Where have you been all my life? Or at least since 9/11. Best analysis I’ve read related to our current situation. To discuss this only in terms of possibly violating one campaign promise or automatically assigning past errors to today’s decisions, fails to define what’s at stake, whether the alternative is remotely favorable and what could go wrong even in the face of best laid plans.
Everyday I search for someone to delve into this without hysteria or, on the other hand, empty rationalization. This is it. Thank you.
Edward Luttwak discussed the Roman system of governance that you describe above in his excellent *The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire*. He also discussed the phase that came after, when Rome began to formally annex and directly rule places that it had previously administered using (my usage, not his) "hidden-hand" management, a change which in many instances turned out poorly for them, for all the reasons that Afghanistan and Iraq were so disastrous for us. Indeed he argued that this change probably spelled the end of the Roman Empire owing to the consequent overstress of Rome's limited resources and state capacity.
The irony is that the term "regime change" never meant what it came to mean in Afghanistan and Iraq. At least as I recall, all that was called "nation-building," precisely to distinguish it. And of course, although it wasn't called that back then, the concept of "true" regime change goes back a very long ways.
Back when I was studying political science and international relations in college nearly fifty years ago, "regime change" was a completely value-neutral term: within the meaning it had back then, a Presidential transition might be deemed a "regime change." I actually heard an argument to that effect--it was from a historian, so he didn't frame it quite the way I would have as a political scientist--regarding the Presidential transition from Adams to Jefferson: for the first time in our brief history, a transition occurred between two political parties that hated each other with a passion...and it was completely peaceful. The historian therefore advanced the argument that the election of 1800 was the true beginning of democratic rule in the US.
But even if you ignore something like that, most "regime changes" as we understood the term back then were relatively bloodless: coups, "States of Emergency," and the like.
It's only in the last quarter-century that the term seems to have become indelibly associated with--as they might say--"kinetic change."
We thoroughly proved we suck at the rebuilding part. I hope Trump holds the line against those who would try to lead him down that path.
Before Maduro was captured, there was a lot of very negative information floating around about Delcy Rodriquez and her brother. Specifically, it was suggested her and her brother were the leaders of the biggest drug cartel in the world and that they were the power behind Maduro’s throne. If true, that might help explain the smooth transition.
Trump’s critics hear the words “regime change” and start screaming Iraq 2.0. That’s lazy thinking. What President Donald Trump is talking about is simple: remove dangerous tyrants, smash the weapons that threaten America, and leave. No trillion-dollar nation-building fantasies. No twenty-year occupations. Just decisive American power followed by strategic exit. The strike on Iran’s regime leadership proved that strength restores deterrence. Trump understands what the Washington foreign-policy class forgot: peace comes from fear of consequences. The message to dictators everywhere is crystal clear — threaten America or its allies, and you might not keep your throne… or your life.
Mind boggling, or maybe not, that the same fantasists who dream about time travel in order to murder baby Hitler simultaneously cry about the military targeting of revealed malevolent dictators. It is as if infanticide is on a different ethical plane than legal execution.
People like that simply live in a fantasy world. They know there's no such thing as time travel and so they feel free to fantasize. But when the rubber meets the road in Real Life, they flip out.
Thanks for another informative post. Now, if only the other side would listen and heed.
I listen to DJT, Rubio, Hegseth and CJCS Caine re: National Security. Everything else is just noise. I've also turned off X which has gone completely off the rails. When I want sensible advice and conversation I turn to Substack for you and a few others I trust. So please keep us informed. You are a treasure.
So helpful, yes words matter if we don’t interpret correctly. It is way too early to jump to conclusions. I still believe Trump does not want forever wars. We must pray for our military and for wisdom for our Leaders.
The only thing I disagree with is that the panel seemed to believe Americans are all for retribution, and will readily accept a war. Even with violence like the shooter, Ndiaga Diagne in Austin, Texas, there seems to be no outcry for revenge. Just a lot of unanswered questions. After 9-11 and the war aftermath, most Americans are hesitant to accept war as the answer. WMDs left a bad taste in American’s mouths. Trump with the help of Israel, are solving the WMD problem in Iran in a high tech way.
Where have you been all my life? Or at least since 9/11. Best analysis I’ve read related to our current situation. To discuss this only in terms of possibly violating one campaign promise or automatically assigning past errors to today’s decisions, fails to define what’s at stake, whether the alternative is remotely favorable and what could go wrong even in the face of best laid plans.
Everyday I search for someone to delve into this without hysteria or, on the other hand, empty rationalization. This is it. Thank you.
This @DirectorBlue SubStack explains a LOT and rings true.
https://x.com/ddalex20/status/2029200710252839418?s=61&t=HXtW6oLCDh0wR-HDbjIiJw
https://directorblue.substack.com/p/irans-martyrs-with-nukes?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
True Trump supporters know exactly what he means by regime change, as he has explained it many times. Those with TDS will never "get it".
We voted for Trump to keep us out of war. Our latest military adventure in Iran bodes nothing but harm for the average American.
Well-stated and well-articulated.
Edward Luttwak discussed the Roman system of governance that you describe above in his excellent *The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire*. He also discussed the phase that came after, when Rome began to formally annex and directly rule places that it had previously administered using (my usage, not his) "hidden-hand" management, a change which in many instances turned out poorly for them, for all the reasons that Afghanistan and Iraq were so disastrous for us. Indeed he argued that this change probably spelled the end of the Roman Empire owing to the consequent overstress of Rome's limited resources and state capacity.
The irony is that the term "regime change" never meant what it came to mean in Afghanistan and Iraq. At least as I recall, all that was called "nation-building," precisely to distinguish it. And of course, although it wasn't called that back then, the concept of "true" regime change goes back a very long ways.
Back when I was studying political science and international relations in college nearly fifty years ago, "regime change" was a completely value-neutral term: within the meaning it had back then, a Presidential transition might be deemed a "regime change." I actually heard an argument to that effect--it was from a historian, so he didn't frame it quite the way I would have as a political scientist--regarding the Presidential transition from Adams to Jefferson: for the first time in our brief history, a transition occurred between two political parties that hated each other with a passion...and it was completely peaceful. The historian therefore advanced the argument that the election of 1800 was the true beginning of democratic rule in the US.
But even if you ignore something like that, most "regime changes" as we understood the term back then were relatively bloodless: coups, "States of Emergency," and the like.
It's only in the last quarter-century that the term seems to have become indelibly associated with--as they might say--"kinetic change."
We thoroughly proved we suck at the rebuilding part. I hope Trump holds the line against those who would try to lead him down that path.
Before Maduro was captured, there was a lot of very negative information floating around about Delcy Rodriquez and her brother. Specifically, it was suggested her and her brother were the leaders of the biggest drug cartel in the world and that they were the power behind Maduro’s throne. If true, that might help explain the smooth transition.
Trump’s critics hear the words “regime change” and start screaming Iraq 2.0. That’s lazy thinking. What President Donald Trump is talking about is simple: remove dangerous tyrants, smash the weapons that threaten America, and leave. No trillion-dollar nation-building fantasies. No twenty-year occupations. Just decisive American power followed by strategic exit. The strike on Iran’s regime leadership proved that strength restores deterrence. Trump understands what the Washington foreign-policy class forgot: peace comes from fear of consequences. The message to dictators everywhere is crystal clear — threaten America or its allies, and you might not keep your throne… or your life.
Mind boggling, or maybe not, that the same fantasists who dream about time travel in order to murder baby Hitler simultaneously cry about the military targeting of revealed malevolent dictators. It is as if infanticide is on a different ethical plane than legal execution.
People like that simply live in a fantasy world. They know there's no such thing as time travel and so they feel free to fantasize. But when the rubber meets the road in Real Life, they flip out.
Thanks for another informative post. Now, if only the other side would listen and heed.
I listen to DJT, Rubio, Hegseth and CJCS Caine re: National Security. Everything else is just noise. I've also turned off X which has gone completely off the rails. When I want sensible advice and conversation I turn to Substack for you and a few others I trust. So please keep us informed. You are a treasure.
Colin Powell’s “You break it, you own it” proved to be a very costly principle.
So helpful, yes words matter if we don’t interpret correctly. It is way too early to jump to conclusions. I still believe Trump does not want forever wars. We must pray for our military and for wisdom for our Leaders.
A good interview on Triggernometry discusses the very issue of regime change. It's not as simple as it sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/live/eaB-GNL-dso?si=0iGluMmpvazxPtcq
The only thing I disagree with is that the panel seemed to believe Americans are all for retribution, and will readily accept a war. Even with violence like the shooter, Ndiaga Diagne in Austin, Texas, there seems to be no outcry for revenge. Just a lot of unanswered questions. After 9-11 and the war aftermath, most Americans are hesitant to accept war as the answer. WMDs left a bad taste in American’s mouths. Trump with the help of Israel, are solving the WMD problem in Iran in a high tech way.
Bush’s WMD was a big lie that made Cheney rich.
So true. The only truth that ever passed through the lips of Jessie Jackson was this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjLUS0Lt-8
😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UWGlmwRpy4
Iranians celebrate in LA.
Love it! 😊
Yup. Vive le difference!
Another good one!