Let's talk about that "Longer Telegram" making the rounds...and why it's a
https://t.co/rHikkOYuoT
Kennan is even apologetic about that fact, as he writes at the beginning, "I apologize in advance for this burdening of telegraphic channel"
Oh, and it wasn't "Anonymous", it was "X"
Nearly every page of the "Executive Summary" is a list.
I mean, here's a page that makes the bold move of transitioning from a bullet point list to a number list....
Even then, none of the lists had 17 (SEVENTEEN!) points!
MOST of it is about the Soviet Union itself. Indeed, 4 of the telegram's 5 parts focus on the USSR.
The key point is that USSR typically backs down when confronted. Therefore, a show of strength & resolve should result in the US never having to actually use force
If you're playing buzz-phrase bingo, mark "Liberal International Order"
It's been said better (& more economically) elsewhere.
For example, see this @CarnegieEndow report by @MiraRappHooper, @Michael_S_Chase, Matake Kamiya, Shin Kawashima, & @Yuichi_Hosoya.
https://t.co/CqOnaq2Gp1
https://t.co/zvonnh78IS
https://t.co/bdfGhpBFjL
The full version of this anonymously authored "Longest Telegram" is fascinating in some ways, but the attempt to claim Kennan's mantle is hobbled by questionable assumptions and logical contradictions. Thread: (1/x) https://t.co/5CliU03uKB
— Eric Hundman | \u4f55\u8af3\u92b3 (@ehundman) January 29, 2021
More from Paul Poast
Why are civil-mil scholars upset about Austin Lloyd's nomination as the 28th Secretary of Defense?
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Consider the nomination of the 3rd Secretary of Defense: George Marshall
[THREAD]
In 1950, Truman wanted to fire the second SecDef, Louis Johnson, and install George Marshall as Secretary of Defense.
There was a problem: when the Department of Defense was created in 1947, section 202 of the 1947 National Security Act (which created the DoD, then called "The National Military Establishment") would not allow recently retired officers to serve as SecDef
https://t.co/bWx4h1OFah
Marshall had only retired as a 5-star General in 1947
Of course, by 1950 Marshall had already served as Secretary of State and had proposed the "Marshall Plan" for the recovery of Europe
Is it true that democracies don't go to war with each other?
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
Sort of. But I wouldn't base public policy on the finding.
Why? Let's turn to the data.
[THREAD]
Democracies do not go to war with each other. There are a lot of empirical data to support that theory. I summarize that literature here. https://t.co/SQLk9J9rZ8 https://t.co/tLlSyisEIU
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) December 12, 2020
The idea of a "Democratic Peace" is a widely held view that's been around for a long time.
By 1988, there already existed enough studies on the topic for Jack Levy to famously label Democratic Peace "an empirical law"
The earliest empirical work on the topic was the 1964 report by Dean Babst published in the "Wisconsin Sociologist"
Using the war participation data from Quincy Wright's "A Study of War", Babst produced the following two tables
The tables show that democracies were NOT on both sides (of course, Finland is awkward given that it fought WITH Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union).
Babst expanded his study beyond the World Wars in a 1972 paper in Industrial Research. He confirmed his finding.
Was the attack on the US Capitol an attempted coup?
Rather than debate that question here (or in another forum), I'm making it an assignment. Specifically, I'm asking my Quantitative Security students to determine if it belongs in our coup/attempted coup datasets.
[THREAD]
A core goal of this course is to introduce students to how Large-N data on violence and security are created.
We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
First, what happened? @johncarey03755 offers a succinct
Second, I'll ask the students to read some of the recent pieces that say the event was NOT a coup attempt.
These include...
...detailed twitter threads by
Rather than debate that question here (or in another forum), I'm making it an assignment. Specifically, I'm asking my Quantitative Security students to determine if it belongs in our coup/attempted coup datasets.
[THREAD]
A core goal of this course is to introduce students to how Large-N data on violence and security are created.
We put WAY TOO much emphasis on estimators & software (Stata v R 🙄); not enough on the quality of the data going into the analysis.
First, what happened? @johncarey03755 offers a succinct
Second, I'll ask the students to read some of the recent pieces that say the event was NOT a coup attempt.
These include...
...detailed twitter threads by
Let me try this again\u2026 What would it look like if this were a coup (failed, in progress, or otherwise)? 1/n
— Kristen Harkness (@HarknessKristen) January 7, 2021
More from World
@Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia @Ayjchan @K_G_Andersen please note that there were 11 infections in the Beijing 2004 leaks, not 8.
The 8 you are mentioning are for the main chain of infection with 3 levels from one primary case in April.
But there were 3 more primary cases for a total of 11 cases.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia All were linked to the heavily contaminated CDC P3 lab (the top P3 in China at the time).
The cases are typically separated between:
- The February ones (Cui and Ren) which seem to have been covered up by the CDC Institute of Virology. Also we only have pseudonyms for these 2.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia - The April ones-9 infections (1+8, officially the 'Beijing-Anhui Apr-2004 breakout'.
The official Chinese report only focussed on the April infections - keeping very quiet about the February ones. Here is the main April chain of infection.
Here is are the 9 from Apr 2004:
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia And here are the 9 people infected in Apr 2004:
(4-22 in the title -> April chain with alarm raised on the 22nd):
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia The WHO eventually correctly mentioned 11 cases:
https://t.co/a1HvuT0C8z
The 8 you are mentioning are for the main chain of infection with 3 levels from one primary case in April.
But there were 3 more primary cases for a total of 11 cases.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia All were linked to the heavily contaminated CDC P3 lab (the top P3 in China at the time).
The cases are typically separated between:
- The February ones (Cui and Ren) which seem to have been covered up by the CDC Institute of Virology. Also we only have pseudonyms for these 2.
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia - The April ones-9 infections (1+8, officially the 'Beijing-Anhui Apr-2004 breakout'.
The official Chinese report only focussed on the April infections - keeping very quiet about the February ones. Here is the main April chain of infection.
Here is are the 9 from Apr 2004:
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia And here are the 9 people infected in Apr 2004:
(4-22 in the title -> April chain with alarm raised on the 22nd):
@K_G_Andersen @stgoldst @RozSofia The WHO eventually correctly mentioned 11 cases:
https://t.co/a1HvuT0C8z
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A quick thread on #Myitsone dam & #MyanmarChinaRelations in light of the SAC announcement that they would be restarting some stalled Chinese projects in Burma. This announcement has led to speculation about Myitsone, which has been suspended since 2011. Let’s go! ➡️ China has
consistently misunderstood & underestimated popular opposition to Myitsone. First and foremost, to the Burmese people, this is about the “mother river” of Burma - the Irrawaddy- and it’s nearly sacred importance to them as a lifeline of their country. This is what drove the
organic anti-dam movement that started locally in Kachin but +/- 2007 was effectively picked up & nationalized by Burmese environmental CSOs. Instead of understanding this, the Chinese lashed out and blamed the United States when Thein Sein suspended the project. I assure you
the USG was as surprised as China when the project was suspended. But China never believed it was truly the desire of the Burmese people that stopped the project. Today, the dam doesn’t make sense economically for Beijing & will definitely alienate Burmese, yet they stubbornly
continue to push it. Why? Let’s unpack a bit further. In addition to Myitsone, there were other campaigns & protests targeting Chinese projects such as Letpadaung copper mine & Kyaukphyu pipeline, port & SEZ. While these campaigns had varying levels off effect, none was as
Can\u2019t overstate how politically dangerous this is. As readers told me: a deeply unpopular regime pushing for deeply unpopular infrastructure projects. Not sure this is what Beijing wants either. https://t.co/TnlrgjPyxZ
— Thompson Chau (@tchau01) February 15, 2021
consistently misunderstood & underestimated popular opposition to Myitsone. First and foremost, to the Burmese people, this is about the “mother river” of Burma - the Irrawaddy- and it’s nearly sacred importance to them as a lifeline of their country. This is what drove the
organic anti-dam movement that started locally in Kachin but +/- 2007 was effectively picked up & nationalized by Burmese environmental CSOs. Instead of understanding this, the Chinese lashed out and blamed the United States when Thein Sein suspended the project. I assure you
the USG was as surprised as China when the project was suspended. But China never believed it was truly the desire of the Burmese people that stopped the project. Today, the dam doesn’t make sense economically for Beijing & will definitely alienate Burmese, yet they stubbornly
continue to push it. Why? Let’s unpack a bit further. In addition to Myitsone, there were other campaigns & protests targeting Chinese projects such as Letpadaung copper mine & Kyaukphyu pipeline, port & SEZ. While these campaigns had varying levels off effect, none was as
You May Also Like
I'm going to do two history threads on Ethiopia, one on its ancient history, one on its modern story (1800 to today). 🇪🇹
I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):
The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹
Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹
References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):
The famous \u201cLucy\u201d, an early ancestor of modern humans (Australopithecus) that lived 3.2 million years ago, and was discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia, displayed in the national museum in Addis Ababa \U0001f1ea\U0001f1f9 pic.twitter.com/N3oWqk1SW2
— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) November 9, 2018
The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹
Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹
References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
