The New Republic

Can a new right-wing website take on the mainstream media and its supposed liberal bias?

“So far, the Beacon’s coverage illustrates the tension between Continetti’s aspirations to produce serious journalism and its identity as an attack dog for the right. After it launched, the Beacon ran a solid story about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s efforts to close a nuclear plant, which would benefit a competitor that had donated to his campaign. But other stories have missed the mark. For instance, a story by Adam Kredo attacked NPR for running “a series” reflecting the same view vis-à-vis nuclear weapons policy as one of its supposed donors, the Ploughshares Fund. But Kredo provided only two examples of this “series”—and the main one was an article from Foreign Policy magazine that had simply been re-posted on NPR’s website.”

-Eliza Gray, “Right vs. Write”

Can Israel trust the United States when it comes to Iran?

“Even if Barack Obama is truly the pro-Israel president his Jewish supporters claim he is, the [Lyndon] Johnson precedent tells us that it may not matter. Like Johnson, Obama presides over a nation wary of another military adventure, especially in the Middle East. According to Israeli press reports, Netanyahu intends to ask Obama to state—beyond the vaue formulation that all options are on the table—that the U.S. will use military force if Iran is about to go nuclear. But few here expect Obama to make that policy explicit.”

—Yossi Klein Halevi, “Can Israel trust the United States when it comes to Iran?”

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.

Is intervention in Syria a moral and human imperative at this point?

“I don’t really think there is any kind of a reasonable argument against intervention in Syria. Quite the opposite: There is a moral and a human imperative to act that is larger than any nation’s interests and larger than any strategic calculation. That is so obvious it is an embarrassment to have to say it.”

—Kanan Makiya, “Interventionin Syria is a Moral and Human Imperative”

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.

What do Syrian activists think the United States should do about Syria?

“What’s undeniable is that Syrian people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid as well as political and economic assistance. Assad has proven he will not relent, with the Interior Ministry vowing that it will continue to implement the “security solution” until every expression of resistance is eliminated. With Russia and China essentially giving the green light for Assad to continue his massacre, only an international coalition led by the United States can stop the regime’s violence. The hope for a democratic future in Syria currently hangs in the balance.” 

-Radwan Ziadeh, “A Plea For U.S. Intervention From a Syrian Activist”

This is article is part of A TNR Symposium on Syria. Visit TNR.com for more coverage.

Photo courtesy of ABC News Australia

Can Obama’s record on foreign policy back up his “hawkish” reputation?

“Of course, it is not the president’s sagacity that is in judgment. It is his honesty, his honesty to himself, surely, but also his honesty to us. Ajami published in the last issue of TNR an essay about a novel first published in Beirut four years ago, titled In Praise of Hatred and written by Khaled Khalifa. It is about today’s bloodletting, yesterday’s sectarian political program, eternal loathing. And, to be sure, Syria’s ace-in-the-hole, its proximity to Israel, that it was the confrontation state. These insights laid out in a novel were not secrets. They were common knowledge. But Obama somehow believed that he could talk these truths out of their secure place in the world.”

-Martin Peretz, “Obama’s ‘Hawkish’ Foreign Policy? If Only It Were So.”

Photo courtesy of Business Insider

Is an intervention in Syria morally justified?

“The ‘responsibility to protect,’ unanimously adopted at the U.N. in 2005, stipulates that when states fail to protect their own citizens from mass atrocities, other states have an affirmative responsibility to act. Only a gross cynic—say, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov—could argue that Assad has not triggered this international obligation. An intervention would be morally justified, just as it was in Libya. … But this is not a classroom; and calls for action have to clear both a prudential hurdle and a practical one.”

—James Traub, “Intervention in Syria is Morally Justified—and Completely Impractical.”

This is article is part of A TNR Symposium on Syria. Visit TNR.com for more coverage.

Presenting a TNR Symposium: What should the United States do about Syria?

“It has been nearly a year since Syrians took to the streets en masse to protest the rule of Bashar al-Assad. In that time, government forces have responded brutally killing some 6,000 people, but the response by the international community has been relatively muted.”

Today, Dan Drezner argues for arming the opposition, Soner Cagaptay argues for organizing a military force from Muslim countries, and Larry Diamond suggests we should engage diplomatically with Assad to oust him.

Visit TNR.com in coming days for contributions from Anne-Marie Slaughter, James Traub, Walter Laqueur, and others.

Will the United States intervene in Syria?

“It is important to note…that there are things more dire than civil war—the massacre of a population by a government, for example. If a civil war is taking place in Syria, then a substantial part of the Syrian population is opposed to the Syrian regime, and Assad’s interpretation of the freedom movement as a terrorist conspiracy hatched by Syria’s enemies is exposed as a lie. And if a civil war is taking place in Syria, it is recognized that there are types of violence against which non-violence will avail nothing. Their peaceful demonstrations were met by wanton force, and it is proper that they should defend themselves and their better conception of their country.”

—Leon Wieseltier, “Damascus Calling”

What are the fruits of Herman Cain’s “reassessment” of his presidential campaign? A foreign policy platform, really?

officialssay:

Herman Cain’s new foreign policy brochure, in which he endeavors to “clearly distinguish between our friends and our adversaries.”

With New York and Washington on alert this past weekend following “credible but unconfirmed” reports of a possible terrorist attack to coincide with the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the question arises of just how much of a threat terrorism poses to the West. If one were to rely on this chart, produced by the Center for Systemic Peace, the answer is surprising: not that much more than before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The graph measures the number of casualties per year in a “high casualty terrorist bombing,” which includes any incident with fifteen or more casualties. While the rate of terrorist bombings since September 2001 has clearly increased somewhat, the chart shows that the number of casualties since is not all that different from what it was before the attacks that supposedly changed everything.

The chart provides an interesting look back on the 9/11 decade and says more about American foreign policy in that decade than about terrorist attacks themselves.

Statistically the terrorist threat against the West, it appears, never really turned out to be more harmful than it was before September 11. However, it was our overreaction and mistaken foreign policy choices that led to violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan that created the real terrorist threat of the past ten years.

With the exception of a few isolated security scares, thankfully the events of September 11 were commemorated without incident, but doesn’t this chart make one rethink those foreign policy priorities just a little bit more?

Courtesy of the Atlantic’s Chart of the Day