A very good question by JC, and Joe I think you hit the nail on the head. There just aren't many on the Left who value security and treat it seriously.

An example from the media: look at the silliness with the latest pulled CBS 60 Minutes story. They could have written about many things, like Iraqi nuclear scientists on the loose, or Oil for Food, or the gathering crisis in Iran, but chose to try to slip the "Bush lied with the sixteen words" canard by us again. This is the mark of an unserious people.

It's sad, really. Lots of people would be willing to vote for a Scoop Jackson type candidate, were one available. Looking to the future, who on the Left can even begin to be that candidate? Barack Obama?

I would also very much like to see what JC is asking for. As to Jeff's comment, I know some people who were hoping Clark could be that candidate, so much for that idea.

JC, here's the continuation you asked for. Hope some interesting stuff comes of it.

Jeff, Funny you should mention Obama - we'll see if his Senate voting record matches up to that. But I somehow doubt that he'll Guest Blog here. Any other suggestions?

JC: It's not that Winds is " so right-leaning", it's that it is as left-leaning as Joe can make it, given what he has to work with. AL and Barak seem to be "sports", rare anomalies. The Left has been hijacked by the party's fundamentalists, and there is just a huge void that used to be occupied by centrists and moderates. That middle ground was deliberately destroyed by the fundamentalists to force moderates either into the fundamentalist camp, or out of the party altogether. I have no clue as to how to it can be fixed.
Joe does an awesome job, this place is truly unique, but I just don't see potential left team bloggers growing on trees.

"...I just don't see potential left team bloggers growing on trees.

Forgive me jinderella, but somehow I can't get the image out of my mind of the line Jay (in Dogma) says, looking skyward after the disciple Morris (Chris Rock) falls out of the sky...

A.L.

AL, I will forgive you anything, as long as you keep blogging. :)

But, seriously, I understand what JC is saying-- how to remedy it? Boyer and Atran describe the process by which fundamentalists seize and maintain control, but they never talk about restoring the moderates-- how do we regrow and populate the "middle ground"?

Jindarella,

Well, look, clearly I disagree, but it is certainly possible I am incorrect - naive, perhaps.

But let's back away from the partisan nature of this, and, if you don't mind, let's try on a metaphor. And the metaphor will be naive, and full of hyperbole, but what the hey, let's have fun with it!

Say there is this field of knowledge, called "national defensology". To make this particular metaphor useful, let's say this field of knowledge is similar to "medicine".

However, national defensology is a "holistic" discipline - sort of like sociology - in that this field has to take into account, the knowledge of warfare, the knowledge of economics, and the knowledge of sociology. Basically, a working knowledge of disciplines as they relate to human conflict.

1. Now clearly, to be a "doctor of national defensology", there should NOT be any partisan litmus test - the same way there isn't to be a doctor.

Would everyone agree with point 1? Can I get an amen on that?

2. While national defensology cannot be a "science" in the sense of biology (the example sets are too small to prove a theory, for instance) this does NOT mean that all theories are created equal. Even art criticism (a subjective field if there ever was one), an art critic can say DEFINITIVELY that Picasso is MUCH better art than say, TIGER ON VELVET. So judgements can and must be made in national defensology, and knowledgeable critics should be able to say, within reason, whether a certain policy is a Picasso or TIGER ON VELVET.

Anyone agree with point 2?

3. For the Democratic haters out there - if the field of national defensology PROTECTS THE ORGANISM WHICH IS US - then DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS want the BEST national defensologists!
Does ANYONE want an incompetent doctor??

I don't. No democrat I know does.

4. The operational national defensology wisdom of the last 50 years, has been a combination of containment and realpolitik. This included: economic incentives, transatlantic allies, political freedom to grow, forward looking and progressive economic structures, a "better" sociology, rooted in authentic human values (freedom, choice, balance of internal goverment powers) and repudiating false human values (totarianism, fascism, religious totalism)

5. Because of 9/11, there has been a clamoring among some defensologists, that the common defensology wisdom of containment and realpolitik is no longer enough to contain a virus outbreak of
religious totalism. This was the "diagnosis". There was a "radical" remedy proposed by these defensologists, which had its first real test in Iraq.

I think that most people would agree with points 1 through 5. The rest would be problematic.

What democratic defensologists say, is that the "common defensology wisdom" - or policies of containment, realpolitik and incentives - is ACTUALLY still the policy that needs to be used with this new "virus outbreak" of religious totalism - with a little tweaking, and a more agressive stance.

And the "radical solution" of Iraq, is actually the WRONG REMEDY. And this has been proven out with events. And this is what the criticism of the Bush administration is based on.

So, two questions then. If Democratic defensolists disagree with, a bit, the diagnosis (War on Terror as unique), and definitely disagree with the REMEDY (going away from containment and realpolitik to radical preemption and intervention), are those beliefs allowed?

At any rate, I'm mixing metaphors from here to Mars - the next point would be starting to define the empirical elements of "correct diagnosis" and the empirical elements of "correct remedies"..

But let me know if anyone found this useful, or at least amusing...

Oh, and if anyone wants a PhD in national defensology, I'm opening a diploma mill! :)

JC: It's a fine metaphor. :)
BUT where are your case studies to validate it?
Before you send Joe out to scour the blogverse, like Diogenes with his lamp, for that one honest Democratic Defensolist, can you prove their existence?

I go to dKos and MYLand sometimes. Haven't seen any sign of democratic defensolists there.

Jinnderella, that is how it feels from here. But that doesn't mean I'm right, and I haven't given up hope.

The Defensologist bit also hit the nail on the head.

Point 1 - totally agree. WRT point #2, absolute judgments can be tough but some policies are obviously dumb or self-contradictory. Still, what is most important is correct understanding of the options available, the realistic trade-offs and risks in any option, and a sense of what is "normal" given human history (always much messier than the academics/plans). If you understand the terminology, have some grasp of the military/intelligence stuff, and can do this, you're in good shape to get one of JC's degree mill handouts, and deserve it.
:-)

Throw regional domain/cultural experience on top of that, or some other edge, and one becomes formidable. We actually had a CIA veteran explain what made for a crackerjack analyst once, and his stuff is good advice too if you want to go beyond these basics.

As for liberal "defensologists", I think the field of belief and discussion and position is much wider than that, sometimes in negative ways but also in some very positive ways that actually expand the debate (e.g. drawing connections between ecology & security).

So maybe all that helps us sharpen our focus a bit in terms of what makes for a good "defensologist." And to be here, they've gotta believe in the "Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory." motto in some way.

So let's take all that, and treat is as a profile of the kind of people we look for, and then put it aside for a sec and ask again:

"What do you think a site would have to have, in order to be the "go-to" community site for security/ international news related to defense/ defense site in the blogosphere? What would it do that Winds does not do? What kinds of people should it include re: expertise? Who might it include that any of you have seen or know, in a world where anything was possible?"

Let me stay for starters that I think Joe is a pretty damn good editor, even if I don't always agree with his political views. The enforced format of the regular briefings, the posting rules, the encouragement of debate, are all important elements of making this a quality site, and it's clear that Joe takes the time to regularly read up on ways to make the community aspect even better. So take these comments with that in mind, and feel free to ignore and all of them. It's your site, after all, and I visit it despite its general editorial line.

I agree that there is a problem on the left insofar as few tend to take the time to actually do their homework on "defensology." Take me, for instance. I consider myself fairly knowledgable about history, grand strategy, and the world in general, but I admit that I don't go reading up on weapons systems and tactics and so forth. I tend to be more interested in the "Sys Admin Force" than I am in the "Leviathan," to use Thomas Barnett's lingo. But that is something that, I think gets short shrift here--where there is a focus on the non-military aspects of the WoT, it tends to be from a political/cultural perspective rather than an economic and institutional one. It would be very cool to find some expats working on development issues in the Arab world.

And there are in fact bloggers on the left (and on the right--I don't really think there's much of a realist perspective represented here) who would make fine additions. Steve Clemons, for instance, is a serious person, as is Noah Schachtman both of whom are knowledgable and of the liberal internationalist camp. Gary Farber was a good example of someone in the murky middle. Greg Djerejian would offer a solid realist point of view. If there are other prominent conservative realist bloggers, I can't think of any. I'll say that I find it exceedingly rare that the Bush administration gets criticized in posts here. And, frankly, there aren't alternate voices with regard to Israeli/Palestinian issues, which tends to give the site a Likud slant. The debate within Israel over Israeli/Palestinian issues is far more robust than the debate within the US. A strong Arab voice would be welcome (with all due respect, I find Tarek Heggy's stuff doesn't really make much sense to me). How about someone along the lines of Chan'ad Bahraini, Shia Pundit or Abu Aardvark? Or how about trying to snare an Iraqi blogger? Some of the Kurdish guys are pretty smart, and IMO aren't read widely enough.

While the Weekly Standard has repeatedly called for Rumsfeld's head, WoC has been largely silent. I don't remember seeing much Tacitusian outrage over Fallujah, or any Ledeenian frustration with the lack of clarity of our Iran policy. Why don't you people offer more criticism from the right? I don't buy jinderalla's argument, moreover, that the site is "as left-leaning as Joe can make it." Surely Joe can make it as left-leaning as he wants to, no? As for folks along the lines of MY, Laura Rozen, JMM, or Swopa (of Needlenose), I can understand how their partisanship would grate here, having had the experience of grinding my teeth at some of the more partisan posts here. But there are others out there, like Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings for instance, who aren't as focused on Bush v. Cheney and regularly have smart things to say.

Now, I think the Agonist is trying to be what JC wants, but I admit I'm bothered by the outrageous abuse of "fair use" involved in the complete reprinting of articles, and I think that Sean-Paul hasn't really learned his lesson after the whole Stratfor thing. Moreover, I think the design of the site makes it hard to read and comment. I find the commenters there to be somewhat cultish. And there isn't really any noteworthy commentary there to speak of.

Praktike: I bow low to your superior knowledge. I think your suggestions are awesome. But how about not just an Iraqi blogger, but maybe an Iranian blogger and an Israeli blogger? Empirical data is always best.
You should be a team blogger. That would help to balance the scales. :)

How about trying to snare Yazdi?

If you are taking nominations, kingdaddy might be a good choice, I find I usually agree with the theoretical part of his posts, but almost never with the practical parts (which is due to my Jacksonian, if not Hulagunian outlook on the jihadi war.)

Praktike, Yazdi doesn't look like a blogger. How do I get a feel for the kinds of things he writes?

Oscar, thanks. I saw theoretical blind spots around consequences and options (and over-reliance on Sy Hersh) that made the transition to the practical part a problem. But he is a serious guy, and he's trying to think about these things intelligently, and maybe the give and take of debate here could elevate that.

Any more thoughts re: these questions?

Joe, you know that Yazdi is the guy broadcasting on satellite TV into Iran, right?

If he's truly someone interested in spreading a velvet revolution, maybe he'd be up for a guest column, or could point you to a knowledgable commentator who would be blogger.

And, frankly, there aren't alternate voices with regard to Israeli/Palestinian issues, which tends to give the site a Likud slant.

I can handle the anti-Sharon line well enough, but I don't think that's what you mean ;-)

Best combination would be LGF/Winds style format of news/opinion followed by threads, Winds briefings, and Rantburg/Debka-speed (or feed?) news updates (ticker?).

Don't ask me about details, though :-)

RE: Iranians,

In my discussions, I've found that many Iranians have problems openly working with a blog that has Jewish members (Iranian Jews like Pejman being an obvious exception). Most aren't bigoted, but they are afraid of being charged by the regime as Israeli spies on future visits... and some of them aren't too clear on the distinction between "Jew" and "Israeli" (what else is new in the region?)

Yazdi may already be a marked man anyway, so he could be a fine choice. Thanks, Praktike.

Colt, interesting profile idea.

"I can handle the anti-Sharon line well enough, but I don't think that's what you mean ;-)"

Actually, that's precisely what I meant, which is why I said it.

BTW, Joe, speaking of Yazdi, did you see this?

re: having more (any?) classic Realist WoCers,

while this would make WoC a more comprehensive security blog/resource, it would take away from the whole winds of CHANGE aspect of the site.

more critical perspectives on Bush and Sharon would make WoC more fair and balanced, but I think that the site would lose some of its coherency if those critical perspectives were too focused on a realpolitik/containment angle. that's not 'winds of change', that'd be, like, 'light breezes that may or may not be caused by minor policy adjustments'. I think the WoC has room for not only neo-cons but neo-liberals, even neo-realists, really; I am not so sure it is a place for paleos. (which isn't to say that 'neos' are right and 'paleos' are wrong, I'm still agnostic myself - this is purely a point about branding, really).

to say more or less the exact same thing, but slightly differently: Winds of Change is an evocative name that ties together all the perspectives on this site with the shared assumption that today's national and human security problems require fundamental changes in the world and (consequently) in our policy approaches. while I do think the site would benefit from increasing the variety of perspectives under that umbrella, I think you should keep the umbrella, unless of course you are tired of it and want to do something else, in which case you'd have to come up with a new name. you know?

To me, a lefty, the military has always seemed rather collectivist in nature. The planning is centralized, power radiates from the top, the workers are often ill compensated, and the paperwork is tedious and dull-witted. I believe the model of our military is exemplary, however, and typically does the job right. I also believe that a senior commander in today's armed forces more closely resembles a 50s era Soviet party boss than a free trader with an MBA.

My point: in more cases than partisans like to acknowledge, some folks thought to be firmly rightwing may resemble lefties and visa versa. Some where in between these two opposing sides is a broad median where our common interests reside. Principle among those common interests is the question of security. With 3.7% of our GDP tied up in Defense, a considerable portion of my/our money demands close attention. It is in all our interests to see that $448 billion is being spent wisely.

I do not think our common defense is a partisan issue or the folks on the right own the issue in any way other than a rhetorical way. I am amazed whenever I see lefties hazed as being weak on defense. The wars we have had have been very equananimous in killing soldiers of either persuasion.

Personally, I like The Command Post to keep up with the latest military scuttlebutt. Yeah, it is rightwing, but the administrators are evenhanded. Someday I hope it is recognized that the rightwing are not the defenders of the sacred and noble institutions they portray themselves to be. When push comes to shove more often than not we all pitch in.

Obelus,

I think you'd be surprised at home many of those senior commanders these days have MBAs. And in some ways, the U.S. military is ahead of private sector organizations in its focus on adaptive leadership and learning organizations.

Which doesn't take out the Catch-22 bureaucracy, of course, endemic as it is to large human organizations.

I've lamented in the past that the debates about the military tend to focus on amounts, not wisdom or doctrine. Actually, I agreed with James Fallows, a neo-liberal journalist of the "defense reformer" bent whom I rather like. As you can see from our large Military topic archive, we haven't been a stranger to this topic. But more of that debate might be one way to enhance the site.

John,

Your point re: branding is well taken. For a lot of reasons that go beyond the defense security angle and into the technologies, social trends, and environmental angles changing our world, I don't want to abandon the Winds of Change orientation.

That said, it may be useful to set up a few more clashes with the realist perspective via Guest bloggers etc. That way both readers and team members will be forced to think a little harder.

Thanks for the thoughts, folks. Keep 'em coming.

Dr. Yazdi. Hmm. Hrmmm. Err, see this

Good thought, but we'll have to find an alternative. Given his Oct. 1 plans, his odds of being around to help are mixed.

But Dr. Yazdi's speculation that the first operational step of the mullahs' bomb project is to detonate an A-bomb in Iran and blame it on Israel & America as a way of uniting the populace... that's genuinely interesting. Absolutely wouldn't put it past them, and it throws a different angle on Iran's belligerent rhetoric lately.

Trent's scenario, in a way, but through a scarcely-imagined back door. If it happens, will he still be able to say he told us so?

praktike:

I meant I could quite easily flank Sharon from the right, RE Arab-Israeli war.

The moment has passed...

Yikes. I had no idea he was so, er, unique.

Colt, are you against the Gaza pullout?

At this point, yes. We could discuss it some time, but I have to finish Winds of War.

Joe -
Kingdaddy would definitely benefit from more reasoned criticism than he generally gets (I don't consider my criticism "reasoned" - I tend to comment in sentences, not paragraphs.)

As to the question what does WoC need to become the go-to site, maybe some guest bloggers (they would agree to show up occaisionally but no need to commit to more) who have serious creds. I was taken by Tommy Franks comment that he and Schwarzkopf respect each other, but have serious disagreements on how to fight in the ME. Getting folks like that to either put up an occaisional piece, or at least agree to answer a list of questions now and again would help.

Also a good on-line library would help: have a sites link that is non-blog, fer instance there are a lot of good military sites out there with good information and views, many of which show how non-monolithic the military is (probably less so than State or the CIA in my view - and I am no fan of the Pentagon.)

Joe - I can't resist this one further suggestion: the site where praktike has his blog is definitely NOT beznadezhnij. Have you scoped it out in toto yet?

Two things -

Oberon's comment is fairly right on - if this site is FOUNDED, on a concept that, for example, the 50 year strategy of military strength, containment, alliances, and economic incentives is no longer applicable to the threats of the modern world - well, that's clearly would negate having realists on board. To attempt to be THE Defense/Security community site, would necessarily entail being more "traditional" than you may want to be.

Also, one other thing - at some point, someone should start hosting a wikipedia strictly for national affairs/defense, unless this is already done in the primary wiki.

Also, I am not sure who puts together Global Security.org, but for all you know, perhaps you may be able to pull a Kevin Drum, and be the "community site" for Globalsecurity.org. Certainly, it would seem to be a good fit - you may have your own "Washington Monthly" behind you, with a lot more guest posters.

Just thoughts.

praktike: a basic outline of my view RE Gaza can be found here.

Wow. That Dr. Yazdi.

BTW, maybe the population in Iran is getting the jump on the mullahs-- Unrest in Iran

praktike:

Re: no criticism from the right.

Eh? I've been calling for more troops in Iraq and have been discussing the problems inherent to US Iran policy (or lack thereof) for quite some time now. I just pointed out the other day that the clock is ticking on the mad mullahs and the bomb.

Dan - I think praktike is partly correct because most of us think Kerry would be an unmitigated disaster, despite whether we are pleased with what Bush is doing.

I was amused the other day when my wife suggested that I would not be voting for Bush because of my constant criticisms of him. I told her I would vote for Putin before I would for Kerry or Nader. She was please because she thinks K is a clown, but that shows that some of us on the right can be critical of the many failings of Bush.