Very sorry for not responding sooner. I was traveling in Hong Kong, where I went to give a talk about the Middle East. The Council on Foreign Relations where I work did not allow me to take any personal devices to China. I had a burner phone with me that did not have the Substack app.
I was on a pre-doc at Brookings in 2001 and 2002 so no one really cared what I thought about Iraq, but I'm record at both the time and since the invasion calling is a strategic blunder.
One of the problems with using the term "neo-conservative" as an epithet is that it obscures what neo-conservatism stands for and leads anyone who advocates the use of force no matter how limited open to charges of being a neo-conservative. My recent TLP piece actually fits within the realist tradition as it looks at a narrow American interest in the Middle East (and elsewhere) --freedom of navigation--and underscores why the US should do what is necessary to keep the Red Sea open. This is quite different from neo-conservatives who sought to transform societies of the region.
As John indicated, I explore these issues fully in my new book.
I can't speak for Steven, sorry Mark. He does have a new book coming out on the region called The End of Ambition that probably explains his wider views.
Dear Mark,
Very sorry for not responding sooner. I was traveling in Hong Kong, where I went to give a talk about the Middle East. The Council on Foreign Relations where I work did not allow me to take any personal devices to China. I had a burner phone with me that did not have the Substack app.
I was on a pre-doc at Brookings in 2001 and 2002 so no one really cared what I thought about Iraq, but I'm record at both the time and since the invasion calling is a strategic blunder.
One of the problems with using the term "neo-conservative" as an epithet is that it obscures what neo-conservatism stands for and leads anyone who advocates the use of force no matter how limited open to charges of being a neo-conservative. My recent TLP piece actually fits within the realist tradition as it looks at a narrow American interest in the Middle East (and elsewhere) --freedom of navigation--and underscores why the US should do what is necessary to keep the Red Sea open. This is quite different from neo-conservatives who sought to transform societies of the region.
As John indicated, I explore these issues fully in my new book.
Thanks for reading.
All best
Steven
Dr. Cook, you were a Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution in 2001-2002. At that time, did you support the US invasion of Iraq?
No response. Why am I not surprised.
LP, is this what I'm paying you for? Neocon warmongering followed by radio silence?
I can't speak for Steven, sorry Mark. He does have a new book coming out on the region called The End of Ambition that probably explains his wider views.
I'd like "Steven" to speak for himself, but apparently he's too busy advocating for more US foreign meddling to answer any questions from us peons.