Connect with us

Americas

Deep State and the Potential End of European and American Democracy: Trouble in Paradise?

Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap] new book by the Yale University Press has just been published. Its title is The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. The author is James Kirchick, a Yale University alumnus, journalist and foreign correspondent, recipient of the Journalist of the Year Award, conservative leaning politically, who however supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections branding Donald Trump as a “brashly authoritarian populist.”

With that as an introduction, I’d like to now proceed to an analysis of the book’s thesis on European democracy by expanding it to American democracy, to demonstrate that in many ways the two may be intertwined and that they may have a common future, for better or for worse, as the case may turn out to be.

endofeuropeI have subtitled my article “Trouble in Paradise” which is also the subtitle of chapter four of the above mentioned book: “The European Union: Trouble in Paradise?” Indeed, there is trouble in paradise but that paradise is called democracy and there is a river that traverses both sides: it’s called the Atlantic Ocean. Their destiny may be intertwined, far more than we care to admit when we declare that it is time to go our separate ways.

Before beginning my own analysis let me provide the readers with the titles of the 8 chapters, the introduction, and the conclusion of the book. It will give the readers a better idea of its import. I recommend it as an eye-opener of sorts to the present predicament of Western Civilization.

Introduction: The European Nightmare; chapter 1: Russia: On Europe’s Edge; chapter 2: Hungary: Democracy without democrats; chapter 3: Germany: The Return of Rapallo?; chapter 4: The European Union: Trouble in Paradise?; chapter 5: France without Jews; chapter 6: Brexit: From Great Britain to Little England; chapter 7: Greece: From Polis to Populists; chapter 8: Ukraine: The New West Berlin; Conclusion: The European Dream.

As mentioned, of particular interest are the chapters on Russia, the one on England, and the one on the EU. They make the point that there is indeed a democracy deficit in Europe which, in tandem with a rising ultra-nationalism, dangerously close to authoritarianism and fascism, is endangering the whole democratic structure built in Western Europe after World War II and culminating with the new polity called the European Union.

And who might be the enemy of the traditional order which has survived for seventy years now? Let’s consider the conspiracy theory called Deep State. As an example, almost chosen at random, let us briefly survey an article which has recently appeared in the daily publication Modern Diplomacy by a US attorney Raul Manchanda with the title: “Deep State Members and their Agents Are Slowly Revealing Themselves.”

It merits mention here that there is presently, prominently lodged in the White House, a security advisor by the name of Steven Bannon, who used to edit the Breibart News, an eminent conspiracy theory publication. He has been amply mentioned and examined at length in other pieces in this publication. What they all have in common is a commonly perceived enemy which they call Deep State.

But what might Deep State be? In the above mentioned article it is conveyed best by its illustration showing the Washington Capital as the tree on top being sustained by its deep roots beneath it. Of course those roots are considered nefarious. If that is in fact the case, the question logically arises: now that the Republican party controls both Congress and the Executive, whom are those roots sustaining? I suppose the logical answer is the present legitimate government of the US, and that’s why they need to be eradicated as enemies of the state or they will corrupt that legitimate and pure state.

In fact attorney Manchanda does identify those roots. They are at the very least: the original Nazi intelligentia, spies brought over by the American elites and privileged classes (Trump excluded, of course, for he is an Andrew Jackson populist), after World War II. Names are supplied: Gottlieb von Braun Rudolph, plus 15,000 others who were supplied with fake identities so that they could establish the foundations of Deep State. So, Deep State is in its origins a Neo-Nazi state. Also Trotsky Communists wishing to establish a New World Order based on intellectual elitism and “Luciferian ideals,” among which “God according to my right” and social engineering (read the social programs which are not fully American). Also, the power to kill and murder at will (read the intelligence agencies that keep the Deep State in power); not to mention the spy agencies, the media, the Federal Reserve.

Finally, Mr. Manchanda goes on, the American people wake up and voilà, Donald Trump appears on the scene as if on a cloud (as we witnessed at the reality show that was the Republican National Convention). Populism is here to save the day. But there are many left-overs, the “useful idiots” and “bastards” who have struck a pact with the Lucifer and are ready to strike back to protect the New World Order established after World War II. They conduct the resistance via Mainstream Media, Face Book, Social Media; hence the massive investigations going on as we speak by Deep State agents on Capital Hill against Trump. A purge may be needed and the sooner the better.

How do we recognize those subversive agents? Manchanda does not hesitate to enlighten us by furnishing 7 telling signs: 1) they wish to start World War III. Their tactic is to demonize peace-loving, non-threatening nations such as Russia, Iran, Syria, China, 2) divide and conquer strategy focusing on divisions and centrifugal forces rather than a united patriotic stance as advocated by Trump, 3) fighting the alternative media (read the deceiving lying media contemptuous of facts) as 4) practiced by the Tweeter in Chief; 5) decoupling Europe from the US by destroying NATO and the Atlantic allegiance, 6) the refusal to abolish the “Luciferin” Federal Reserve Bank, 7) social engineering (the social programs) smelling of socialism, and the manipulation of the judiciary and the courts.

It goes without saying that Alternate State advocates find all the above as conspiracies against the American people, against Human Rights and against the Constitution, as judged by them or some ultraconservative judge, of course. If it all sounds slightly incoherent and deranged, it is. That’s what a pernicious ideology produces when lodged firmly in the human mind. It leads to the denial of facts and reality itself. What elsewhere I have dubbed the reign of Emperor Caligula.

But the most alarming and troubling phenomenon, is not the conspiracy theory itself, which can easily be judged by its own merits and sheer lack of common sense, but what it reveals, when examined carefully, about loyalty to truly democratic ideals, and the anti-democratic authoritarian spirit it reveals. What you have at play is addiction to power and influence parading as populist love of the underprivileged and the powerless. Slogans such as “unpatriotic bastards,” “fake news” “alternative media” “non threatening nations such as Russia, Iran, Syria” give the game away. The ultimate Machiavellian goal seems clear enough: to eliminate democracy as we know it and as implemented after it was rescued by World War II some seventy years ago.    

Perhaps this brief review of a conspiracy theory alive and well in the present White House will furnish an initial idea of the present predicament of democracy in the West (on both sides of the Atlantic). We have reached the sorry stage wherein Europe and the US, bastions of democratic values around the world, now have to confront their own demons which they thought they had put to rest once and for all.

The old pathologies and centrifugal forces of rabid nationalism, authoritarianism, territorial aggression, fascism and racism, are menacing the consensus reached after World War II while the present leaders, so called, pursue shallow disingenuous policies such as Brexit, and Moslem bans, even anti-Semitism, and leave the two continents of Europe and North-America open to Russian imperial ambitions out to destabilize, divide and conquer, not so much with the threat of nuclear weapon which could prove self-destroying, but with digital   information techniques, considered the new weapon to achieve geo-political parity; a strategy which has found a more than willing ally in Trump and his conspiracy theory minions, beginning with Steve Bannon, who typically advocates the abolishing of NATO and the Atlantic Alliance.

In other words, the liberal world order fought over in World War II and guaranteeing the two continents’ security, is now in serious jeopardy. What did Marx say? “Those who neglect to pay attention to their own history are bound to repeat it.” Marx got it wrong on many fronts, but perhaps on this one he had it right on target. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

“America first” and Canada’s approach towards immigration

Published

on

The Trump Administration’s recent announcement to suspend work visas–H1B (visas for high skilled professionals), H4B (spouses of H1B visa holders) and L1 Visas (intra company transfers) till the end of the year, has left many professionals on H1B visas high and dry at least for the time being. The decision evinced strong reactions from a number of quarters (apart from employment visas, the US President has also put a pause on the issuance of Green Cards).

Sunder Pichai, CEO of Google, who is of Indian origin himself, was scathing in his criticism of the Trump Administration’s proclamation arguing, that the US economy in general, and the country’s tech sector in particular, has benefitted from its immigration policy (an estimated 2/3rd of H1B visa holders in the US are occupied in ‘computer related’ occupations).It would be pertinent to point out, that Google had submitted an estimated 6,500 H1B applications in 2019

Pichai’s views were echoed by the Chief of US Chamber of Commerce Thomas Donohue

“Putting up a ‘not welcome’ sign for engineers, executives, IT experts, doctors, nurses, and other workers won’t help our country, it will hold us back,

Democrat Presidential Candidate, and Former Vice President, Joe Biden in a digital town hall meeting on July 1, 2020, emphatically stated that he would reverse the Trump administration’s recent order, if voted to power, and also made the point, that he would follow a fundamentally different immigration policy from Donald Trump

Factors responsible for Trump Administration’s proclamation

The key propelling factor for the Trump Administration’s decision was the rising unemployment in the US, in the aftermath of the covid 19 pandemic (for the month of May, it was estimated at a little over13% which was lower than the unemployment rate in April 2020 which was closer to 15%).

 Members of the Trump Administration have stated, that the suspension of non immigrant visas will open up over 5,0000 jobs for Americans. The decision was very much in line,with Trump’s thrust on ‘America First’, which according to many commentators played a decisive role in the mercurial Trump performing well in the swing states. Some of the important swing states,  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin  are in the Mid-West, and are referred to as the ‘Rust belt’ (this region now desolate, due to a combination of factors, was once booming and referred to as a ‘Factory Belt’ in the United States).

Indian official reaction

One country, which is likely to be hit significantly by the Trump Administration’s recent proclamation is India. As of 2019, out of the 3,88,403 visa holders a whopping 72% were Indians. Out of 3,75,000 temporary visa holders and green card holders who will be unable to enter due to the Trump Administration’s announcement a large number are Indians (as a result of the US President’s latest announcement many families have been separated from each other).

The official reaction from India to the Trump Administration’s recent proclamation was guarded. The MEA Spokesperson while commenting on the decision did state, that it will impact the movement of skilled professionals who have made positive contributions to US society. Indian IT Industry body NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service companies) has dubbed Trump’s recent decision as ‘misguided’, the organization also stated that Indian IT companies have also been employing American and contrary to popular perception it is not just India which will be the loser.

Canada’s immigration Policy

In recent years, due to the new regulations brought about by the Trump Administration with regard to student visas and work visas, Canada has become an attractive destination for Indian students, as well as professionals (Canada has eased out student visas, and also work visas for Science, Technology, Engineering and Management, STEM professionals). In the first four months of 2020, Indians accounted for nearly 1/4th of the total individuals (74000) who were granted Permanent Residency.

Canada has introduced the Global Stream Program, under the Global Skills Strategy program, which makes it easier for companies to recruit talented professionals (through this program, high skilled workers receive a visa within two weeks). A number of US IT companies like Amazon, Facebook, Netflix have expanded their operations since processing of work visas, for IT professionals is much simpler in Canada. Canada has been one of the few countries which even in the aftermath of covid19 has repeatedly stated that it’s pro-immigration policies will not be impacted, and that its pro-immigration policy will play a key role in building a robust economy.

A day after the Trump administration announced its decision to suspend work visas, Canadian IT companies were quick to reach out to individuals who are likely to be hit by the recent order.

The Vice President of Shopify, a Canadian Ecommerce company, Kaz Nejatian mentioned that he had created a resource for individuals impacted by Trump’s recent announcement.

“If you are an engineer whose H1B is in jeopardy, I’ve created a resource to help you avoid Visa troubles and finding fulfilling careers that make the world a better place. Go to H1BEngineer.com or DM me”.

Shopify chief executive and founder Tobi Lutke also reached out to those impacted by Trump’s sudden announcement and said that his company was hiring in different parts of the world.

Not only is Canada likely to attract talented professionals as a result of Trump’s suspension of work visas, but   many Indian companies currently based in US are likely to expand their operations in Canada.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Trump may have taken the decision to cancel non-immigrant visas till the end of the year, due to political considerations and to reiterate the point to his supporters that he is genuinely committed to the slogan of ‘America First’, but as a result of cancellation of H1B visas, Canada’s IT sector is likely to get a further boost. At a time when the whole world is becoming insular and populist nationalism is on the rise more countries need to follow Canada’s approach towards immigration.

Continue Reading

Americas

Revisiting Fukuyama’s ‘End of History Thesis”

Shahzada Rahim

Published

on

There are few names in the America, when it comes to the interpretation of American political and cultural history. Francis Fukuyama is one of them. He is a famous political commentator for his ‘End of History’ thesis that proclaimed the victory of the United States Led-liberal world order after the disintegration of Soviet Union. Perhaps, this was an open proclamation about the end of cold war and certainly the end of decade long ideological confrontation between the Capitalist and communist bloc. Initially, it was an article published by the Journal of National interest in the summer of 1989, which was later transformed into book.

The End of the History and the Last Man published by Free Press in 1992 was a landmark work of the famous geopolitical commentator Francis Fukuyama. The central theme of the book discuses about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Liberalism led international system as an alternative to other ideological based system. The author commenced the above-mentioned dialogue after thoroughly examining the beginning of Third wave (used by famous Harvard based scholar Samuel P. Huntington) of Democracy of the early 1970s. For author, the spread of liberal democracy across various part of the globe became an ideological alternative to moribund ideological governments such as Fascism, dictatorship, monarchies, and off-course communism after the Soviet disintegration.

According to this book, after the death of communism in the 1980s, the history of the world has come to an end. Hence, from now onwards, the world will be led by the liberal based democratic international system and soon people will see the fruit of freedom, liberty and democracy. In this respect, the theoretical discussion of the book has openly declared the American liberal democracy as the viable model for the world in the coming Millennium—which the author then referred to the dawn of 21st century. Perhaps, if we carefully analyze the synthetic vocabulary in text of the book, we will see a clear justification the irreversible historical victory of liberal democratic order over Soviet Communism.

Similarly, if we carefully examine the content of the book, in part I of the book, the author briefly opens an epistemological discussion concerning the centuries old ideological confrontation between civilizations. In this part of the book, the author clearly explains about the progress of history in the path of liberal democratic model. With this argument, the author openly claims that the progress of the human civilization has reached to the endpoint of the history. Basically, for epistemological and ontological analysis about ideological victory of the Liberal democratic system over the authoritarian communism, the author uses the philosophy of famous German philosopher Frederich Hegel, especially its interpretation by Alexander Kojeve.

Because, according to Hegelian dialectics, the whole discourse of the history an evolving phenomenon as a result of the confrontation between the two opposing forces—the pure Hegelian dialectics that refers to the confrontation between thesis and anti-thesis to form synthesis. In this regard, during the cold war the conflict between the Communist Soviet Union and Liberal capitalist United States was purely dialectical, which finally ended by propelling the pace of human historical progress in the direction of liberal democracy. Nonetheless, according to the End of history thesis, with the victory of liberal democracy after the end of cold has brought the human civilization at the final point. Hence, this historical endpoint is determined by the establishment of homogenized supranational system governed by the single ideology. Perhaps, this was the end conclusion of Alexander Kojeve interpretation of the Hegelian dialectics.

For Fukuyama, the epical end of the long time ideological battle between the authoritarian Communism and Liberal Capitalism has transformed the globe into post-political civilization free from ideological confrontation. In the respect, the establishment of the liberal based Washington led new world order is unchallenged and is the fate of humanity for the generations to come. To be more precise, according to book the term ‘End of History’ resembles the final evolution of the human history and progress, which can be clearly understood through Hegelian dialectics. With this proposition, Fukuyama denied the Marxism view of the history that affirms that endpoint of the human history and progress will be the establishment of Communist system across the globe.

Similarly, the part II and part III of the book, the author commence the discussion about the legitimacy and rationality of the liberal democratic model by taking into the political and economic imperatives. For Fukuyama, politically, the liberal democratic model guarantees the civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the freedom of conscience. Likewise, the liberal democratic model also promises the freedom of press and public opinion. In contrast, by guaranteeing the civil liberties and other freedom, the liberal democratic model fulfills the standards of the modern society.

On the other hand, economically, the liberal democratic model supports the free-market economy that guarantees economic freedom to every person unlike the rigid and closed communist system. Hence, from the economic standpoint, the liberal democratic societies are secure and more productive in term wealth and capital. To justify this notion, Fukuyama used the Hegelian concept of labor, whose purpose of production is not only aimed at satisfying the material needs rather the labor also demands recognition and special title in the society. Perhaps, it is the human labor that changes and transforms the natural world through skills and productivity. In the latter domain, in order to justify the concept of human labor from the standpoint of Hegelian theory, Fukuyama uses the ancient Greek concept of ‘Thymos’—which refers to the word recognition. Thus, for Fukuyama the objectification of the human labor demands the right of property and thus, the Liberal democratic system ensures the property rights of the labor.

Similarly, in Part IV of the book, the author briefly discusses about the existence and survival of the liberal democratic model, which in the author view can only survive by upholding the democratic virtue of Thymos. Likewise, in Part V and final part of the book discusses about the emerging challenging and coming reservation concerning his legitimacy of the Liberal Democratic Model. In this part of the book, the author discusses about the coming about challenges to liberal democratic system in the Nietzschean context. Because, for the Nietzsche, the so-called universalization principle of the Liberal philosophy will result in the devaluation of all its values and virtues. In this respect, according to Fukuyama, the ontological persistence of the liberal values is key for the survival and preservation of the liberal democratic model.

In a nut shell, through the famous ‘End of History’ thesis, Francis Fukuyama has marked his name in the important pages of the American History. It is because, his theory has declared the victory of liberal democracy as the victory of the victory of the United States which became morbid with the dawn of the XXI century. As a matter of fact, Fukuyama proved himself wrong and distorted the historical realities by interpreting it through fictitious liberal outlook. Perhaps, his resentment concerning his outdated End of History thesis can be understood in his recent book “Identity” in which he retreats from his End of history thesis.

Continue Reading

Americas

The Atom And The Virus: A Progressively Lethal Convergence For The United States

Prof. Louis René Beres

Published

on

“It is only in the thick of calamity that one gets hardened to the truth – in other words, to silence.”-Albert Camus, The Plague

Americans may too easily forget, in the midst of a biological plague, that assorted “ordinary” geopolitical threats have not thereby gone away. In this regard, multiple risks of nuclear war with several adversarial nations have actually been growing. Here, too, grievously fearful developments are largely attributable to an incompetent and indifferent American president.

Prima facie, the prognoses are plain. Going forward with Donald J. Trump, the United States could only anticipate the utterly worst forms of catastrophic convergence. Without hyperbole, should this president somehow remain in office, America’s plausible future could include variously intersecting and steadily escalating existential harms.

It’s time for recognizing particularities. In narrow geostrategic terms, North Korea and Iran represent the most obvious and compelling nuclear threats. This assessment is credible even though Iran is not yet operationally nuclear.[1] Why? It is because Iran is still capable of fighting a massive conventional conflict against America’s principal Middle Eastern ally.

In brief, Tehran could at some point prod the United States to consider using some of its extant nuclear forces on behalf of Israel.

There is more. Certain Sunni Arab states worried about an impending “Persian bomb” could also seek to obtain a countervailing nuclear capacity for themselves.[2]  In this connection, Egypt and Saudi Arabia come most immediately to mind.

What happens next? What particular intersections or synergies might arise here involving Iran and Israel? And what might be the concurrent effects of “plague” (Covid19 pandemic) upon all of the pertinent “players?”

In  essence, however the plausible conflict scenarios might be configured, all pertinent prospects are unprecedented and all portend unique outcomes that are sui generis.

Looking ahead, US policy attention should also be directed toward ongoing nuclear developments in Russia and China. As we are very clearly in the midst of a second Cold War, or “Cold War II,” these ongoing Russian and Chinese developments provide a background for other nuclear  developments underway in Pyongyang and Tehran. “Cold War II,”[3] recently underscored by the growing scandal of Russian bounties to the Taliban for killing US forces in Afghanistan, represents the system within which virtually all contemporary world politics should now be categorized and assessed.[4]

In brief, the current Great Powers’ disposition to war, however it might be ascertained, isrelevant analytic background for still-wider nuclear interactions.

Planning ahead, what explanatory theories and scenarios could best guide the Trump administration in its many-sided interactions with North Korea, Iran, China and Russia? Before answering this basic question with any adequate and clarifying specificity, a “correct” answer – any correct answer – must depend upon one single overarching assumption. This is the inherently problematic expectation of adversarial rationality.

It now follows, among other things, that a primary “order of business” for those American strategic analysts and planners focused on this most urgent set of security problems will be reaching informed judgments about each determinable adversary’s ordering of preferences. By definition, only those particular adversaries who would value national survival more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences would be acting rationally.

For scholars and policy-makers, some further basic questions must now be considered. First, what are the operational meanings of relevant terminologies and/or vocabularies? Accordingly, in the formal study of international relations and military strategy, decisional irrationality never means the same thing as madness. Nonetheless, certain residual warnings about madness should still warrant very serious US policy consideration. This is because both “ordinary” irrationality and full-scale madness could exert more-or-less comparable effects upon any examined country’s national security decision-making processes.

Again, nothing here for the intellectually faint-hearted.

Sometime, for the United States, understanding and anticipating these ascertainable effects could display existential importance. In all such prospective considerations, words would matter a great deal. In normal strategic parlance, “irrationality” identifies a decisional foundation wherein national self-preservation is not summa, not the very highest and ultimate preference.

A prospectively irrational decision-maker in Pyongyang, Tehran or elsewhere need not be determinably “mad” in order to become  troubling for policy analysis by aptly designated leaders in Washington. Such an adversary needs “only” to be more conspicuously concerned about certain discernible preferences or values than about its own collective self-preservation. One example would be preferences expressed for  certain feasible outcomes other than national survival.  Normally, any such behavior would be unexpected and counter-intuitive, but it would still not be unprecedented or inconceivable. Moreover, identifying the specific criteria or correlates of any such considered survival imperatives could prove irremediably subjective and/or simply indecipherable.

Whether an examined American adversary were sometime deemed irrational or “mad,” US military planners would have to input a generally similar decisional calculation. An analytic premise here would be that the particular adversary “in play” might not be suitably deterred from launching a military attack by any American threats of retaliatory destruction, even where such threats would be fully credible and presumptively massive. Any such failure of US military deterrence could include conventional and nuclear retaliatory threats.

In fashioning America’s nuclear strategy vis-à-vis nuclear and not-yet-nuclear adversaries,[5] US military planners must include a mechanism to determine whether a designated adversary (e.g., North Korea or Iran) will more likely be rational or irrational. Operationally, this means ascertaining whether the identifiably relevant foe will value its collective survival (whether as a sovereign state or an organized terror group) more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences. Always, this early judgment must be based upon defensibly sound analytic principles.

In principle, at least, it should never be affected in any tangible way by what particular analysts might themselves simply “want to believe.”[6]

A corollary US obligation, depending in large part upon this prior judgment concerning enemy rationality, will expect strategic planners to assess whether a properly nuanced posture of  “pretended irrationality” could purposefully enhance America’s nuclear deterrence posture.  On several occasions, it should be recalled here, President Donald Trump had openly praised at least the underlying premises of such an eccentric posture. Was such presidential praise intellectually warranted and/or properly justified?

Ever?

It depends. US enemies include both state and sub-state foes, whether considered singly or in various assorted forms of collaboration. Such forms could be “hybridized” in different ways between state and sub-state adversaries.[7] In dealing with Washington, each recognizable class of enemies could sometime choose to feign irrationality.

In principle, this could represent a potentially clever strategy to “get a jump” on the United States in any expected or already-ongoing competition for “escalation dominance.”[8]  Naturally, any such calculated pretense could also fail, perhaps calamitously. Cautionary strategic behavior based on serious conceptual thinking should always be the presidential “order of the day.”[9]

There is something else. On occasion, these same enemies could “decide,” whether consciously or unwittingly, to actually be irrational.[10]  In any such innately bewildering circumstances, it would then become incumbent upon American strategic planners to capably assess which basic form of irrationality –  pretended or authentic – is actually underway. Thereafter, these planners would need to respond with a dialectically orchestrated and optimally counterpoised set of all possible reactions.

Once again, in purely intellectual terms, this would represent an uncommonly “tall order.”

There is more. In this context, the term “dialectically” (drawn originally from ancient Greek thought, especially Plato’s dialogues) is used with very precise meanings. This is done in order to signify a continuous or ongoing question-and-answer format of relevant strategic reasoning.

By definition, any instance of enemy irrationality would value certain specific preferences (e.g., presumed religious obligations or personal and/or regime safety) more highly than collective survival. For America, the grievously threatening prospect of facing some genuinely irrational nuclear adversary is prospectively most worrisome with regard to North Korea and at least possibly, in a now rapidly closing future, Iran.[11] Apropos of all such more-or-less credible apprehensions, it is unlikely that they could ever be meaningfully reduced by way of formal treaties or law-based agreements.[12]

Here it would be well worth remembering seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ classic warning in Leviathan:  “Covenants, without the sword, are but words….”[13] If this  traditional problem of global anarchy were not daunting enough for American strategists and decision-makers, it is further complicated by the largely unforeseeable effects of worldwide pandemic and, perhaps correspondingly, the effects of any consequent chaos.

Chaos is not the same as anarchy. Chaos is much “more than” anarchy. We have lived with anarchy or absence of central government in modern world politics since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648,[14] but we have yet to descend into any genuine worldwide chaos.[15]

 How should the United States proceed? At some point, at least in principle, the very best option could seem to be some sort of preemption;  that is, a defensive non-nuclear first-strike directed against situationally appropriate North Korean or Iranian hard targets. In actuality, however, it is already very late for launching an operationally cost-effective preemption against North Korea, and – even if it could be properly defended in law as “anticipatory self-defense”[16] – any such action would likely come at a much-too-substantial human and political cost.

In specific regard to any current and potentially protracted US-Iran enmity, the American side must consider how its nuclear weapons could best be leveraged against that adversarial state in virtually any war scenario. A rational answer here could never include any operational use of such weapons. The only pertinent questions for US planners, therefore, should concern the calculable extent to which an asymmetrical US threat of nuclear escalation could sometime be made sufficiently and aptly credible.[17]

Once again, by definition, as long as Iran should remain non-nuclear, any US nuclear threat would necessarily be asymmetrical.

By applying all available standards of ordinary reason and logic (there are, after all, no usable historical points of reference in such unprecedented situations), Washington could most suitably determine that certain nuclear threats against Iran would serve American security interests only when Iranian military capacities, though still non-nuclear, were convincingly overwhelming. Any such daunting scenario, though difficult to imagine ex nihilo, might nonetheless be conceivable. This “strategic dialectic” holds most convincingly if Tehran were willing to escalate (a) to massive direct conventional attacks upon American territories or populations, and/or (b) to the significant use of biological warfare capabilities.

In any matter of prospective biological warfare, it is worth noting that we are currently in the midst of a naturally-occurring biological “assault,” and that even in the complete absence of any specific adversarial animus or intent, the injurious consequences are already at the outer limits of tolerability and sustainability.

 Inter alia, all this should now imply a primary obligation for the United States (c) to focus continuously on incremental enhancements to its implicit nuclear deterrence posture; and (d) to develop a wide and nuanced range of plausible nuclear retaliatory options. The specific rationale of (d) (above), is the counter-intuitive understanding that credibility of nuclear threats could sometime vary inversely with perceived levels of destructiveness. In certain  foreseeable circumstances, this means that the successful nuclear deterrence of Iran could depend upon nuclear weapons that are deemed sufficiently low-yield or small.

Sometimes, in fashioning a national nuclear deterrence posture, counter-intuitive strategic insight is most correctly “on the mark,” and therefore most indispensable. This is likely one of these “multi-layered” times.

  There is more. Washington should continue to bear in mind that any US nuclear posture must focus on prevention rather than punishment. In any and all identifiable circumstances, using a portion of its available nuclear forces for vengeance rather than deterrence would miss the proverbial point; that is, to fully optimize US national security. Any American nuclear weapons use that were based on narrowly corrosive notions of revenge, and even if only as a residual or default option, would be irrational.

 These are all complex intellectual issues, not simply political ones. America’s many-sided nuclear deterrent must be backed up by recognizably robust systems of active defense (BMD), especially if there should arise any determinable reason to fear an irrationalnuclear adversary. Although it is already well-known that no system of active defense can ever be entirely “leak-proof,” there is still good reason to suppose that certain BMD deployments could help safeguard both US civilian populations (soft targets) and American nuclear retaliatory forces (hard targets).[18] This means that technologically advanced anti-missile systems must remain indefinitely as a steadily-modernizing component of this country’s nuclear deterrence posture. Among other elements of permissible self-defense, this suggests continuously expanding emphases on laser-based weapon systems.

While it may at  first sound annoyingly obvious, it must still be remembered that in the bewildering nuclear age, seemingly defensive strategies could sometime be viewed by uneasy adversaries as offensive. This is because the secure foundation of any system of nuclear deterrence must be some reasonable presumption of mutual vulnerability.“Everything is very simple in war,” says Clausewitz, in On War, “but the simplest thing is still difficult.”

To progress in its most vital national security obligations, American military planners must more expressly identify the prioritized goals of this country’s nuclear deterrence posture. Before any rationaladversary could be suitably deterred by an American nuclear deterrent, that enemy would first need to believe that Washington had capably maintained the capacity to launch appropriate nuclear reprisals for relevant forms of aggression (nuclear and perhaps biological/non-nuclear), and also the will[19] to undertake such uniquely consequential firings.

About the first belief criterion, it would almost certainly lie beyond any “reasonable doubt.”

Well beyond.

The second expectation, however, could sometime prove problematic and thus more-or-less “fatally” undermine US nuclear deterrence. In assorted ways that are not yet clearly understood, the necessary national will could be impacted by pandemic-related or even pandemic-created factors.[20] Significantly, too, there would be certain hard-to-foresee interactions or synergies taking place between US policy decisions and those of pertinent American adversaries.

 In more perplexing matters involving an expectedly irrationalnuclear enemy,[21] successful US deterrence would need to be based upon distinctly credible threats to enemy values other than national survival. Here, too, the actual prospect of enemy irrationality could be related to pandemic factors. In the most extreme cases, disease could actually play a tangible and determinative role in producing an enemy’s decisional irrationality.

 More typically, America will also need  to demonstrate the continuously substantial invulnerability of its nuclear retaliatory forces to enemy first strike aggressions. More precisely, it will remain in America’s long-term survival interests to continue to emphasize its variegated submarine-basing nuclear options.[22] Otherwise, as is plainly reasonable to contemplate, America’s land-based strategic nuclear forces could potentially present to a strongly-determined existential enemy (e.g., North Korea) as “too-vulnerable.”

For the moment, this is not a significantly serious concern, though Washington will want to stay focused on any still-planned deployment of submarines by its Israeli ally in the Middle East. The general point of such a secondary focus would be on strengthening Israeli nuclear deterrence, which – in one way or another – would simultaneously be to the overall strategic benefit of the United States.[23] Israel’s own nuclear deterrence could be affected by assorted pandemic-related variables, including some with serious reciprocal consequences for the United States.

There is more. Increasingly, America will have to rely on a broadly multi-faceted doctrine of nuclear deterrence.[24] In turn, like its already-nuclear Israeli ally,[25] specific elements of this “simple but difficult” doctrine could sometime need to be rendered less “ambiguous.” This complex and finely nuanced modification will require an even more determined focus on prospectively rational and irrational enemies, including both national and sub-national foes.

To deal most successfully with its presumptively irrational or non-rational enemies, and whether or not impacted by pandemic factors, this country will need to compose a continuously-updating strategic “playbook.” Here, it could become necessary for Washington to consider, at least on occasion, policies of feigned irrationality. In such analytically-challenging cases, it would be important for the American president not to react in an ad hoc or “seat-of-the-pants” fashion to each and every new strategic development or eruption, but instead to derive or extrapolate all specific policy reactions from a suitably pre-fashionedand comprehensive strategic nuclear doctrine.

Without such a thoughtful doctrine as guide, pretended irrationality could quickly become a “double-edged sword,” effectively bringing more rather than less security harms to the United States.[26]

There is one penultimate but still critical observation.  It is improbable, but not inconceivable, that certain of America’s principal enemies would be neither rational nor irrational, but mad. While irrational decision-makers would already pose special problems for US nuclear deterrence  – by definition, because these decision-makers would not value collective survival more highly than any other preference or combination of preferences – they might still be rendered susceptible to various alternate forms of deterrence.

 Here, resembling  rational decision-makers, they could still maintain a fixed, determinable and “transitive” hierarchy of preferences. This means, at least in principle, that “merely” irrational enemies could still sometimes be successfully deterred.  This is an observation well worth further analytic study.

Mad or “crazy” adversaries, on the other hand, would have no such calculable hierarchy of preferences, and would therefore not be subject to any strategy of American  nuclear deterrence. Although it would likely be far worse for the United States to have to face a mad nuclear enemy than a “merely” irrational one, Washington would have no foreseeable choice in this matter. This country, like it or not, will need to maintain, perhaps indefinitely, a “three track” system of nuclear deterrence and defense, one track for each of its still-identifiable adversaries that are presumptively (1) rational (2) irrational  or (3) mad.

Again, this will not be task for the narrowly political or intellectually averse US decision-maker.

Further, for the most notably unpredictable third track, special plans will be needed for undertaking certain potentially indispensable preemptions, and, simultaneously, for corresponding/overlapping efforts atballistic missile defense.

Naturally, there could be no assurances that any one “track” would always present exclusively of the others. This means, portentously, that American decision-makers could sometimes have to face deeply intersecting or interpenetrating tracks, and also that these complicated simultaneities could be synergistic.[27]

There is one final observation to be noted. Even if America’s military planners could reassuringly assume that enemy leaderships were fully rational, this would say nothing about the accuracy of the actual information used by these foes in making their particular calculations. Always, it must never be forgotten, rationality refers only to the intention of maximizing certain designated preference or values. It says nothing about whether the information being used is either correct or incorrect.

There is more. In this extraordinary time of global “plague,” any such intention – American or adversarial – could have pandemic-related determinants. At a minimum, this fact should be regarded as sobering to America’s national security decision-makers. For these officials, this will be a moment in history to disavow any inclinations to hubris, to excessive pride, and to accept, instead, an abundance of prudential caution.

America is not automatically made safer by having rational adversaries. Even fully rational enemy leaderships could commit serious errors in calculation that lead them toward a nuclear confrontation or to a nuclear/biological war. There are also certain related command and control issues that could impel a perfectly rational adversary or combination of rational adversaries (both state and sub-state) to embark upon various risky nuclear behaviors. It follows that even the most pleasingly “optimistic” assessments of enemy leadership decision-making could never reliably preclude authentically catastrophic outcomes.[28]

For the United States, understanding that no scientifically accurate judgments of probability can ever be made about unique events (by definition, any nuclear exchange would be sui generis, or precisely such a unique event), the very best lessons for America’s president should favor a determined decisional prudence and a deliberate posture of humility. Of special interest, in this connection, is the always erroneous presumption that having greater nuclear military power than an adversary is automatically an assurance of future bargaining or diplomatic success. When Donald Trump said on several occasions that he and Kim Jung Un both have a “nuclear button,” but that his button “is bigger,” the American president overestimated the US advantages of any such presumptive asymmetry.

Wholly overestimated.

Why? Because the tangible amount of deliverable nuclear firepower required for deterrence is necessarily much less than what could ever be required for “victory.”[29] This is now a time for displaying nuanced and purposeful counter-intuitive wisdom in Washington, and not for more clichéd presidential thinking or further rancorous barrages of some stunningly empty witticism.

For Washington, especially for this president, operating in the largely-unpracticed nuclear age, ancient Greek tragedy warnings about excessive leadership pride are not only still relevant, they are also palpably and irrefutably more important than ever before.

For the United States,  these classical commentaries concerning hubris, left unheeded, could bring forth once unimaginable spasms of “retribution.”[30] The Greek tragedians, after all, were not yet called upon to reason about nuclear decision-making. None of this culminating suggestion is meant to build gratuitously upon America’s most manifestly reasonable fears or apprehensions, but only to remind everyone involved that competent national security planning must remain a bewilderingly complex struggle of “mind over mind.”[31]

Always, these remain fundamentally intellectual problems,[32] challenges requiring meticulous analytic preparation[33] rather than just a particular “attitude.”[34] Above all, such planning ought never become just another calculable contest of “mind over matter;”[35] that is, never just a vainly reassuring inventory of comparative weaponization or some presumptively superior “order of battle.” Unless this rudimentary point is more completely understood by senior US strategic policymakers and by the president of the United States – and until these same policymakers can begin to see the utterly overriding wisdom of expanded global cooperation and human “oneness”[36] – America can never make itself sufficiently secure from nuclear or biological war.

               Never.[37]

In his 1927 preface to Oxford Poetry, W.H. Auden wrote: “All genuine poetry is in a sense the formation of private spheres out of public chaos….” Looking ahead with an appropriately avant-garde orientation, American strategists must essentially seek to carve out livable national spheres from a steadily expanding global chaos. Ultimately, of course, following Nietzsche, they must understand that such chaos originally lies within each individual human being, but – at least for the moment of their present strategic deliberations – they must focus upon collective survival in a true Hobbesian “state of nature.”

With the predictable spread of nuclear weapons to additional states (and, perhaps, to sub-national terror groups), the historical conditions of nature bequeathed at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 could soon come to resemble the primordial barbarism of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Long before Golding, the seventeenth-century English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, had warned insightfully in Leviathan (Chapter XIII)  that in any such circumstances of human disorder here there exists “continual fear, and danger of violent death, the “life of Man” must inevitably be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To best plan its strategic future, America will first need to understand a plausible world system transformation from anarchy to chaos, and to accommodate this drastic pandemic-hastened transformation with some more authentically imaginative thinking.

In such crucial matters, recalling Italian film director Federico Fellini,

“The visionary is the only realist.”

In the final analysis, as Nietzsche himself acknowledges, chaos is an intra-personal condition before it can ever become an international one.[38] This means that the core problem of chaos must be “solved” at the behavioral level before it can be solved in any larger arenas of nuclear strategy, international relations or international law. On this irremediably central understanding, one now made substantially more urgent by global pandemic, it would be worthwhile for engaged strategists to heed and assess the thoughtful  words of Trappist monk and 20th-century thinker Thomas Merton, not because they could have any immediate “practical” value, but because they can serve as a long-term reminder of what is ultimately being asked of us all:

 “When there is a deep, simple, all-embracing love of man, of the created world of living and inanimate things, then there will be respect for life, for freedom, for truth, for justice, and there will be humble love of God. But where there is no love of man, no love of life, then make all the laws you want, all the edicts and treaties, issue all the anathemas, set up all the safeguards and inspections, fill the air with spying satellites, and hang cameras on the moon. As long as you see your fellow man as a being essentially to be feared, mistrusted, hated and destroyed, there cannot be peace on earth.”[39]

Summing up, US foreign policy initiatives concerning nuclear war avoidance must shift from traditional notions of “realism” to more enduring ideas of “planetization.”[40] Though seemingly utopian, these ideas are ultimately more realistic than any global continuance of Thomas Hobbes’ “state of nature.” For the time being, pertinent American policies will still have to be founded upon intellectually supportable principles of nuclear deterrence and corresponding elements of “preparation,” but such foundations should not be expected to last indefinitely. It follows that keeping the United States safely distant from nuclear conflagration will require an American leadership that can navigate all current and foreseeable risks – including some that are pandemic-related – and also plan competently for the problematic future.

In the end, as illustrated by both the more-or-less predictable effects of a nuclear war[41] and long-established effects of “plague,” we humans are all evident creatures of biology and all of us mustfinally recognize each other in this commonality. Moreover, this is a primal commonality, a determinative “oneness” worth adapting to all of America’s national security policies. Such structural interdependence underscores our interpenetrating existential vulnerabilities as individual human beings and our leaders’ corollary obligation to place the common good above any narrowly personal interests.[42]

The atom and the virus now pose a lethal convergence for the United States. To render this perilous simultaneity more manageable and tolerable will require an American leadership with suitably intellectual moorings and inclinations.  Failing to meet this indispensable requirement would compel a once-promising nation to become hardened to a terrible and irremediable truth.

Then, recalling Albert Camus’ The Plague, we would need to get hardened “to silence.”


[1] For early warnings about Iranian nuclearization from a specifically Israeli perspective, see Louis René Beres (Chair of Project Daniel/PM Sharon), Jerusalem: Israel’s Strategic Future: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-ISSUE/daniel-3.

See also, by Professor Louis René Beres, at Harvard Law School: https://harvardnsj.org/2014/06/staying-strong-enhancing-israels-essential-strategic-options-2/

[2] For earlier conceptualizations of this capacity, by this author, see: Louis René Beres, Mimicking Sisyphus: America’s Countervailing Nuclear Strategy (1983) and Louis René Beres, America Outside the World: The Collapse of U.S. Foreign Policy (1987).

[3] Identifying “Cold War II” means expecting the world system to become increasingly bipolar. For early writings, by this author, on the global security implications of any such expanding bipolarity, see: Louis René Beres, “Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and the Reliability of Alliance Commitments,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 25, No.4., December 1972, pp. 702-710; Louis René Beres, “Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and the Tragedy of the Commons,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.4., December 1973, pp, 649-658; and Louis René Beres, “Guerillas, Terrorists, and Polarity: New Structural Models of World Politics,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 27, No.4., December 1974, pp. 624-636.

[4] In late June 2019, Russia announced that current US policies concerning bilateral nuclear treaty termination and also then-prospective US anti-missile deployments in eastern Europe could threaten “another Cuban missile crisis.” This suggests that Russia remains important in military nuclear terms not only for its obvious shaping of “Cold War II” context, but also (once again) as a direct and increasingly immediate nuclear threat to the United States.

[5] For a very recent analysis of deterring not-yet-nuclear adversaries in the case of Israel, see article co-authored by Professor Louis René Beres and (former Israeli Ambassador ) Zalman Shoval at the Modern War Institute, West Point (Pentagon): https://mwi.usma.edu/creating-seamless-strategic-deterrent-israel-case-study/

[6] Recall here the classic statement of Julius Caesar: “Men as a rule believe what they want to believe.” See: Caesar’s Gallic War, Book III, Chapter 18.

[7] This “hybrid” concept could also be applied to various pertinent ad hoc bilateral state collaborations against US strategic interests. For example, during June 2019, Russia and China collaborated to block an American initiative aimed at halting fuel deliveries to North Korea. The US-led cap on North Korea’s fuel imports had been intended to sanction any continuing North Korean nuclearization. Prima facie, of course, this narrowly visceral plan was entirely futile.

[8] On “escalation dominance,” see recent article by Professor Louis René Beres at The War Room, US Army War College, Pentagon:  https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/nuclear-decision-making-and-nuclear-war-an-urgent-american-problem/

[9]The seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal remarks prophetically in Pensées: “All our dignity consists in thought….It is upon this that we must depend…Let us labor then to think well: this is the foundation of morality.” Similar reasoning characterizes the writings of Baruch Spinoza, Pascal’s 17th-century contemporary. In Book II of his Ethics Spinoza considers the human mind, or the intellectual attributes, and – drawing further upon René Descartes – strives to define an essential theory of learning and knowledge.

[10] In his own work, Sigmund Freud sought to “excavate” deeper meanings concerning irrational human behavior. Always, he was a modern-day philosophe, a proud child of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, one who discovered profound analytic and therapeutic advantages in exploring sometimes-arcane literary paths to psychological knowledge. Freud maintained an extensive personal collection of antiquities which suggested certain penetrating psychological insights to him. Some of his pertinent collection was placed directly on his work desk; reportedly, he would often touch and turn the artifacts while deeply engaged in some challenging thought.

[11] See, also by this author, Louis René Beres, at Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School): https://harvardnsj.org/2013/10/lessons-for-israel-from-ancient-chinese-military-thought-facing-iranian-nuclearization-with-sun-tzu/

[12] See, for example, by this author, at Yale:  https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/nuclear-treaty-abrogation-imperils-global-security

[13] Regarding “covenants,” US decision-makers should nonetheless be continually attentive to relevant considerations of law as well as strategy. More particularly, under authoritative law, states must judge every use of force twice: once with regard to the underlying right to wage war (jus ad bellum) and once with regard to the means used in conducting an actual war (jus in bello). Following the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 and the United Nations Charter (1945), there remains no defensible legal right to waging an aggressive war. However, the long-standing customary right of post-attack self-defense does remain codified at Article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly subject to conformance, inter alia, with jus in bello criteria, certain instances of humanitarian intervention and collective security operations may also be consistent with jus ad bellum standards. The law of war, the rules of jus in bello, comprise: (1) laws on weapons; (2) laws on warfare; and (3) humanitarian rules. Codified primarily at the Hague and Geneva Conventions, these rules attempt to bring discrimination, proportionality and military necessity into all belligerent calculations.

[14]International law remains a “vigilante” or “Westphalian” system. See: Treaty of Peace of Munster, Oct. 1648, 1 Consol. T.S. 271; and Treaty of Peace of Osnabruck, Oct. 1648, 1., Consol. T.S. 119, Together, these two treaties comprise the Peace of Westphalia.

[15] Though composed in the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan may still offer us a prophetic vision of this prospective condition in modern world politics. During chaos, which is a “time of War,” says the English philosopher in Chapter XIII  (“Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery.”):  “… every man is Enemy to every man… and where the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Still, at the actual time of writing Leviathan, Hobbes believed that the condition of “nature” in world politics was less chaotic than that same condition extant among individual human beings. This was because of what he had called the “dreadful equality” of individual men in nature concerning the ability to kill others. This once-relevant differentiation has effectively disappeared with the continuing manufacture and spread of nuclear weapons, a spread soon apt to be exacerbated by an already-nuclear North Korea, by a not-yet-nuclear Iran and by the largely unpredictable effects of an ongoing disease pandemic.

[16] For a pertinent Israeli example, see, by this author:  https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-09-06/10-years-later-israels-operation-orchard-offers-lessons-on-north-korea

[17]In regard to such questions, US strategic thinkers must inquire whether accepting a visible posture of limited nuclear war would merely exacerbate enemy nuclear intentions or whether it could actually enhance this country’s overall nuclear deterrence. Such questions have been raised by this author for many years, but usually in more explicit reference to broadly theoretical or generic nuclear threats. See, for example, Louis René Beres, The Management of World Power: A Theoretical Analysis (1972); Louis René Beres, Terrorism and Global Security: The Nuclear Threat (1979; second edition, 1987); Louis René Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (1980); Louis René Beres, Mimicking Sisyphus: America’s Countervailing Nuclear Strategy (1983); Louis René Beres, Reason and Realpolitik: US Foreign Policy and World Order (1984); Louis René Beres, Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (1986); and Louis René Beres, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016).

[18] On the prospective shortcomings of Israeli BMD systems, from which certain authoritative extrapolations could be made about US systems, see: Louis René Beres and (Major-General/IDF/ret.) Isaac Ben-Israel, “The Limits of Deterrence,” Washington Times, November 21, 2007; Professor Louis René Beres and M-G Isaac Ben-Israel, “Deterring Iran,” Washington Times, June 10, 2007; and Professor Louis René Beres and M-G Isaac Ben-Israel, “Deterring Iranian Nuclear Attack,” Washington Times, January 27, 2009.

[19] The modern philosophy origins of the term “will” lie in the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer,  especially The World as Will and Idea (1818). For his own inspiration, Schopenhauer drew freely upon Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Later, Nietzsche drew just as freely and perhaps even more importantly upon Schopenhauer. Goethe was also a core intellectual source for Spanish existentialist Jose Ortega y’Gasset, author of the singularly prophetic work, The Revolt of the Masses (Le Rebelion de las Masas (1930). See, accordingly, Ortega’s very grand essay, “In Search of Goethe from Within” (1932), written for Die Neue Rundschau of Berlin on the occasion of the centenary of Goethe’s death. It is reprinted in Ortega’s anthology, The Dehumanization of Art (1948), and is available from Princeton University Press (1968).

[20] A prospectively positive impact, however, could center on improved opportunities for world-wide cooperation. See, on this hopeful point, by this author,. Louis René Beres, https://www.21global.ucsb.edu/global-e/march-2020/virulent-pathogens-and-global-solidarity-unseen-benefits-covid-19

[21] See, on deterring a prospectively irrational nuclear Iran, Louis René Beres and General John T. Chain, “Could Israel Safely deter a Nuclear Iran? The Atlantic, August 2012; and Professor Louis René Beres and General John T. Chain, “Israel; and Iran at the Eleventh Hour,” Oxford University Press (OUP Blog), February 23, 2012. Though dealing with Israeli rather than American nuclear deterrence, these articles authoritatively clarify the common conceptual elements. General Chain was Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Air Command (CINCSAC).

[22] On the Israeli sea-basing issue, see Louis René Beres and Admiral Leon “Bud” Edney, “Israel’s Nuclear Strategy: A Larger Role for Submarine-Basing,” The Jerusalem Post, August 17, 2014; and Professor Louis René Beres and Admiral Leon “Bud” Edney, “A Sea-Based Nuclear Deterrent for Israel,” Washington Times, September 5, 2014. Admiral Edney was NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT).

[23] See, in this connection, by Professor Louis René Beres and General (USA/ret.) Barry R. McCaffrey, Israel’s Nuclear Strategy and America’s National Security;  https://sectech.tau.ac.il/sites/sectech.tau.ac.il/files/PalmBeachBook.pdf

[24] On the primary importance of doctrine, by this author, see Louis René Beres,  https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/01/louis-beres-seeking-plausible-strategic-goals-iran/  See also, concerning US ally Israel: https://strategicassessment.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/antq/fe-676949421.pdf

[25] See, by this author (who was Chair of Project Daniel for Israeli PM Ariel Sharon):  http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-ISSUE/daniel-3.htm  See also: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-nuclear-ambiguity/ and  https://www.idc.ac.il/he/research/ips/Documents/2013/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA/LouisReneBeres.pdf

[26] This brings to mind the closing query of Agamemnon in The Oresteia by Aeschylus: “Where will it end? When will it all be lulled back into sleep, and cease, the bloody hatreds, the destruction”?

[27] See, for example, by this author, at Harvard National Security Journal:  https://harvardnsj.org/2015/06/core-synergies-in-israels-strategic-planning-when-the-adversarial-whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

[28] In this connection, expressions of decisional error (including mistakes by the United States)  could take different and overlapping forms. These forms include a disorderly or inconsistent value system; computational errors in calculation; an incapacity to communicate efficiently; random or haphazard influences in the making or transmittal of particular decisions; and internal dissonance generated by any authoritative structure of collective decision-making (e.g., the US National Security Council).

[29] See, by this author, at Oxford University Press: https://blog.oup.com/2011/10/war-winning/

[30] For much earlier similar warnings, by this author, see his October 1981 article at World Politics (Princeton):  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2010149?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[31] Clausewitzian friction refers to the unpredictable effects of errors in knowledge and information concerning strategic uncertainties; on presidential under-estimations or over-estimations of US relative power position; and on the unalterably vast and largely irremediable differences between theories of deterrence and enemy intent “as it actually is.” See: Carl von Clausewitz, “Uber das Leben und den Charakter von Scharnhorst,” Historisch-politische Zeitschrift, 1 (1832); cited in Barry D. Watts, Clausewitzian Friction and Future War, McNair Paper No. 52, October, 1996, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University Washington, D.C. p. 9.

[32] This also brings to mind an apt warning by French poet Guillaume Apollinaire, in The New Spirit and the Poets (1917): “It must not be forgotten that it is perhaps more dangerous for a nation to allow itself to be conquered intellectually than by arms.” Today, when the United States is under the flagrantly anti-intellectual leadership of Donald J. Trump, the poet’s warning should have a very clear and compelling resonance.

[33] Or “thorough study,” in the language of Sun-Tzu.

[34] The meaningless bifurcation of “attitude” and “preparation” was expressly invoked by Donald Trump before going off to his first summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un. In that curious distinction, the US President openly favored the former.

[35] This vital reminder is also drawn from the strategic calculations of ancient Greece. See, for example, F.E. Adcock, The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (University of California, 1962).

[36] Accordingly, we may learn from ancient Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus, “”You are a citizen of the universe.” A broader idea of such “oneness” followed the death of Alexander in 322 BCE; with it came a coinciding doctrine of “universality.” By the Middle Ages, this political and social doctrine had fused with the notion of a Respublica Christiana, a worldwide Christian commonwealth, and Thomas, John of Salisbury and Dante were looking at Europe as a single and unified Christian community. Below the level of God and his heavenly host, all the realm of humanity was to be considered as one. This is because all the world had been created for the same single and incontestable purpose; that is, to provide  background for the necessary drama of human salvation. Only in its relationship to the universe itself was the world correctly considered as a part rather than a whole. Said Dante in De Monarchia: “The whole human race is a whole with reference to certain parts, and, with reference to another whole, it is a part. For it is a whole with reference to particular kingdoms and nations, as we have shown; and it is a part with reference to the whole universe, which is evident without argument.” Today, of course, the idea of human oneness can be fully justified and explained in more purely secular terms of analytic understanding.

[37] In this connection, says Thomas Hobbes in Chapter XXI of Leviathan, “The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.”

[38] “I tell you,” says Nietzsche in Zarathustra, “ye have still chaos in you.”

[39] See Merton’s The Nonviolent Alternative, 1980. Similar sentiments can be found in the German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s remark: “Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is  made, nothing entirely straight can be built.” This is my own translation from the original German: “Aus so krummem Holze, als woraus der Mensch gemacht ist, kann nichts ganz Gerades gezimmert warden.” See: Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity, xi (Henry Handy, ed., 1991) quoting Immanuel Kant’s Idee Zu Einer Allgemeinen Geschichte In Weltburgerlicher Absicht (1784).

[40] These ideas have been most closely associated with the French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, especially his modern classic The Phenomenon of Man (1955).

[41] Among some of the early books dealing with these effects ion a serious and informed way, see: Franklyn Griffiths and John C . Polanyi, editors, The Dangers of Nuclear War (1979); Arthur M. Katz, Life After Nuclear War (1982); and by this author, Louis René Beres: Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (1980).

[42] See Sophocles, Antigone, Speech of Creon, King of Thebes: “I hold despicable and always have….anyone who puts his own popularity before his country.”

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Russia56 mins ago

Russia’s geopolitics and strategy in the future

Russia’s military doctrine is clearly closely related to European security – which is obvious even after the Cold War– and...

Terrorism3 hours ago

Spurious Assertions May Cause Diplomatic Failure

America has once again disregarded the enduring efforts of Pakistan in war on terror. The latest US state department’s report...

EU Politics5 hours ago

“Together for Europe’s recovery”: Germany takes over Council presidency

While the corona pandemic continues, Germany took over the six-month presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 July....

Economy7 hours ago

Building Back Better: The new normal development path

Global stock markets such as Footsie, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nikkei has decreased the profit since the outbreak of...

Tourism9 hours ago

Giorgio Armani and Gino Sorbillo Named New Special Ambassadors for Tourism

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has appointed two new Special Ambassadors as it leads the restart of the sector across...

Arts & Culture11 hours ago

Moneyball: Is intuition the one thing that makes sports beautiful?

Looking from afar, Moneyball looks like a male-centric sport movie that teaches us about how baseball works. But looking more...

Americas13 hours ago

“America first” and Canada’s approach towards immigration

The Trump Administration’s recent announcement to suspend work visas–H1B (visas for high skilled professionals), H4B (spouses of H1B visa holders)...

Trending