Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog Cartoon found here (in an FT op-ed that fits this post nicely - if orthogonally). Read through a variety of the tenth-year anniversary reviews, and I thought Thomas Friedman's was the best - despite the weird title (Democrats, Dragons or Drones?). His basic notion that it takes the next generation to create and shape the subsequent reality is correct. Friedman pegs it at "9 months and 21 years to develop." Fair enough. But the question (as he also notes) hinges on that generation's journey. We won the war - no doubt, and then took a pass on the postwar. The resulting strategic "pre-emption" was oddly symmetrical in ambition but certainly not in cost (and why should it be so between a superpower and a non-state actor?). But instead of embracing it, we did what we always do and called the postwar another war. And then the White House, chastened finally by the 2006 midterms, relabeled the conflict and rebranded the mission - and then we succeeded again. So what are we left with?
Publications - National Archives of Australia The National Archives of Australia has removed the Designing and Implementing Recordkeeping Systems (DIRKS) Manual from the website. DIRKS has not been recommended for use by agencies since 2007 and has been superseded by other advice on the National Archives website. It has been removed from the website to avoid confusion. Australian Government agencies can contact the Agency Service Centre for further information. The Agency Service Centre provides a single point of contact for all National Archives records advice. Foreign Policy: The 10 Worst Predictions for 2008 1 Scott Gries/Getty Images If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, shes going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. Ill predict that right now. William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006 Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol was hardly alone in thinking that the Democratic primary was Clintons to lose, but it takes a special kind of self-confidence to make a declaration this sweeping more than a year before the first Iowa caucus was held. Peter writes: Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there? Hopefully, Peter got a second opinion. 3 ERIC CABANIS/Getty Images [In] reality the risks to maritime flows of oil are far smaller than is commonly assumed. 4 Spencer Platt/Getty Images 5 YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/Getty Images For all its flaws, an example to others. 6 Brad Barket/Getty Images
Contexto.org: relaciones internacionales, política internacional, política exterior, relaciones exteriores The IR Theory Home Page Secrecy News The number of chronically homeless persons in the U.S. dropped from more than 120,000 in 2008 to around 84,000 in 2014, a new report from the Congressional Research Service notes. The federal government has undertaken to end chronic homelessness by 2017. “One of the reasons that federal programs have devoted resources to ending chronic homelessness […] Read More The national census in 2020 will be the first to rely primarily on the Internet for collecting census data, thereby creating new avenues for fraud and disruption. Read More Employees of the U.S. intelligence community are expected to be bold, innovative and imbued with moral courage. Read More The guiding principles for implementing and operating the Intelligence Community (IC) Information Technology Enterprise (ITE) were set forth in a 2013 memorandum from the Director of National Intelligence that was recently released under the Freedom of Information Act. Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More Tomorrow Ronald W.
Stepping Higher - Reflections on the Knowledge Age Inside Russia and Eurasia - home E-International Relations — the world’s leading open access website for students and scholars of international politics | Chatham House: Independent thinking on international affairs Peter R Neumann, July 2013 Though widely used by academics and policy-makers in the context of the 'war on terror', the concept of radicalization lacks clarity. This article shows that while radicalization is not a myth, its meaning is ambiguous and the major controversies and debates that have sprung from it are linked to the same inherent ambiguity. The principal conceptual fault-line is between notions of radicalization that emphasize extremist beliefs ('cognitive radicalization') and those that focus on extremist behavior ('behavioural radicalization'). Rather than denying its validity, the article calls on scholars and policy-makers to work harder to understand and embrace a concept which, though ambiguous, is likely to dominate research and policy agendas for years to come.
Pnyx - comment on gobal security and politics - Pnyx