You may want to budget two hours for this one. I know I'll be watching it twice. Outstanding diavlog. Great interview, Heather -- you balanced giving Andrew time to explain himself and space to grope toward what he really wanted to say, while challenging him in the right places to sharpen the discussion and to remove the risk of my perceiving that his answer was the only possible answer. As far as I'm concerned, if we had a few more like you two advising the incoming Administration, I would not feel bad for believing that my government had some idea of what it was doing in the foreign policy realm.

Quoting sapeye: I am bemused by critiques of GWB when he urged Americans to show their Patriotism by shopping.

Personally I am more annoyed by the likes... who seem to want to make GWB somehow unique (good or bad), ignoring how much he continues (albeit with his own modifications) of what previous presidents set as precedents. Over all, agree with your comments and insight. It is not just Americans who think of themselves as being exceptional. Also, agree with Brandon that this is a good meaty discussion and worthy of time spent to listen and comprehend.

Quoting sapeye: I am bemused by critiques of GWB when he urged Americans to show their Patriotism by shopping. [...]

You [go on to] make some good points, sapeye. As one who thinks of GWB's "go shopping" moment as one of his many serious blunders, here's what I'd say in response. Yes, he inherited an economy driven in large part by consumer spending. Yes, there is a lot to be said for urging citizens to go about their business, both as a way of calming them, and realizing that the shock of the 9/11 attacks were intended by those who planned them to trigger ripple effects. However, as Bush and Co. were pleased to say any time they wanted to get away with disobeying the law, ducking Congress, lying to or hiding from the public, or giving handouts to their cronies: "9/11 changed everything." I'm with Heather on this one: Americans really did want to do something, to get involved, to pull together. They were ready to make sacrifices. They wanted to be something more than couch potatoes keeping up with the Joneses. They looked to a leader who had been handed the ball and a clear field down which to run with it, and he

Quoting brucds: What are the chances of getting Andrew Bacevich ("The Limits of American Power") on with maybe Rosa Brooks or the woman who worked for Madeline Albright (sorry her name escapes me.)

"Ask and ye shall receive." -John 16:24

Very interesting dialogue. The military-industrial complex is THE problem in American foreign policy, even more than the bovine American electorate. One trivial observation: Let us hope that a man like Petraeus, who speaks an even more abominable English than Bush, never sets his boots in the Oval Office.

The devil is in the details. While I appreciate Andrew Bacevich's concrete example of restitution to Afghanis by allowing them to move to the US, everybody should know what a rotten time refugees have when they get here. I've helped resettle several families, and they are just dumped into a community, given two months' worth of bare-bones social services, and abandoned. Our social safety net is hard enough for natives to negotiate; it's virtually inaccessible to refugees. I've seen people with stars in their eyes become disillusioned and grim over a year's time; I've seen too many adolescents turn to street culture because the social and academic hurdles at school are simply too complex and nobody can give them enough help. I'm all for taking in refugees, but we have to bulk up our support system substantially before we're doing anybody any favors--and no, the churches cannot carry the whole load.

Something to think about, in light of Andrew's book and intellectual inspiration: Published 26 April 26 2007:

Yesterday evening I was interviewing Barack Obama and we were talking about effective foreign aid programs in Africa. His voice was measured and fatigued, and he was taking those little pauses candidates take when they’re afraid of saying something that might hurt them later on.

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naďve idealism to bitter realism.”

My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good

i honestly didn't see much insight of any conseqence but i fully support the bringing in of an expert and tapping their brain 'til it's empty. bob, do more like these! switch bloggingheads to "expertheads."

The idea of a lightweight like David Brooks (a cross between George Will and Jeff Foxworthy ... "You know you're a Republican if you eat at an Applebee's salad bar!") judging the seriousness of Barack Obama is hilarious.

I still think most of those orphans would find our inadequate social safety net quite a lot better than their current situation. I thought that was one of AB's better lines. It really impressed me.

I agree bjkeefe. I'm in no way apologizing for GWB. He's been a disaster. All I'm suggesting is that in my view the problem is larger than he and much more difficult to resolve than electing a new president. If the health of the economy depends on endless growth, and the health of the physical systems that support the economy cannot sustain that endless growth, what are our options? Can we shift in a gradual way to a sustainable economic system or are we truly in for a serious crash? In some ways propping up the existing financial system to prevent a general conflagration seems analgous to preventing forest fires. If allowed to burn on a regular basis, most fires stay close to the ground and do little long term damage. But by supressing them for so long, we have allowed huge amounts of ladder fuel to accumulate, and when a fire takes off, there is hell too pay.

I’m trying to put a finger on why this interview, while covering topics that I am interested in, leaves me feeling somewhat disappointed. I felt that Hurlburt was firing a series of questions premised on a fixed position of advocacy at Bacevich but that she was not engaging him in the kind of dialogue that would allow her to explore, rather than label, his ideas. When you have a former West Point military man, with a Catholic theological perspective, and who critiques neo-conservative foreign policies and the culture of consumption it seems to me that this combination is interesting enough to want to know more about how the man's mind works rather than to try to box him in ideologically on specific matters of policy. It would have been much more interesting if Hurlburt had engaged Bacevich on these questions of moral obligations, different brands of conservatism, perhaps how Hurlbert herself would define "liberalism" and differences she sees between her position and that of many others who go by the label of "liberal," and so forth. She hints at this when she defines herself as an

Reverend Niebuhr was a Protestant minister and theologian; he was an ordained minister of the German Evangelical Synod. See http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdW...hrreinhold.htm .

finally some connecting the dots. whats next horkheimer and adorno?

Quoting sapeye: I agree bjkeefe. I'm in no way apologizing for GWB. He's been a disaster.

Okay, good. Sorry for misunderstanding. I mostly agree with what you go on to say.

Quoting claymisher: The idea of a lightweight like David Brooks (a cross between George Will and Jeff Foxworthy ... "You know you're a Republican if you eat at an Applebee's salad bar!") judging the seriousness of Barack Obama is hilarious.

Heh. Well, at least he knew enough to ask the question.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/169...9:24&out=39:40

Where has Hurlburt been? She didn't know there were spiritual persons in the US military? A company commander I had called the US military a "counter-culture" opposed to the civilian culture but duty-bound to protect it. I wasn't the only soldier in my company trying to reconcile those two ideas. They're not reconcilable. Another point: After doing good service by paying homage to Huntington, she neglects to bring up Political Order in Changing Societies.

Social and economic modernization disrupts old patterns of authority and destroys traditional political institutions. It does not necessarily create new authority patterns or new political institutions. But it does create the overriding need for them by broadening political consciousness and political participation...Organization is the road to political power, but it is also the foundation of political stability and thus the precondition of political liberty.

American political institutions have not kept pace with events. Instead of a new "spirit", the US needs a constitutional and institutional overhaul.

...our rampant consumerism is destroying not only our economy and culture, but also the ecosystems that support us.

This is a canard, not an argument. http://bostonreview.net/BR30.5/warrentyagi.php And, what about the Kuznets curve?

Quoting Francoamerican: Very interesting dialogue. The military-industrial complex is THE problem in American foreign policy, even more than the bovine American electorate.

One trivial observation: Let us hope that a man like Petraeus, who speaks an even more abominable English than Bush, never sets his boots in the Oval Office.

Why do I feel like every comment you make is just an excuse for you to have another go at Americans?

Frenchie is a bit chauvinistic and acerbic at that, but he's closer to the mark with the MIC than some privileged esoteric reading of the culture or national spirit. If Bacevich wants an American God, dump Niebuhr's. What's wrong with the God of another older, albeit hypocritical, generation: "Don't involve Him in your grasping for answers, or your needs. He's beyond your reckoning and your call." Give to Caesar...God will take what he wants.

Quoting Baltimoron: Where has Hurlburt been? She didn't know there were spiritual persons in the US military? A company commander I had called the US military a "counter-culture" opposed to the civilian culture but duty-bound to protect it. I wasn't the only soldier in my company trying to reconcile those two ideas. They're not reconcilable.

Another point: After doing good service by paying homage to Huntington, she neglects to bring up Political Order in Changing Societies.

American political institutions have not kept pace with events. Instead of a new "spirit", the US needs a constitutional and institutional overhaul.

Aw hell, I just spent half an hour trying to track down a famous quote from the War of Independence, something about tyranny at sea being necessary for democracy at home. I bet one of you guys know it!

Quoting matthawk: I’m trying to put a finger on why this interview, while covering topics that I am interested in, leaves me feeling somewhat disappointed. I felt that Hurlburt was firing a series of questions premised on a fixed position of advocacy at Bacevich but that she was not engaging him in the kind of dialogue that would allow her to explore, rather than label, his ideas.

This diavlog was a bit of a disappointment. 68 minutes and 51 seconds have passed and all I feel I've gotten has been a rather conventional wisdom take on the "realist" view of foreign policy. However, I don't think that Hurlburt's questions were so much the problem as was the way in which both of them were being so exceedingly conciliatory towards each-other as to smother any chance for an interesting debate. Bacevich was especially bad in this regard. It seemed to me that his every other sentence was begun with something along the lines of "We don't disagree as much as you think" or " I have a hard time refuting that" or even "All conceded."
There's nothing wrong with a little healthy dissent every once in

Quoting popcorn_karate: I thought that was one of AB's better lines. It really impressed me.

Really? I found it a bit too sentimental for my taste. I know it was just an example, but the idea that helping specific Afghanis in any way resolves us of any moral obligation to Afghanistan as a whole strikes me as ridiculous. Bacevich to Afghanis: "Sorry for leaving your country in ruins, but doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside to know we've given the orphans left behind by the people we killed the chance for a better life? Thanks for letting us soothe our guilty conscience with hollow symbolism btw." Irrespective of any moral obligation, AB fails to deal with the point, briefly mentioned by Heather, that any future promises or actions the U.S. makes will be viewed by the world with regards to our actions in Afghanistan. Failing to follow through hurts our legitimacy in their eyes.

Do you think I had that Huntington quote in my head?

Well, I have to admit that following a second viewing of this dialogue I am considerably more satisfied with it than I was before. I gravitate more toward discussions of underlying philosophy than the specifics of policy and I saw the potential for an interesting one-hour discussion on the philosophical nuances between "principled conservations," "old-fashioned liberals," and what passes for "conservatism" (and even neo-conservatism), and liberalism today. But they did devote nearly 20 minutes to these philosophical distinctions. The remaining time devoted to specific application of these distinctions to what they mean in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan was illuminating after having established the philosophical context in the first part of the discussion. Hurlburt did draw an important distinction, during the introductory section (which I wish both sides would have discussed further) -- If one agrees that freedom (that does not disintegrate into anarchy) must be grounded in a standard against which actions can be critiqued, who is going to set that standard? To what extent are we able to construct new standards of measure for a more inclusive society? To what degree are the older standards "Eurocentric" and "Patriarchal" and to what extent are

I agree with most of what you say, except for buying the book. I have his first book on my queue, but I might push it back now. I felt the same way when Drezner did bhTV...let down. It's Obama's fault.

Franco a chauvinist? Naw, I'm sure he believes all cultures are equal. Equally inferior to the French that is.

Could anyone provide proof that Bacevich was clearly loudly on the record against the invasion of Iraq at a time when it could have helped change the path we were on? If he didn't do this, much of what he has to say now is very hard to take seriously.

Quoting Baltimoron: I agree with most of what you say, except for buying the book.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Quoting Baltimoron: I felt the same way when Drezner did bhTV...let down.

Agreed.

Quoting Baltimoron: It's Obama's fault.

Agreed.

For a second I thought he was going to give us the "everybody except white straight men shut the fuck up so we can go back to 1950s" bullshit, but fortunately Bacevich isn't a moron. The social disruption after a period of liberation is pretty common. After the Soviet Union imploded Russian society really came apart. Same with South Africa after apartheid, black America in the 1970s, and, um, I'm sure there's more. I'd like to see a return to conservative values myself, but a conservativeness that's inclusive. It's funny, because in deep-blue high-tech urban American I can see it happening already. That nice gay couple across the street is surprisingly insistent that you rake the leaves on your sidewalk, etc. As for my all-white rural hometown, meth city. Go figure. I wonder if Bacevich is up to speed on Jonathan Haidt.

"Could anyone provide proof that Bacevich was clearly loudly on the record against the invasion of Iraq at a time when it could have helped change the path we were on? If he didn't do this, much of what he has to say now is very hard to take seriously." Bacevich wrote an op-ed in the LA Times, March 2003 warning that the Iraq war was potentially calamitous. He's written consistently on the folly of Iraq for publications as diverse as American Conservative and The Nation. For the record, his son - Lt Andrew J. Bacevich - was killed in Iraq by an IED in May of 2007. He has so far as I know avoided tying his personal loss to his political commentary, but I would take his views on the Iraq war very, very seriously.

Very good Bill Moyers conversation with Bacevich here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html Also, if anyone is further interested in Niebuhr, this is a great book that Bacevich was instrumental in bringing back into print: http://tinyurl.com/9lhemt

Another bonus, kids - Bacevich lectures on Niebuhr: Video:
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=127 Text:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08.../profile3.html

Quoting Fsharp: Franco a chauvinist? Naw, I'm sure he believes all cultures are equal. Equally inferior to the French that is.

That's pretty funny. As I have on several occasions pointed out, I was born in Connecticut, went to school in Massachusetts and vote in US elections, though I live in France and have travelled a lot. So I have several points of comparison. American culture? Hmm....that would be good idea, to paraphrase what Ghandi said of western civilization. Although I know several very cultured Americans, I confess to being underwhelmed by the general tenor of American culture. I said nothing about France in the above remark, yet you assume I was making a comparison between the US and France. That Bush can barely speak English is a truth universally acknowledged. That Petraeus speaks a barbaric military jargon comprehensible only to the barely literate, and certainly uncultured, leaders of the military-industrial complex, is, I sincerely hope, a truth that will never become universally known.

Quoting Fsharp: Why do I feel like every comment you make is just an excuse for you to have another go at Americans?

Sometimes, feelings are grounded in reality. F-America('s) haughty Gall(ic) ways are pre-loaded with insult. Of course, his(?) justifiable superiority will disallow the concession to your point. That is merely the French way. We are all French now.

Quoting brucds: Another bonus, kids - Bacevich lectures on Niebuhr:

Video:
http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=127

Text:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08.../profile3.html

Thanks for the links. I look forward to hearing Bacevitch lecture on Niebuhr.

Quoting graz: Sometimes, feelings are grounded in reality.

F-America('s) haughty Gall(ic) ways are pre-loaded with insult.

Of course, his(?) justifiable superiority will disallow the concession to your point. That is merely the French way. We are all French now.

Great second sentence. "Pre-loaded with insult." I shall remember that. Je suis né dans le Connecticut....does that settle my gender?

[quote=claymisher;100573]The idea of a lightweight like David Brooks (a cross between George Will and Jeff Foxworthy ... "You know you're a Republican if you eat at an Applebee's salad bar!")/QUOTE] LOL!

Quoting Francoamerican: Thanks for the links.

What FA said.

Quoting garbagecowboy: [...]

Good to see you back, GC. Don't want to debate this particular comment, but I hope you'll weigh in elsewhere.

Quoting bjkeefe: What FA said.

What did I say to merit this reminder of what I said?

Quoting Francoamerican: What did I say to merit this reminder of what I said?

Just echoing your thanks for the links to brucds.

Terrific diavlog. (Discussions like this sure are more interesting than the more frequent inside the beltway tactical discussions (Bob )) Gets to the heart of the moral challenges we face at home and abroad, at least in outline which is all you can do in one diavlog. But its enough to get a clear sense of the basic analyses and debates of where we are and why, and what we should pursue as an improvement on where we are now. But what's also interesting to discuss is all the reasons why its so difficult, impossible really, to get to the ideal of what we might hope for, and all the various and often contradictory forces and factors at play which lead things to be less than ideal. Obama is obviously a major step in the right direction, but I think we're also going to see that all those other factors are very important, even when there is better leadership. A lot of it really comes down to the conflict between people's or countries' more narrow or shallow self-interest and their broader and deeper self and common

Bacevich is worried about military folks running for President. Well, it's not that uncommon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank Looks like pretty common to me. I think the real problem is the permanent professional standing army. A lot of the presidents on that list you wouldn't consider fighting men. That's because our notion of military service has changed so much because of the cold war.

A wonderful conversation!!! Thanks so much to both of you. I had to listen twice, and may go back and dip in again here and there. I just ordered Professor Bacevich's book (all 10 copies are checked out of our library, and there are 6 holds waiting -- congratulations!) For those interested in more Bacevich, here's a link to Bill Moyers' excellent interview with him from last August. Heather, you're fast becoming one of my favorites 'heads. Keep up the great work!