civilian overreach also weakened its credibility when negotiating with coup-makers in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and Niger, and that same tolerance has also likely been one factor emboldening Sall in his recent decision to postpone Senegal's elections. ECOWAS has also lost face through its unsuccessful sanctions regime against Mali in 2022, which failed to bring that country's junta to heel, and through some members' threats to invade Niger after the 2023 coup (and subsequent and ongoing detention of president Mohamed Bazoum and his family) there. Those threats were both reckless to make and embarrassing to abandon.The Sahelian juntas' decision to leave ECOWAS has raised numerous questions about the bloc's future, as well as the future of other West African regional organizations, such as the West African Monetary Union (a group of Francophone countries with a common currency); so far, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have not left the latter organization. Nonetheless, the three Sahelian states' departures takes a substantial swath of territory out of ECOWAS's zone, although the economic impact could be felt more in the Sahel than in the rest of West Africa, given that the former relies upon the latter (for ports and migrant workers' remittances, among other things) more than West Africa relies upon the Sahel. Pulling out of ECOWAS also lets the juntas delay transitions to civilian rule even longer, and saps ECOWAS's influence over its remaining member states.The disruptions to Senegal's electoral calendar, meanwhile, threaten to set that country back significantly. Senegal's democracy has been imperfect, to say the least: the country experienced de facto (and, for a time, de jure) single-party rule for its first 40 years, and, following the unprecedented opposition victory by Abdoulaye Wade in 2000, it took a massive popular mobilization to ensure that Wade ultimately conceded the 2012 election when his own time was up.Sall's tenure has been marked, as noted above, by a series of aggressive court cases against whoever the president's key rival happened to be at a given moment, with three prominent figures at various times banned from contesting elections. Nevertheless, Senegal's democracy is no sham, and the country enjoys several rare distinctions in the region, notably the lack of a successful military coup — and until 2024, no presidential election had been postponed there.Sall had already, with apparent reluctance, pledged not to seek a third term, and the 2024 election was expected to be (and perhaps still will be) a coronation of his hand-picked successor, Prime Minister Amadou Ba. Yet the postponement raises fears that Sall may have other maneuvers planned. It also establishes the precedent of putting the president above institutional rules.The United States government issued a fairly firm statement raising concerns about the postponement, the security forces' harsh treatment of opposition politicians, and the government's clampdown on internet access. The statement could have gone further by naming Sall, rather than referring amorphously to "the Government of Senegal." Presumably American officials are also working behind the scenes to pressure Sall to hold the election and not let the date slip any further than December 15. And hopefully officials are threatening actual consequences if that doesn't happen.This moment should also invite reflection, however, on how events reached this point. The full diplomatic record is not available to the public, of course, but if American officials did not earlier make pointed criticisms regarding the legal system's treatment of Sall's opponents, then they missed a key opportunity to prevent the scenario that is unfolding now. From what this outside observer can tell, American officials have typically contented themselves with a superficial stability in various West African countries, and have elevated some countries (Senegal and Niger, in recent years, and even more recently, Cote d'Ivoire) to "darling" status — with a correspondingly gentle approach to leaders there.As the Sahel dives into an even darker political period, with juntas arresting dissidents and independent voices right and left, and as Senegal teeters, American officials should be even quicker to offer constructive criticism to their remaining friends in the region — lest things deteriorate further.

David Boaz


Here we go again. Another "obituary" for libertarianism. While Salon Magazine declares that we all live in a "libertarian dystopia," and a new brand of big‐​government conservatives promise to free the Republican party and American government from their libertarian captivity, Barton Swaim declares in the Wall Street Journal that a new book "works as an obituary" for libertarianism. That's not a characterization that I think the authors—Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi—would accept of their book, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism.
Swaim notes that the book surveys many different kinds of self‐​styled libertarians over the past two centuries, and that the authors lay out six "markers" that libertarians share: property rights, individualism, free markets, skepticism of authority, negative liberties, and a belief that people are best left to order themselves spontaneously. Not a bad list, significantly overlapping with the list of seven key libertarian ideas that I laid out in the first chapter of my own book, The Libertarian Mind.
He goes on to argue, following the authors, "In the 21st century, the movement in the U.S. has consisted in an assortment of competing, often disputatious intellectual cadres: anarchists, anarcho‐​capitalists, paleo‐​libertarians (right‐​wing), 'liberaltarians' (left‐​wing) and many others." Somehow he leaves out actual libertarians, such as those who populate the Cato Institute, Reason magazine, the Objectivist world, and much of the Libertarian Party. Indeed, a few lines later he cites the "diversity" of "the priestess of capitalism Ayn Rand, the politician Rand Paul and the billionaire philanthropist Charles Koch"—none of whom would fall into any of the esoteric categories that he suggests make up modern libertarianism and in fact belong to actual libertarianism or its penumbras.
The whole review is ahistorical. Swaim never mentions classical liberalism, the revolutionary movement that challenged monarchs, autocrats, mercantilism, caste society, and established churches beginning in the 18th century. Liberalism soon swept the United States and Western Europe and ushered in what economic historian Deirdre McCloskey calls the "Great Enrichment," the unprecedented rise in living standards that has made us moderns some 3,000 percent richer than our ancestors of 1800. The ideas of the classical liberals, including John Locke, Adam Smith, and the American Founders, are those that animate modern libertarianism: equal rights, constitutional government, free markets, tolerance, the rule of law. Zwolinski and Tomasi say that "what sets libertarians apart is the absolutism and systematicity" with which we advocate those ideas. Well, yes, after 200 years of historical observation and philosophical and economic debate, many of us do believe that a firmer adherence to liberal/​libertarian ideas would serve society well. We observe that the closer a society comes to consistent tolerance, free markets, and the rule of law, the more it will achieve widespread peace, prosperity, and freedom.
Swaim insists that libertarians do not engage "with ultimate questions—questions about the good life, morality, religious meaning, human purpose and so on." He's wrong about that. Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments. F. A. Hayek stressed the importance of morals and tradition. Ayn Rand set out a fairly strict code of personal ethics. Thomas Szasz's work challenged the reductionists and behaviorists with a commitment to the old ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, and responsibility for one's choices. Charles Murray emphasizes the value and indeed the necessity of community and responsibility. Libertarian philosophers of virtue ethics find the case for limited government to be based on the search for the good life. Swaim would be on more solid ground to say that libertarianism does not presume to tell individuals what to believe and how to live. Separation of church and state and all that. As I wrote in a letter to the Journal (not yet published), Swaim refers to the "studiously amoral philosophy of libertarianism." A popular summary of libertarianism, "don't hit other people, don't take their stuff, and keep your promises," is just the basic morality that allows human beings to live together in peace.
As for his claim that libertarianism is dead, that this book is an obituary, I refer Swaim again to all the people who complain that we're living in some sort of libertarian world. Libertarians often feel depressed; they believe the world is on "the road to serfdom." But in fact the world is far freer in this century than ever before in history. Free markets and free trade, an end to slavery and caste societies, representative government, and the rule of law now govern the Western world and much of the rest. Most of the Cato Institute's website comprises complaints about the malfeasance of the U.S. government. But in the bigger picture, libertarians have had much success. In the roughly 50 years since I started thinking about politics, one could point to such successes as:
the end of conscription in the United States
social, economic, and political equality for women
dramatically lower marginal tax rates
freer trade
deregulation of major industries such as airlines, trucking, communication, and finance
the almost total demise of communism
and the consequent discrediting of socialism and central planning
the reorientation of antitrust policy to a consumer welfare standard
expanded First Amendment protections
expanded Second Amendment protections
the progress of gay rights and gay marriage
growing opportunities for school choice
a slow erosion of the war on drugs
I could go on. None of these are total victories. No ideology achieves all of its sweeping vision, at least not without a military conquest of the government and the ability to rule by decree—and those experiments are nothing to emulate. In various parts of the world bad ideas are back—socialism, protectionism, ethnic nationalism, anti‐​Semitism, even industrial policy. The libertarian challenge is to join with other liberals—Reaganite conservatives, free‐​speech liberals, people who are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal"—to push back against these bad resurgent ideas. But this record of accomplishment is no obituary.

Louisiana State University System President William
Tate IV, on the eve of a change in gubernatorial administrations to one which
he doesn't see eye-to-eye, is saying the right things. Still, he needs to put
his money where his mouth is on others.

With the cocoon in which higher education exists catching
out some prominent university leaders recently over their schools'
reactions to anti-Semitic activities, Tate has avoided any such problems with a
very sensible attitude that should
be made official policy at all Louisiana public institutions: the Kalven
Principle of university neutrality regarding public issues. Recently,
he spoke to his faculty members at the Louisiana State University campus about
how he'll not comment on political controversies but then try to defend faculty
and student commentary.

It shows he's come a long way from almost
three decades ago when his academic publications complained about how math education,
an allegedly white-created/"Eurocentric" pedagogical environment, stultified and
misjudged black children's learning, as well as missed opportunities to become
an agent of social change. With a woke worldview dimly looked upon by incoming governor
Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, in his over two years leading the system Tate
hasn't publicly articulated an opinion for any agenda related to his past
published views or any others, including his silence
over a measure that failed this year in the Legislature for a report about "diversity,
equity, and inclusion" efforts in state higher education criticized by two
other system heads.

But Tate's defense of free expression and inquiry
is in part only lip service because of LSU's uneven record in fulfilling that,
even today. That's the conclusion gleaned from the leading interest group defending
free expression in academia, the Foundation
for Individual Rights and Expression. Annually it evaluates and ranks
larger institutions for their adherence to principles maximizing constitutional
free expression, derived by media reports, active litigation, and student surveys.

The 2024
report gives LSU a dismal below average score putting it 140th,
worse than more than half of the field. There are bright spots, ranking 29th
for speaker tolerance and credits Tate's administration by ranking it 27th
for student perception of administrator support of free speech. But students
also rank the school lowly on their comfort in expressing views in class, in
assignments, and to other students and faculty members, at 238th, and
even lower at 240th for perceptions about their ability to discuss
controversial matters on campus.

Yet perhaps the most disappointing are several expression
policies that, depending upon application, violate constitutional speech
protections, and one that is unambiguously facially unconstitutional. That one,
which deals with prohibitions against electronic dissemination of "material
that is defamatory, obscene, fraudulent, harassing (including uninvited amorous
or sexual messages), threatening, incites violence, or contains slurs,
epithets, or anything that may be reasonably construed as harassment or
disparagement based on race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age, disability, or religion or to access, send, receive, or solicit sexually
oriented messages or images or any other communication prohibited by law or
other University directive," sequesters LSU along with a minority of other
public institutions with such restrictive speech codes.

This actually marks an improvement for LSU, which three
years ago ranked second-from-last among the largest and most prominent
institutions with largely the same strengths and weaknesses. And, FIRE
lauds LSU for the system adopting a measure relating to the Kalven Principle,
the Chicago
Statement of Free Speech (something the Legislature required all systems to
do in principle five years ago) that emphasizes robust freedom of expression
standards at institutions of higher learning, although aspects of its speech code
that intertwines among university and system policy statements and permanent
memoranda certainly contradicts that.

With Landry as governor and not keen about
politicization within academia and especially infused into instruction, Tate
and other system leaders will have to toe the line as the new governor
gradually through his appointment powers reshapes the various governing boards,
as well as the Board of Regents. He, and they, can start by making constitutional
the expression policies of the schools in their systems consistent with the Chicago Statement – among state schools with at least 10,000 students enrolled
only McNeese State receives an all-clear grade from FIRE – as part of a broader
effort to ensure robust discussion takes place without institutions favoring certain
viewpoints that subverts their academic missions by replacing that with indoctrination.

 The values poll continues to get attention--since my last post, I've seen three New York Times columns discussing it (Ross Douthat, Peter Coy, David Brooks).  In the Dispatch, Nick Catoggio calls it >the hottest topic in political commentary."  My last post discussed specific issues with that survey--this one will address the general question of changes in values.1.  What has happened:  In the 21st century, there's clearly been a turn away from religion in the United States, although you can argue about whether it's a new thing or the continuation of a longer trend.  For example, the Gallup Poll has a question on whether "religion can answer most or all of today's problems," which was asked in 1957, 1974, and pretty regularly starting in the 1980s.  The results through 2017:It was asked again in 2018 and agreement fell below 50% for the first time.   There's also been a decline, or at least a moderation, of patriotism.  I wrote about questions comparing the United States with others in this post.  One of those questions was asked in the recent WSJ poll:  21% said it "stands above all countries in the world," 50% that is is "one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others, and 27% said "there are other countries better than the United States."  When that was first asked in 2011, the numbers were 38%-53%-8%; in 2018 they were 24%-55%-21%.  Finally, there's also been a decline in the belief that people need to have children in order to have a full life.  I don't think I've posted on that, but it's pretty clear.  2.  What hasn't happened:  a dramatic change in values since 2019.  This was one thing that brought attention to the survey, and made it especially appealing to the right.  From their point of view, most of the big developments since 2019 have been bad--the response to Covid, the rise in "wokeness," most of the policies of the Biden administration.  So evidence of a general collapse in values fit with their sense that things had gone badly wrong in the last few years.  But rapid changes in opinions are rare, and some of the apparent changes in the WSJ polls just aren't credible (e. g., a fall from 80% to 58% rating "tolerance for others" as very important).  So they are probably the result of the change in survey procedures.  Although social desirability bias may be a factor, I don't think it's a big factor with these opinions, especially when it comes to the difference between "very important" and "somewhat important."  But in addition to the issue about response order I mentioned last time, I think the chance that people will be careless or not take the survey seriously is greater in online surveys.  The documentation to the survey mentions that they removed about 5% of the surveys because of high rates of non-response, completing the survey too fast, or "straight-lining all grid questions."  But it seems likely that attention and effort are matters of degree, so that if 5% were clearly not paying attention, some larger number were not paying much attention.   It's hard to say exactly what affect this would have--it just means that we can't be sure about how much of the apparent change is real.  3.  What's uncertain:  how much people value obligations to their family versus their own interests, or money versus other goals.  I think that there's a long term trend towards emphasizing non-material goals (like wanting a job that's fulfilling or does good for the world), but I'm not really confident of that.  The focus on money also goes up and down depending on short-term economic conditions, making it harder to distinguish any trend.  People clearly feel less obligation to get married and have children, but beyond that--for example, whether parents are more or less willing to sacrifice for the benefit of their children--it's hard to say.  I will look for other questions and write about them in a future post.  

There's much less to the eye regarding the ultimate
impact of the decision
recently rendered in Nairne
v. Landry than the possibility this case eventually could upend reapportionment
jurisprudence very much in the opposite direction of the ruling.

The case involves reapportionment of Louisiana's
legislative districts after the 2020 census, involving plaintiffs similar to
those in the winding-down case regarding reapportionment
of its congressional districts. In that other case, the same Middle
District of Louisiana Judge Shelly Dick ruled an expansive reading of Title 2
of the Voting Rights Act that gives race (given certain circumstances) preference
over other traditional principles of reapportionment (absent compelling
circumstances), essentially sidestepping the text of the law that says it does
not normally confer proportional representation of racial minorities in a state.

In ruling that the state had to draw a map with
two of six black majority-minority districts because about a third of the
population identified as black, which impelled the Legislature to do precisely
that although its product almost certainly is constitutionally defective because
in order to do that race took on a dominant role in making the map, Dick
applied the same rubric to legislative districts. The legal backing for this
she derived from a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that affirmed custom
over the past six decades and an expanded view of the VRA language as developed
through past court cases allowed for elevating the place of race.

The Legislature was given no deadline to swap in a
new map, where it is implied that at least two more Senate and six more House
seats became M/M. (Keep in mind, however, that no case ever has been decided on
the merits validating the proportional argument, much less ended up being
applied by a government by court order.) Practically speaking, this doesn't become
an issue until at latest the start of 2027 for fall elections that year.

While some observers without a comprehensive
understanding of the issues blithely assume the
Legislature will do this, chance are much greater it never will come that.
(Actually, given the greater tolerances courts permit for malapportionment and
for adhering to other principles of reapportionment when it comes to offices
other than Congress, the partisan balance would change little as both chambers
could draw new maps that essentially swap out elected white Democrats with
black Democrats.) That's because the case has at least one time bomb included
that could blow up the current interpretation of the VRA Section 2 and
guarantees when plaintiffs plea for a remedy (at
present, special elections with a new map later this year) the state will appeal
and many motions later serve it up to the Court. Nothing politically will
happen for some time to come.

There's actually another aspect that could cause
this: a split between federal appellate court circuits on whether private
parties can bring suits under that law, which guarantees eventual Supreme Court
intervention. However, existing
jurisprudence suggests that the Court will reject the argument no private
right of action exists, which for Nairne is irrelevant anyway because
the Fifth Circuit holds that view.

The state as defendant articulated that defense,
but Dick rejected it precisely because the Circuit had done so. But while the main
land mine of questioning over the current interpretation of the VRA Section 2 she
could dodge for now, ultimately she can't make go away.

That results from the Assoc. Justice Brett Kavanaugh
concurrence
in the case that granted race its new privileged place. In it, he questioned
whether that privileging had become timebound, as the nature of society about
race has changed substantially in the decades since, but didn't adjudicate that
because that other case didn't bring it up.

But Louisiana unambiguously did forward that
argument in a filing in Nairne. Dick addressed the issue in her ruling
as minimally as she dared in dismissing it, which isn't unusual (as well allows
her decision to reflect her own political preferences). Lower court judges are
extremely reluctant to base rulings on any Court opinions not the majority,
leaving that up to the Court itself.

However, that avoidance doesn't make the issue go
away. Undoubtedly the state will appeal and it's inconceivable that the Court at
some point wouldn't take up the case on those constitutional grounds (as well
as perhaps others dealing with the statute) – unless another case elsewhere (for
example) gets there first. And the tone from the previous case suggests the
Court would strike down the expansive reading of Section 2 as timebound.

Chances are excellent even with the inevitable string
of appeals this reversal will happen before 2027. In the final analysis, the Nairne
ruling changes little, and expect Louisiana to do little in response to it
except continue to fight the case up to the Supreme Court.

Out of several countries in the coup-stricken African Sahel slated to hold elections this year, Senegal looked like the only one that might escape the threat of voter suppression, rigging, or other corrupt practices.But this is no more the case as a sudden turn of events last week plunged the West African nation into an unprecedented constitutional crisis, which pundits argue could lead anywhere at this point, from an uneasy elite pact to a total state collapse. On February 3, the eve of the official presidential campaign, Senegal's President Macky Sall announced a postponement of the election, citing dispute over the candidate list. His decision to postpone came weeks after a controversy erupted over the exclusion of opposition candidates from the ballot. The opposition Senegalese Democratic Party (PDS), whose candidate Karim Wade was among those excluded by the Constitutional Council from running in the election for possessing a dual French-Senegalese citizenship, had earlier filed a formal request to postpone the vote. Also excluded is the opposition PASTEF's popular leader Ousmane Sonko, who opposed Sall in 2019 and has been behind bars since last year for immoral behavior and plotting an insurrection. His candidacy in the 2024 election was rejected last month by the Constitutional Council in a move critics say was targeted at eliminating the most potent obstacle to Sall's preferred candidate, Prime Minister Amadou Ba, running and winning the forthcoming elections. Bassirou Diomaye Faye, Sonko's substitute candidate, is also in jail on charges of contempt of court, defamation, and acts likely to compromise public peace.OutrageNever before has Senegal postponed a presidential election. Ordinary Senegalese are shocked by the strange turn of events in part due to the sense of security created by Sall's decision in July last year not to run for a third term."I feel sad for Senegal, a beautiful and peaceful country always considered as an example of democracy and for the Senegalese people who fought in 2011 in the name of democracy so that the current President Macky Sall could be elected," Awa Diouf, a Senegalese activist, told RS. Sall has repeated his stance not to run for a third term, but the opposition doesn't believe him, accusing Sall of premeditated plans to cling to power or to force his preferred candidate on the people. After the decision, protests resurfaced in the country's capital Dakar reminiscent of scenes of deadly clashes with police that were once a fixture of life from 2021 to 2023. One leading opposition politician was arrested in the renewed disturbance on Feb. 4, as police fired tear gas to disperse angry protesters amidst a growing crackdown which has seen a private television station, Walf TV, suspended for 'inciting violence' and internet cut. The crisis continued into last week at the country's parliament where a bill seeking to fix a new date for the elections and extend Sall's tenure led to a row with some opposition MPs forcibly removed by police clad in riot gear. At the end of proceedings, the parliament, which is dominated by the ruling coalition, Benno Bokk Yakaar (which includes President Sall's Alliance for the Republic party) voted for a 10-month extension of the election until December 15. Sall's term was originally meant to lapse in early April. In response, activists are once again mobilizing for new protests and many fear for more violent crackdowns.A diplomatic solutionThese developments, which occurred on the heels of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's tour of the region last month, have attracted widespread condemnation. The West African bloc, ECOWAS, whose credibility has taken a beating over its handling of a string of coups in the region, failed to condemn the postponement.In sharp contrast, a statement by the U.S. State Department was more decisive in describing the poll's postponement as a move that runs "contrary to Senegal's strong democratic tradition," while also calling the National Assembly's vote illegitimate, "given the conditions under which it took place." The U.S. also condemned the attacks on press freedom and the severing of internet communications in the country. "The U.S. is a strong all round partner with Senegal and is the leading provider of development assistance valued at $238 million per year," Dr. Joseph Siegle of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies noted to RS. Besides the significant economic ties and trade, it is in the area of regional security that Senegal is most important for the United States. As one of the most stable democracies in Africa and a model for religious and ethnic tolerance, Senegal has been a longtime partner of the U.S. in promoting peace and security in Africa. "[Senegal's] importance has become even more outsized in the wake of recent coups and military regimes in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Guinea," Afolabi Adekaiyaoja, a research analyst with the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD-West Africa) explained. Although an outlier in the region's anti-democratic trends, this does not mean Senegal's democracy has been free of turmoil. For instance, out of four Presidents that have governed Senegal since it gained independence from France in 1960, only two have taken office in peaceful transfers of power — the first of which occurred in 2000. In 2012, Sall was only elected following a period of widespread protests against his predecessor Abdoulaye Wade's attempt to undemocratically cling to power. After 12 years at the helm of the country, critics now accuse Sall of the same crimes as Wade's, which include eroding the country's democratic credentials through a pattern of jailing political opponents under spurious charges and bending Senegal's justice system to his will. What is most significant, however, is that even in the midst of chaos "the struggle of the Senegalese people always takes place within the framework of institutions as much as peaceful and unarmed resistance," activist Louise M. Faye told RS. The hope is that today's disagreements won't be litigated in a coup like Senegal's Sahelian neighbors.By and large, experts believe what is likely is an uneasy pact within the elite, which has been brought about as a result of rising opposition to conventional politics. "The US [needs to start] talking directly to all of the relevant Senegalese actors as well as ECOWAS to navigate a stable, constitutionally-based, democratic outcome," Siegle explained. The Biden administration's playbook for the continent, U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa, mandates Washington to "stem the recent tide of authoritarianism and military takeovers by working with allies and partners in the region to respond to democratic backsliding and human rights abuses."While doing this, however, Washington needs to be mindful that recent anti-French sentiment has played into Russia's plans to expand its influence in the region. "While that does not necessarily mean direct anti-American perceptions, it will also need to ensure it can retain backchannels to the different factions if it wants to diplomatically intervene. Washington's important role will be to maintain pressure on Dakar to ensure a fair and transparent review process, or national dialogue as President Sall has put it, ahead of the elections," Adekaiyaoja added.

In the Art of War, Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu said, "if you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." This nugget of wisdom is as perceptive today as it was over 2,000 years ago. And it does not bode well for America.We clearly don't know our adversaries. We've been caught flat-footed, repeatedly, in recent years, from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the almost instantaneous collapse of the Afghanistan government that we'd spent two decades supporting, to the recent Hamas attacks destabilizing the Middle East.The biggest question mark of all is if and when China might transition from nibbling on the margins of Asia to taking a big bite in the form of Taiwan. Perhaps even more worrisome, and far less excusable, is the fact that we don't know ourselves. In a world growing less stable by the day, the disconnect between our policymakers in Washington and the American public is frightening. While prominent national security experts of both parties seem to be coalescing around maximalist approaches toward the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and lobbying for a more confrontational stance toward China, the American public appears largely tuned out, instead focused on challenges closer to home, like paying bills, raising children, and navigating polarizing domestic politics. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality is breathtaking. On one hand Washington issues commitments to helping reclaim all Ukrainian territory, the "total destruction" of Hamas, and a robust defense of Taiwan. On the other hand the American public is either disengaged from (or divided on) these issues, our weapons stockpiles are shrinking, military recruitment numbers plunging, the deficit is ballooning, and the economy is uncertain.Meanwhile, the country continues to fracture along red and blue lines. Could we still unite in a time of war? It depends. If Russian paratroopers descended on Colorado like the 1984 cult classic Red Dawn, yes, I'm confident we'd come together and repel the existential threat of a foreign invasion. But am I convinced, in this toxic political climate, that farm boys from Kansas, warehouse workers from the Rust Belt, and college students from the Pac-12 would race to recruiting offices to help Taiwan repel a Chinese invasion? Or to deploy to the Middle East to dive into what looks like an intractable conflict with complicated roots dating back at least 75-years? Not really.It is also worth asking if America has the stomach for casualty numbers that would almost certainly dwarf the 7,057 U.S. servicemembers killed in action post-9/11 in a Great Power war. Russia continues to fight in Ukraine despite estimates of over 100,000 killed in just the past few years. We can't assume China wouldn't have a similar tolerance for heavy losses too.Despite these concerns, national security officials and foreign policy luminaries persist in advancing strategic postures that may require U.S. troops to deploy in greater numbers to three theaters (even if these deployments are under the guise of "deterrence") .
(While the principle of deterrence is sound in theory, the danger lies in assuming that appearing to be a superior force on paper will obviate the need to ever actually fight, overlooking the fact that credibility requires a willingness and capacity to do just that. Which brings us back to Sun Tzu. Can we answer the willingness and capacity question about ourselves with any degree of confidence? Have we ever taken it seriously?)Right now it seems like our strategy — to the extent we have one — is being developed in a vacuum, with little concern for minor details like who will fight, and with what degree of national commitment. This reflects, in part, a persistent tendency, to which we keep returning since the days of Robert McNamara's "Whiz Kids" of the Vietnam era, to view conflict as a technocratic exercise where victory and defeat are largely dependent on the amount, and quality, of sophisticated high-dollar weaponry. But as our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan should have taught us, collective will and resolve also matter. A lot. We must not overestimate (or fail to even consider) ours. Wars are still fought by people. And, to date, there has been no effort to secure the buy-in of the American public.We need to really ask: How many young Americans would volunteer to strap on a ruck, grab an M4, and go fight one of these distant wars if an adversary calls what they may see as a bluff? We must first accept that these would not be conflicts that could be handled by cobbling together the same people from a volunteer force and deploying them countless times over decades like we did during the "Global War on Terror." In fact, it is almost impossible to envision a scenario where our deterrent is credible, or where we could prevail in a world war, absent a draft.While a draft invokes images of Vietnam it may be time to revisit its upsides in the context of today's disconnect between citizen and military and citizen and government.At the most basic level, a draft would solve the personnel shortages we are struggling with. I'm aware that military leaders fear that a draft would hurt the professionalism of today's force. However, the lowering of recruiting requirements, as well offering big signing bonuses to impressionable high school students, is already diminishing standards. It would also serve as a powerful unifying force, bringing together young people of different races, belief systems, and geographic backgrounds in shared national service. This would help unify a generation that has experienced little but corrosive fragmentation for years. And since Americans would have skin in the game, a draft would also force politicians to abandon vapid, cliché-ridden rhetoric, and be forced to either convince Americans we need to be on wartime footing, or tone down their bellicose talk and develop creative and less militaristic strategies, starting with our approach to Ukraine, China, and now the Middle East.Finally, it would signal to the world that we are serious about a strong national defense. The perception would no longer be that we are a country in decline, anesthetized by popular culture and unwilling to sacrifice. Unfortunately, there seems to be no appetite for such a call to service on the part of the same leaders and pundits lobbying for a muscular, militarized foreign policy. It is remarkable to witness swaggering commitments to the potential use of force against Great Power adversaries on Capitol Hill but absolutely no willingness to discuss the national sacrifice that it would require. And so, if we conclude a draft won't happen, we'd be better off addressing the massive disconnect between Washington rhetoric and the extent of Americans' willingness to fight now, as opposed to after our leaders talk us into another, and possibly far more calamitous, war.