The National Interest--and why you should consider reading it . . .

The National Interest is a conservative journal (and website--a pay website, naturally) that IS NOT a neo-con rag, but a venture of old-line conservative foreign policy thinkers. The masthead lists Henry Kissinger, Dimitri Simes, and Martin Feldstein, not Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz.

And allowing for the perspective, you will find in its pages some of the best writing and thinking on US foreign policy that is being done anywhere. A few samples from the January/February 2008 issue:

From "Clearing the Air," by Michael T. Klare:

The internal fighting in Iraq, of course, has many sources, some going back centuries to the original schism between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims and the divide between Kurds and Arabs. But control of oil plays a major part in the conflict. As is well known, Saddam Hussein favored the Sunnis at the expense of the others, using income derived from Iraq's oil fields--almost all of which are located in Kurdish or Shi'a areas--to create a Sunni middle class. Now most Kurds and many Shi'a appear determined to create mini-states of their own, retaining control over all oil revenues generated within their respective territories. For many Sunnis, it is precisely the fear of being sidelined in the process--with no oil revenues at all--that is fueling their resentment of the Shi'a-dominated government and prompting their support for the insurgency....

I know that this is not all that is at work here, but with the stakes so high, everything matters. The United States is failing in Iraq. The future of American power is at risk. Quelling the violence is one of our most daunting and lethal challenges. Ignoring the resource dimension entirely means ignoring one of the key factors in this conflict.

From "Foggy Bloggum," by David Frum:

The blogosphere exerts it influence in two ways--one as hard as cash, the other as whispery as a mirage.

In two consecutive presidential election cycles, the Internet has proven itself the most effective fund-raising technology since the advent of direct mail....

Any medium that lucrative is bound to hold the attention of politicians. And bloggers look very much like the custodians of the political Internet.

The more whispery power comes from the strange echo-chamber effect of the Internet. The blogosphere links people all over the planet. It can generate volumes of comments and email that feel like a tidal wave to those accustomed to the milder responsiveness of the print medium. When I worked on the opinion page of The Wall Street Jouranl, then the largest circulation newspaper in America, a very provocative article might have elicited as many as a hundred letters to the editor. Today, an exciting post on a major blog can generate thousands of posted comments and emails. Few people posses the internal fortitude to stand up to a seeming barrage like this....

For those who participate in it, the blogosphere takes on the scale and reality of an alternate world--a world whose controversies and feuds are so absorbing, whose alliances and enmities burn with so much passion, that only the most level-headed of the participants ever seem to remember that somewhere between 97 and 98 percent of American voters have never looked at a blog in their lives. [Emphasis added]

From "Three Years and You're Out," by Steven Metz:

As the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan fester and grow, we need to face facts. Americans are only prepared to support major counterinsurgency operations for about three years. Yet, when the United States enters a war, it doesn't base its strategy on this inevitability. Instead, we tell ourselves that we're in for as long as it takes. That may be morally satisfying, but it's politically unrealistic. With this certain wane in public and congressional backing, we need to choose our confrontations wisely and rethink our tactics....

Thought the security establishment has dusted off and updated some old concepts, it hasn't gone far enough. By assuming that contemporary insurgencies are much like past ones, we underestimate the effort that successful campaigns require and overestimate the cost of simply leaving others to fight these battles. Counterinsurgency is still viewed as a variant of war. The objective is still the decisive defeat of the enemy. The risk is still that insurgents will seize control of the state.

As we begin to get involved, we should realize that, unlike decision-making processes in conventional war--where the president and his top advisors assess expected strategic costs, risks and benefits, and then decide whether war is the best option--in counterinsurgency there is seldom such a discrete decision point. Instead, the United States inches in, providing a bit of support to a regime, then a bit more, until it finds itself so deeply involved that the political and strategic costs of disengagement are seeming overwhelming. Counterinsurgency support is simply and immense task. [Emphasis added]

From "Black is the New Green," by Flynn Leverett:

The dollar has enjoyed a long run as "the world's money." Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s--when the world moved to a monetary regime based on floating exchange rates for most major currencies--the dollar consolidated its position as the world's leading transactional currency, including for international oil trading. It also became the world's dominant reserve asset, effectively replacing gold as the ultimate international store of value and best instrument for settling deficits in countries' external accounts.

The dollar's unique standing has, among other things, enabled the United States to cover its current-account deficits and pay for growing and increasingly expensive oil imports by issuing debt instruments denominated in its own currency. Essentially, foreigners have underwritten America's credit card purchases with no credit limit, and the US Treasury and Federal Reserve have been able to manipulate interest rates on Washington's "account" to US advantage.

But with the dramatic expansion of global economic imbalances, will countries with enormous current-account surpluses and burgeoning foreign-reserve assets continue financing America's "twin deficits" (current account and federal budget), providing critical support for the dollar's value and international standing?

Or will there be, at some point, a slow-down in foreign financing of America's deficits, prompting flight from the dollar on a scale that would do long-term damage to its value and, effectively, displace the greenback as the world's top currency?

I'm tempted to editorialize about the quality of the writing and analysis here, but I think it pretty much speaks for itself. Realize that I have only quoted summary paragraphs and not the highly developed underlying argumentation. This is heavy intellectual sledding, but absolutely necessary for people who want to think seriously about America's place in the world.

It's not good enough, for the 21st Century, to have a foreign policy driven only by "Let's get out of Iran," or an economic understanding that "corporations are bad and victimize the little people." You have to have an understanding of how things work if you want your own ideas to be part of the next century.

To do that, you have to start tackling the best scholarship--both conservative and liberal--or you will render yourself another moron with a vote.

God knows we have enough of them.