Interesting comments, tek. I thought my comparison of Ajami and Ignatieff would get the most reaction since several here were taken with the Ajami piece and I was not. But I think both wish to think large, drop insights, and write well but not clearly. And neither summons evidence for arguments cleanly and clearly made. Plusses and minuses.
I like the comparison you offer between the Kagan piece and the Wohlforth & Brooks piece. My own version of that is the Kagan piece and the co-authored piece Ken Pollack did which also appeared in Policy Review. But I think the terms of the discussions, whichever was paired with Kagan, would be roughly the same. It's not whether there is an American empire but the terms of its management. A very large topic.
IMHO, that is, it's all been superstructural hot air, driven primarily by changes in the material base and the triggering effects of contingent historical events
Interesting conceptual framework at work there. But, to stick with that, many folk who work within that framework note that the superstructure not only can act "relatively autonomously" to base but those actions can, in turn, alter the base. In short, the hot air of preemptive invasion can alter the actual strength of the US because it erodes the soft power. To stay within the language of your field. |
