Given that I have made this analogy many times myself, I can admit that it s a bit tired, but the America/Rome analogy is not just the product of a feverish imagination infected by too much historical innuendo. 

The immediate post-Cold War period proved fertile for imaginative scholars looking to set the terms of the debate over what the future world order would look like.  From Charles Krauthammer's "Unipolar Moment" to Robert Kaplan's "Coming Anarchy" and John Mearsheimer's "Tragedy of Great Power Politics," each tried to forecast what the world could expect.

First, let me say, I am very pleased to be a part of Wikistrat.  This is a new type of consultancy that is best described as a combination of Facebook and Wikipedia merging with geopolitics.  Eventually clients, which will include governments, think tanks, and private corporations will be able to suggest scenarios for the consultancy to game out for them as they look to uncover potential outcomes.  In fact, it is my understanding there will be a lot of interplay where clients can even introduce "shocks" into a scenario.  So a group could be analyzing the outcome of the North Korean power transition after Kim jong-Il's death and a client could ask the group to game out the impact of an assassination attempt on successor Kim jong-Un.  

This is no time to call out a bunch of neo-Luddites, but this article from Technology review points to a potentially problematic trend- technology is displacing employment.  Check out the following,

There's nothing to suggest that this dynamic no longer operates, but new research is showing that advances in workplace automation are being deployed at a faster pace than ever, making it more difficult for workers to adapt and wreaking havoc on the middle class: the clerks, accountants, and production-line workers whose tasks can increasingly be mastered by software and robots. "Do I think we will have permanently high unemployment as a consequence of technology? No," says Peter Diamond, the MIT economist who won a 2010 Nobel Prize for his work on market imperfections, including those that affect employment. "What's different now is that the nature of jobs going away has changed. Communication and computer abilities mean that the type of jobs affected have moved up the income distribution."

There is a real silver lining here.  Eventually people will become trained in the new technologies and that will likely mean more fulfilling, probably better paying jobs for many people.  This is very similar to how the Industrial Revolution displaces so many farmers, but yielded incredible enhancements in quality of life (after awhile at least).  

The problem is, however, that in the interim period, long bouts of displacement breed resentment, sociological disturbances and (as we seem to see all the time), political volatility.

Consequently, the transition is going to be painful for the majority of people as they change their lifestyles and workplaces.  Hopefully, the tumult of this will soon start to be offset by what should be the inevitable gains.  But the timing is important. Long-term, perceived structural unemployment will create that unpleasant and tumultuous backlash.  

If that gets out of hand, then all bets could be off.

Charles Krauthammer is probably my favorite columnist.  I have long thought him to be the most cogent writer critiquing President Obama.  He was scathing, but respectful which is something many who dislike the President seem to refuse to be.

However, his latest column is truly great because it makes a compelling case for why we must engage in politics.  He does this in a round about way that touches on the search for sentient life beyond our own planet.  This may seem a strange segue into a conversation about the need for politics, but it is, in fact one of the best.

Here are several relevant sections,

"...Modern satellite data, applied to the Drake Equation, suggest that the number should be very high. So why the silence? Carl Sagan (among others) thought that the answer is to be found, tragically, in the final variable: the high probability that advanced civilizations destroy themselves.

In other words, this silent universe is conveying not a flattering lesson about our uniqueness but a tragic story about our destiny. It is telling us that intelligence may be the most cursed faculty in the entire universe — an endowment not just ultimately fatal but, on the scale of cosmic time, nearly instantly so.

This is not mere theory. Look around. On the very day that astronomers rejoiced at the discovery of the two Earth-size planets, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity urged two leading scientific journals not to publish details of lab experiments that had created a lethal and highly transmittable form of bird flu virus, lest that fateful knowledge fall into the wrong hands.

Wrong hands, human hands. This is not just the age of holy terror but also the threshold of an age of hyper-proliferation. Nuclear weapons in the hands of half-mad tyrants (North Korea) and radical apocalypticists (Iran) are only the beginning. Lethal biologic agents may soon find their way into the hands of those for whom genocidal pandemics loosed upon infidels are the royal road to redemption."

He concludes by waxing lyrically on how politics, for all its grunginess and stupidity, at the core, is the necessary precondition for surviving and channeling our intelligence, if we can, in a way so as to avoid true catastrophe.

"We grow justly weary of our politics. But we must remember this: Politics — in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations — is sovereign in human affairs. Everything ultimately rests upon it.

Fairly or not, politics is the driver of history. It will determine whether we will live long enough to be heard one day. Out there. By them, the few — the only — who got it right."

So haunting and so potentially prophetic.  This is why anyone who engages with politics, and does so for the right reasons, is worthy of respect.

I don't always like David Brooks, but his op-ed in today's New York Times hits on some very interesting themes regarding the unique challenges America and America's economy face today.  He attempts, and I think he does so very well, to debunk the notion that was so popular at the beginning of the Obama Administration that we are in a new "Progressive Era."

He does this in ways that would both appeal and, quite possibly terrify conservatives.  In my mind the most searing line in the piece is the following,

"One hundred years ago, we had libertarian economics but conservative values. Today we have oligarchic economics and libertarian moral values — a bad combination."

He goes on to say,

"In sum, in the progressive era, the country was young and vibrant. The job was to impose economic order. Today, the country is middle-aged but self-indulgent. Bad habits have accumulated. Interest groups have emerged to protect the status quo. The job is to restore old disciplines, strip away decaying structures and reform the welfare state. The country needs a productive midlife crisis."

Many, if not practically all, self described conservatives would declare the Progressive Era as a very bad thing, something almost like an "Original Sin."  So to ever say anything positive about it at all would strike them as heretical.  However, one thing to keep in mind is that when there is too much stratification in society, that society becomes unstable and prone to overact to both internal and external shocks.

We may be nearing a tipping point in America from which we cannot return.  It is incumbent upon leaders to be far more aggressive than they have been and it will require major changes in our own personal self-indulgences too.  

We should certainly should not hold the Progressive Era up as our be all and end all model, but neither should we entirely discount the inexact analogies it may offer for our own increasingly troubled times and much of it has to do with our values.  No technical tweaks to our system can overcome a degenerated value system, because a value system unable to hold its own will succumb to every stray gust of wind that blows its way.

Below is a list of suggested reading to help understand the pending, potential "Asian Century" as outlined in the post below:

This is a great summation piece on multiple trends playing themselves out is Eastern Asia and any serious student of world history should at least peruse it.

Francis Fukuyama of "End of History" fame raises some intriguing questions in his latest Foreign Affairs article (Warning: subscriber alert).  He raises the prospect that liberal democracy may be unable to survive the decline of a middle class.  Coming from the former high prophet of neoconservative triumphalism this is a sobering, dark, though not entirely surprising position.

I read with interest the many comments elicited by Walter Mead's blog post that I riffed off of yesterday.

This is a great blog by Walter Mead (probably my favorite blogger besides David P. Goldman).  

I have written many times on the "Golden Age of Proliferation" and see nothing that has changed in recent times to alter my view that contrary to a world of "Global Zero," we face the increasing likelihood of multiple additional powers obtaining at least rudimentary nuclear weapons capability.  Who will give them up now with the lesson of dead Qadaffi (who withdrew from the nuclear sweepstakes in the early 2000s) fresh in their memory?

This is a great piece by David P. Goldman, the psuedonymous "Spengler" over at his economics focused Inner Workings blog.  It is very interesting and highlights the likelihood that Europe will split and the EU will be largely a northern affair.  Something, I surmise, like the Hanseatic League of the 13th-17th centuries.

Another op-ed I wrote that was cross posted at the Atlantic Community and at the Young Transatlantic Conservative Alliance.

The below is an article that was posted in several places including the Atlantic Community and Eurasia Review.

I have not updated my blog recently as most can tell.  Largely, this is due to having a second son earlier in the year (Alexander, with Augustus our first) and some of the time constraints that creates.

Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head when he says in this piece that we are entering the post non-proliferation age.  While arms control experts and various activists will insist on disarmament, the truth is (as I have posted before), once the genie was out, it could never be put back in.  I know of the examples showing a nation did forgo nuclear weapons programs after starting them, South Africa being one of the most notable, however, it is increasingly unlikely this will continue.

The argument that we must disarm so as to appropriately incentivize other nations to not pursue nuclear weapons as an equalizing force has more merit than many on the "conservative" side usually ascribe, yet there is a fundamental flaw.  Even if we were to be "good faith" actors, how could ever guarantee other nations weren't cheating?  To assume they won't seek such weapons in the abscence of a threat ignores the nature of geopolitics throughout history.  Nations have always sought to maximize their power in the best way they can because, despite "international law", at the end of the day, in the abscence of a "Global Levaithan" no one can count on another Whie Knight to save them if one of the neighborhood bullies gets out of hand.  They have to be able to take care of themselves with the most potent defense they can muster.  Today, nuclear technology is no longer prohibitively expensive nor is the necessary knowledge base locked away within the heavily industrialized world.  This is the anarchy of international politics (and a fundamental tenat of realist thought).

Would Iran ever trust America is "really" dispensing with its arsenal?  Would Russia?  Would China?  How could we "know" definitively that any of them are?  Just look at all the challenges getting a petty regime like North Korea to "open up" and "disclose" their nuclear programs.  Consequently, we would always have to be prepared for the undesired.  For a leader to do otherwise is to be derelict in their responsibilities to preserve the nation they lead. 

Sadly, the only way to stop proliferation was to never create nuclear weapons in the first place.  Now it is inevitable that it will remain a permanent feature of global life.  Wishing it away is an exercise in futility.  Krauthammer makes it clear that deterrence once more will be a needed feature of international relations.  Brutally honest explanations of consequences is necessary to be sure that pragmatic leaders retain control over such weapons as opposed to fanatical (or apocalyptic) leaders.  Naturally, as nonproliferation advocates assert, this is till unstable, miscommunication can lead to poor decisions even by the most rational of leaders.  However, what alternatives remain open?  Disarmament is now as utopian as "perpetual peace."  As Krauthammer states unequivocally,

"We have entered the post-nonproliferation age. It's time to take our heads out of the sand and deal with it."

Now that Vladimir Putin will become Prime Minister after the swearing in today of Dmitry Medvedev as the new President, we will wait to see what happens.  This article shows how Putin seems to have consolidated real political power in the Prime Minister's office.

I can't believe I am reading what is in this link.  Vincent Bugliosi, the famous prosecutor of Charles Manson and writer of "Helter Skelter" is actually laying a case for prosecuting President Bush for murder.  Since this is only a snippet of his apparently forthcoming book and is posted on the Huffington Post, I do not know if this is a "going through the motions" kind of thing to sell the book or if he is actually serious, so I suppose I'll reserve judgement on his sanity. 

Given that we are now confronted with $4 a gallon gas prices, energy has become one of, if not the most, talked about of the day.  This interview with the head of the International Energy Agency is not particularly optimistic as he sees a continued  high trajectory for costs.  Not surprising given the demand side of the equation with China and India, ane the supply side with less than ideal refining capacity and political instability.

New Russian president Dmitry Medvedev continues to follow Prime Minister Putin as it relates to the continually brewing conflict with Georgia over its restive, potential break away province of Abkhazia.  It seems this is a chance for Russia to reassert influence just as Europe reemeres with a major identity crisis (after the Irish rejection this wekend of the new EU constitution) and America continuies to be bogged down in Iraq and dealing with the rising regional power of Iran. 

Still too early to tell where Medvedev will go with all this.  He says some things the West likes, including his new pledge to confront corruption, but as this article makes clear, Putin made the same noises when he first emerged as President after Boris Yeltsin.

Afghan President Karzai is saying he will send troops across the Paksitani border if necessary in "hot pursuit."  This is becoming an increasingly contentious situation.  The new Pakistani government has not moved in the direction the US would like in terms of dealing with Taliban and believed al-Qaeda refuges in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Now Karzai is also upset enough to be willing to do something politically difficult and dangerous.  As NATO and individual coutries look at their troop numbers in Afghanistan, this will persist in being a situation very worth montoring.

The "Lisbon Treaty" which had been designed to streamline complex EU functions was dealt what many perceive to be a fatal blow last Friday.  Ireland voted no to the treaty and sice every EU member must ratify it in order for it to come into effect, this means that negotiations will have to restart. 

While not completely devastating to the European integration project, this certainly is a step backwards and highlights the ongoing difficultes associated with achieving the European "Dream."

The Saudis are looking to increase their capacity for producing oil by up to 500,000 barrels a day.  While not likely to push all the way out on capacity, increasing its potential is an overaoll positive.  However, there is concern that if Saudi Arabia increases its capacity, there may be cleavages within OPEC as many OPEC nations are more limited in their capacity to enhance production.

Obviously, anything that gets oil to the market is good. While is definitely time to look at alternatives (and this is happening more and more now due to market mechanisms), oil still is the lifeblood of the global economy and the American economy.  We should watch this closely.

An interesting article by Max Boot on the newly appointed Air Force Chief of Staff.  Norton Schwart, a former cargo plane pilot and former deputy commander of Special Ops is the new Chief of Staff (after the previous one was fired by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for negligence in dealing with nuclear materials per recently published and high profile gaffes).

Boot says this is a distinctive cultural shift for the Air Force.  Here is how Boot puts it:

"Senior officers tend to favor the platforms they operated as junior officers. Bomber pilots like building more bombers, and fighter pilots like building more fighter aircraft. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but a good case can be made that the reign of the fighter jocks has led the Air Force to spend too much money on fighters at a time when they are growing less important. The Department of Defense is buying two expensive fighters — the F-22 and the F-35 — that were originally conceived for air-to-air combat even though the United States has not lost a single plane in traditional dogfighting since the Vietnam War....

With an officer whose background is in transportation and special operations chosen to head the entire Air Force, a cultural revolution is well under way. Fighter planes and their pilots will not loom as large in the future as they have in the recent past."

As I have articulated previously, the "Golden Age" of nuclear proliferation is very likely to be upon us.  This story regarding Swiss smugglers who had advanced designs for small nuclear devices is sobering and reflects the virtual Wild West that is present in the world as it relates to this technology.  How will any non-proliferation regime really stop this?

Here is the scary part:

"An international smuggling ring that sold bomb-related parts to Libya, Iran and North Korea also managed to acquire blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon, according to a draft report by a former top UN arms inspector that suggests the plans could have been shared secretly with any number of countries or rogue groups.

More unsurprising news, but potentially of enormous impact.  According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, Israel is coming to a consensus over the need to strike Iran, possibly soon, in order to forestall the development of nuclear weapons.  Given the existential danger Iran does represent for Israel, no one can be surprised of this possible action.

This is one of the thorniest problems in the world, the bottom line is this- as long as Iran appears to be moving towards possible weaponization and allows its President (even if he is only a figurehead) to engage in Nazi-like antisemitism, Israel may well have its hand forced irrespective of American desires for diplomacy.

For even a casual observer of my blog, it is evident of my intense concern over the issue of non-proliferation, counter-proliferation and the need for extended deterrence in what I consider to be the dawning "Golden Age" of proliferation.  This article from the Washington Times continues to make the case that nuclear proliferation is an ongoing and increasing threat.

Essentially, as oil and energy costs increase, more and more nations are looking at nuclear power to provide for those needs.  Clearly, there is nothing ipso facto wrong with a nation seeking nuclear power for domestic energy needs, America itself needs to continue to embrace this.  The problem is simply this, as the technology diffuses, the chances of it landing in the hands of a nation or non-state actor that is willing to use it increases exponentially.

A solid piece from the Moscow Times on the struggle over foreign policy between the new Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.  It is not evident at this point in time where the most power lies and without doubt the old game of Kremlinology has returned and will continue for some time.

So Russia is getting back into Afghanistan, at least a little bit back.  It is interesting that the US is supporting Russian arms going into Afghanistan to oppose the resurgent Taliban and remnant elements of al-Qaeda.  However, in this article by a veteran diplomat from India, it is apparent the US is frustrated by the inability of NATO member nations to step up to the plate with appropriate manpower to reconsolidate control.

What is more interesting is what this all means for Russia as it slowly continues its reassertion of power and influence in its near abroad.  Not only is it challenging Georgia (over Abkhazia) and Ukraine over joining NATO, it continues to opppose US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and continues insinuating itself with Central Asian states.  According to the author, this is all part and parcel of their efforts to maintain influence in their neighborhood. 

As a sidebar related to diplomacy in general,  note this section referring to a prominent Russian commentator:

"We [Russia] and the Western countries have diametrically opposite definitions of success in our policy toward the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries. For Russia, success lies in strengthening of integration ties, rapprochement with its neighbors and a strengthening of cooperation. For the West, on the contrary, success means a distancing of these countries from Russia, a reorientation to external centers of power aimed at preventing 'a rebirth of the Russian empire'. When political goals are so diametrically opposed, it is impossible to speak of a common agenda."

What is striking in that statement is how it attacks in a fundamental way the notion that if we merely "engage" we can find solutions.  This may be true in certain circumstances, but clearly, when goals are "diametrically opposed", engagement can't paper over the differences.  For those like Senator Obama, this needs to be well understood.

I am not sure that I would go as far as this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal seems to support, but it is interesting how current events in places like Zimbabwe (where thuggish leader Robert Mugabe is intimidating and killing opposition right before a run off election) and Burma are resuscitating the notion of western military intervention to get rid of regimes that destroy their own populations.  In other words, embracing the "Responsibility to Protect", which is a relatively new theory that conditions the supreme sovereignity of states that since the Westphalian state system emerged has been considered close to inviolable.

Note this section,

"International relations theorists, including prominent Obama adviser Susan Rice, justify these sorts of interventions under the rubric of a "Responsibility to Protect" – a concept that comes oddly close to Kipling's White Man's Burden. So close, in fact, that its inherent paternalism has hitherto inhibited many liberals from endorsing the kinds of interventions toward which they are now tip-toeing, thousands of deaths too late.

So let's by all means end the hand-wringing and embrace the responsibility to protect, wherever necessary and feasible. Let's spare the thousands of innocents, punish the wicked, oppose tyrants, and support democrats – both in places where it is now fashionable to do so (Burma) and in places where it is not (Iraq). If that turns out to be Mr. Obama's foreign policy, it will be a worthy one. It does come oddly close to the Bush Doctrine."

How strange would that be if a President Obama embraced the most significant concept of the now oft maligned "Cowboy from Texas?" 

At any rate, I have grown skeptical of our ability to do too much to change societies, at least within the a domestically politically palatable horizon.  The consequence of Iraq will likely continue to loom large and it may well be poor people like those in Zimbabwe who pay the price for years to come as the struggle to unshackle themselves from their own Saddam Husseins persist as Americans merely observe the news and shake their heads in despair.

Gary Hart, former Democratic candidate for President in 1984, is actually a rather good writer and this article is a perspective that I think is gaining currency.  I also think he may be right.  We are now ready for a liberal revival unlike any since the rise of FDR. 

As Hart asserts, 1932-1968 was the age of FDR and 1968-2008 is the Age of Reagan.  Now he claims the next three to four decades may be the Age of Obama, if Obama develops a comprehensive plan of reform which is now needed to combat too much time in conservative consolidation (at least by Hart's definition). 

I think America is close to attempting this and is well along the way choosing the wrong road, the Road to Serfdom as Hayek would maintain.  If Obama wins, Hayek loses and America will become a soft-Socialist state like those of Europe.  The Republican Party may have made many errors and may well deserve much of the recent public negativity, but it is still the bulwark against the real threats that are out there.  I think, sadly, we have few leaders able to articulate why Republicans are more right than wrong.  While McCain offers some needed corrections to the brand and may save the GOP from a complete apocalypse on Election Day, I believe the conservative movement is losing the war.  I believe the road to socialism is being travelled extensively by many. 

I also believe it will take something large and dangerous to wake us up to confront the new dangers of the world.  The dangers of intense global economic competition, WMD attacks facilitated through international proliferation black markets, the rise of possible peer military competitors like China, domestic entitlements programs that are unsustainable, and global climate change.  The new buzzwords are "engagement", "cooperation", and "reintroduction."  Unfortunately, this papers over some serious divergence of interests between us and others.  America is the only nation with the power to effectively compel certain states to remain "in line."  This may sound arrogant, but I defy anyone to tell me who else is prepared and/or capable.  If we do choose to become a self centered, government subsidized population that is deaf to the the truth of real danger, we will not be prepared to assume the leadership so many casually claim we must embrace.

The essence of conservatism is to be careful where we go, not to dive into the complete unknown with a willful blindness.  Conservatism does not mean no progress, it just means that we weigh our choices and realize tradition often has great wisdom, often greater than mere progress for progress sake. 

I fear the desire for equality of outcome and a superficial understanding of "peace" is the currency of the day and it if it wins, we will all eventually lose far more than we comprehend at this moment of transitory challenge.

Woe be unto us and to the world, for when the devils outside gnash their teeth, we may not be ready and will pay in copious amounts of blood for our naive embrace of empty "change."  We do need change, but it must be appropriately calibrated.  While I have used this quote before, it bears repeating.  So again from Henry Kissinger's magisterial dissertation, "A World Restored":

"But the attainment of peace is not as easy as the desire for it. Not for nothing is history associated with the figure of Nemesis, which defeats man by fulfilling his wishes in a different form or by answering his prayers too completely. Those ages which in retrospect seem most peaceful were least in search of peace. Those whose quest for it seems unending appear least able to achieve tranquillity. Whenever peace—conceived as the avoidance of war—has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. Whenever the international order has acknowledged that certain principles could not be compromised even for the sake of peace, stability based on an equilibrium of forces was at least conceivable."

I hope we are not embracing emptiness for change, for if that is the what the new historical cycle represents, it the cycle of our inexorable decline, not our rejuvenation.