Daniel S. Stackhouse Jr.'s Blog, page 2
May 14, 2016
May 13, 2016
Thank You!
Thank you to all of the 476 people who entered for a chance to win a free copy of "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...).
Congratulations to the following 10 winners:
Chelene Cheney - Marion, Ohio
Ken Miller - Lexington, Kentucky
Sydne Thomas - Lafayette, Louisiana
Barbie Campbell - Martinsville, Virginia
Teresa Roberson - Spencer, Virginia
Steve Hmelnicky - Bel Air, Maryland
Maggie Hagen - Carrollton, Texas
Rose Santuci-Sofranko - Orchard Park, New York
Susan Rodriguez - San Antonio, Texas
Kathryn Ioannides - Centennial, Colorado
Congratulations to the following 10 winners:
Chelene Cheney - Marion, Ohio
Ken Miller - Lexington, Kentucky
Sydne Thomas - Lafayette, Louisiana
Barbie Campbell - Martinsville, Virginia
Teresa Roberson - Spencer, Virginia
Steve Hmelnicky - Bel Air, Maryland
Maggie Hagen - Carrollton, Texas
Rose Santuci-Sofranko - Orchard Park, New York
Susan Rodriguez - San Antonio, Texas
Kathryn Ioannides - Centennial, Colorado
August 5, 2014
Is There a New Present Danger?
I recently finished reading a Cold War classic, The Present Danger by Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine. Writing in 1980, Podhoretz wrote of the decline of American power and influence in the world relative to that of Soviet Russia. He claimed that there had been a loss of American national confidence after the Vietnam War, not only in the ability of the US to contain communism, but whether it even had the moral right to do so. Podhoretz compared the national mood in America to that of Great Britain during the 1930s, when thousands of college-aged young men who remembered the carnage of World War I (1914-1918) swore to never again fight for "King and Country." As we now know, such a pledge had no effect in Germany, where Hitler was rapidly re-militarizing in the run-up to World War II (1939-1945). British Prime Minister Winston Churchill considered the Second World War to have been the most preventable war ever if only Britain had chosen not to reduce its military readiness.
Looking at the historical examples of de-militarization in Britain in the 1930s and in the United States in the 1970s (which is documented in detail in my book, Telephone Diplomacy - available at www.createspace.com/4681391 and www.amazon.com) I can't help wondering if the United States is repeating the mistakes of the past. Traditionally, the US has maintained a military sufficient in size to permit it to fight two wars simultaneously, so as to prevent a crisis arising in one part of the world while being engaged in a conflict in another. America has now abandoned that posture, with global consequences. Europe will not confront Russian President Vladimir Putin because it is too reliant on Russian oil. Saudi Arabia is considering its own nuclear program because it no longer feels confident that the US will deter Iran's nuclear development. (The prospect of Iran, a worldwide sponsor of terrorism since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, supplying a nuclear weapon to Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organization is almost too terrifying to contemplate.) Meanwhile, Japan is considering re-working its constitution to permit it to increase its military so as to counter an increasingly belligerent China which has threatened to take islands belonging to both Japan and Vietnam.
Both history and the present seem to make it clear that a nation must prepare for war in order to preserve peace. Britain ultimately responded to the Nazi challenge by choosing Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in 1940. In 1980 the United States responded to the Soviet challenge by electing Ronald Reagan as President. Will a similar statesman arise to address this, the latest "Present Danger?"
Looking at the historical examples of de-militarization in Britain in the 1930s and in the United States in the 1970s (which is documented in detail in my book, Telephone Diplomacy - available at www.createspace.com/4681391 and www.amazon.com) I can't help wondering if the United States is repeating the mistakes of the past. Traditionally, the US has maintained a military sufficient in size to permit it to fight two wars simultaneously, so as to prevent a crisis arising in one part of the world while being engaged in a conflict in another. America has now abandoned that posture, with global consequences. Europe will not confront Russian President Vladimir Putin because it is too reliant on Russian oil. Saudi Arabia is considering its own nuclear program because it no longer feels confident that the US will deter Iran's nuclear development. (The prospect of Iran, a worldwide sponsor of terrorism since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, supplying a nuclear weapon to Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organization is almost too terrifying to contemplate.) Meanwhile, Japan is considering re-working its constitution to permit it to increase its military so as to counter an increasingly belligerent China which has threatened to take islands belonging to both Japan and Vietnam.
Both history and the present seem to make it clear that a nation must prepare for war in order to preserve peace. Britain ultimately responded to the Nazi challenge by choosing Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in 1940. In 1980 the United States responded to the Soviet challenge by electing Ronald Reagan as President. Will a similar statesman arise to address this, the latest "Present Danger?"
June 12, 2014
Is it the 1970s all over again?
In my book, Telephone Diplomacy, I focus on US-Soviet relations in the 1970s. This was a period of seemingly improved relations between the superpowers, known as "detente". However, simultaneously there were dramatic developments around the globe which had a detrimental effect on American security. From 1975-1980, ten new nations adopted communist governments, including Nicaragua and Granada in America's own backyard. This was particularly concerning if one recalled that the Soviets had attempted to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in nearby Cuba in the 1960s.
One of the first of these aforementioned new communist nations was Vietnam, where the US had fought alongside the non-communist South against the communist North. When the US pulled out of Vietnam in January, 1973, there was an imperfect, but independent and non-communist South Vietnam opposite a communist North Vietnam. Although many believed that the South Vietnamese simply would not fight for their freedom, for two years the government in Saigon held on with no military aid and only minimal economic assistance from the United States while the North Vietnamese received increased amounts of equipment and arms from the Soviets. Eventually Vietnam was united under a communist government in 1975, and thousands of people were imprisoned or killed. Even though they had been willing to remain in their country during ten years of the American-led war, thousands began to flee Vietnam during the communist "peace," many risking their lives on barely sea-worthy vessels in order to reach the United States. How much did the American retreat embolden communists in Moscow and elsewhere for the rest of the decade?
Now Al-Qaeda's recent takeover of Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, suggests that history may be repeating itself. Once again, when US troops withdrew in December, 2011 there was an imperfect, but relatively stable parliamentary democracy led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. However, in two and a half years the combination of the US troop withdrawal and al-Maliki's favoritism to his religous sect, the majority Shiites, against the Sunni minority has invited division and played right into Al-Qaeda's hands. Even more ominously, Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq have linked up with their compatriots in Syria, declaring a new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). With a defined territory, and access to an army, weapons, equipment, and Iraq's oil revenues, ISIS could be in a primed position to spread terror throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Telephone Diplomacy: The Secret Talks Behind US-Soviet Detente During the Cold War, 1969-1977, by Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr., Ph.D. is available at http://www.createspace.com/4681391
One of the first of these aforementioned new communist nations was Vietnam, where the US had fought alongside the non-communist South against the communist North. When the US pulled out of Vietnam in January, 1973, there was an imperfect, but independent and non-communist South Vietnam opposite a communist North Vietnam. Although many believed that the South Vietnamese simply would not fight for their freedom, for two years the government in Saigon held on with no military aid and only minimal economic assistance from the United States while the North Vietnamese received increased amounts of equipment and arms from the Soviets. Eventually Vietnam was united under a communist government in 1975, and thousands of people were imprisoned or killed. Even though they had been willing to remain in their country during ten years of the American-led war, thousands began to flee Vietnam during the communist "peace," many risking their lives on barely sea-worthy vessels in order to reach the United States. How much did the American retreat embolden communists in Moscow and elsewhere for the rest of the decade?
Now Al-Qaeda's recent takeover of Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, suggests that history may be repeating itself. Once again, when US troops withdrew in December, 2011 there was an imperfect, but relatively stable parliamentary democracy led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. However, in two and a half years the combination of the US troop withdrawal and al-Maliki's favoritism to his religous sect, the majority Shiites, against the Sunni minority has invited division and played right into Al-Qaeda's hands. Even more ominously, Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq have linked up with their compatriots in Syria, declaring a new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). With a defined territory, and access to an army, weapons, equipment, and Iraq's oil revenues, ISIS could be in a primed position to spread terror throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Telephone Diplomacy: The Secret Talks Behind US-Soviet Detente During the Cold War, 1969-1977, by Daniel S. Stackhouse, Jr., Ph.D. is available at http://www.createspace.com/4681391
May 20, 2014
Why Crimea is not the start of a new Cold War.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's provocative moves over the last couple of months have prompted some to ask if there is a new Cold War between the United States and Russia. The reason why the current sorry state of US-Russian relations does not amount to a new Cold War can be summed up in one word: ideology, or perhaps more properly, the lack of it. Whereas during the Cold War the Soviet Union was motivated at least in part by Marxist-Leninist ideology to carry on the "class struggle" against capitalism around the world (most notably from 1975-1980 when no fewer than 10 additional nations joined the communist camp) Putin seems to be driven more by old-fashioned nationalism and hunger for power.
April 29, 2014
Can Kerry-Lavrov Duplicate Kissinger-Dobrynin?
In "Telephone Diplomacy: The Secret Talks Behind US-Soviet Detente During the Cold War, 1969-1977," I argue that US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Ambassador to the US Anatoly Dobrynin helped to improve US-Soviet relations in spite of vastly differing national ideologies. This was largely accomplished by way of back channel negotiations (BCN). This method of diplomacy involves both sides choosing a representative to negotiate privately with a representative from the other side, minus pressure from politicians, media, and the public. Often such a negotiating arrangement produces a feeling between the participants that they are "in it together" and makes diplomatic breakthroughs much more likely. With Kissinger and Dobrynin, the overriding concern was the danger of nuclear war.
Although a nuclear exchange is unlikely to result over the current crisis in Ukraine, a successful Russian takeover could render the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) extinct. NATO has been a collective security organization whereby each member agrees that "an attack on one is an attack on all." This policy served the West well during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. However, if neither the US nor Europe is willing to come to the rescue of Ukraine, it will render the 65 year old NATO pact defunct. I am unaware if any back channel negotiations are currently underway between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but the two diplomats might be wise to borrow a play from the Kissinger-Dobrynin detente playbook of the 1970s.
Although a nuclear exchange is unlikely to result over the current crisis in Ukraine, a successful Russian takeover could render the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) extinct. NATO has been a collective security organization whereby each member agrees that "an attack on one is an attack on all." This policy served the West well during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. However, if neither the US nor Europe is willing to come to the rescue of Ukraine, it will render the 65 year old NATO pact defunct. I am unaware if any back channel negotiations are currently underway between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but the two diplomats might be wise to borrow a play from the Kissinger-Dobrynin detente playbook of the 1970s.
March 25, 2014
Is Crimea the start of a new Cold War?
In "Telephone Diplomacy," declassified transcripts of telephone conversations between US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Soviet Ambassador to the US Anatoly Dobrynin tell the tale of "detente." This was a time of relaxed tensions between the superpowers in the 1970s. I argue that through secret "back channel negotiations (BCN)," Kissinger and Dobrynin gradually forged a relationship which enabled them to make progress despite strongly conflicting American and Soviet ideologies. (I make a similar case in the conclusion about Reagan and Gorbachev in the late 1980s.) Could back channel negotiations help resolve the current US-Russian dispute or is this a case where the gulf is too wide?
