Hey everyone! Danny here. This is my first time posting to Substack, so please be kind. I wanted to make you all aware of a recent policy brief I wrote for the Quincy Institute, where I am a non-resident (read: unpaid) fellow. The piece explores how the assumption that the United States should rule the world forever and always—referred to as “primacy”—helped lead the nation down the path to war in Iraq and threatens to do the same for China today.
Excellent article. I knew some but not all of what the elites are doing. I don’t know how we get them to stop this insanity. Voting doesn’t change a thing because the elites have corrupted it. The lesser of two evils turns out to be only one evil as the two parties are the same with the same agenda. We the people have been conned again and again. It doesn’t change and the military industrial complex keeps turning and consuming all. The amount of money thrown at war is robbing us of anything that could benefit the people. The blind ambition and out of control greed is terrifying when fully realized. We as a country have never fully admitted our faults or crimes against the native people, the people dragged here as slaves or even the interment of Japanese Americans in camps after Pearl Harbor. I firmly believe that there is much that needs to be done to address these and other atrocities committed by our government but all they seem to do is more of the same insane things they did in the past. I don’t think this will end well for us if leadership doesn’t wake TF up and change what they do and how they do it. I don’t hate people from any country or want to hurt them in anyway. I do think that when a countries elites want to attack another then only the elites do the fighting. It’s time they suffered casualties instead of the people.
i would like to apologize for my misunderstanding of your scholastic focus, Mr. Besiner. I believe much of what I have written as a matter of generality, but it was misinformed and, thus, my objection was ill advised.
This is such a graceful response. Although I am nowhere near Danny in terms of knowledge, I have been concerned about this American Hegemony/Primacy drive since it first arose during the 90's. Having read all of your comments, I can say that your initial objections are also much of what I am also hearing as part of this misunderstanding. In my attempt to stay relatively cool while having some pretty heavy accusations heaped upon me, I have stayed quiet on one thought that I will share here - no doubt plenty flawed, needs some work, but here goes:
The American reaction to discussing the trouble with U.S. primacy during what is happening in Ukraine particularly disturbs me because as we move from conflict to conflict and/or regime change to regime change, it is cycling much like America's school shootings, and much like what we hear after school shootings, it is also accompanied by the outcry that now - in the midst of this tragedy - is not the time to talk about this. If we follow this line, I am uncertain when we can catch the U.S. between wars to talk about this.
I have no issue with complaints about American hegemonic practice, but I find it suspect that you go on at length about it right now because it comes off a distraction away from Putins war on genocide. To offer an example of why this is problematic, it would be like a newspaper in Chicago railing about America's power stance re: the Monroe Doctrine as the Civil War is in its darkest hour. So revelant in the abstract, but not the matter of the moment. The publishing of such deflections, sadly, is often a ploy used by interested parties. I am not saying you are a tankie, but I am saying this is a tankie kind of article because right now, Putins genocide is being perpetrated, yet you focus on America's faults at this moment.
Three things; Danny is a international relations scholar and his work might not always be about what the broader discourse is obsessing over. Secondly saying that Danny is pro genocide/a “tankie” because he wrote a critique of American power is peak Cold War brain; and finally, history isn’t over because of Russian crimes in Ukraine. More than one thing can happen at once, and more than one thing can be true at the same time.
Ad hominem attacks are fallatic and dismissive, by the way. Saying someone has "peak cold war brain" is ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks are often made in cases where a difference on the issue or concern at hand is something beyond ones reach.to argue. Is that you? By the way, your argument, also employs appeals to experience (which is different from citation), non sequtiors (more than one thing can happen at once), and the claim history isnt.over. Re: this last, um, is he a historian or an international affairs scholar? Seems to me that the later encompasses both current and past affairs. Since current events are always more salient because they are more acute, it behooves the scholar, the professor, to address them at least in equal measure. So he can and should address both. My only issue is that he isnt, and I couls have missed that he did in which case I.apologize, and I believe it may be because he approaches issues as a Marxist Socialist Int. Affairs scholar, not a just a fair minded one. Thats fine, his right. But because of that, if true, I would then ask, "How is different from any other ideologue, including the Neo Cons he rails against, rightfully so?"
I believe I was very clear in stating I am NOT accusing him of being a tankie. The thing is, he comes from a very fatalist perspective, frankly as many followers of Marx do, and potentially a nihilistic one where things like this invasion are "natural" under their framework and therefore to be expected. That comes from a lost cause perspective that provides the comfort of determinism that absolves believers of not having to deal with pressing issues of the moment that are worthy of focusing on, allowing them to return to bromades that are divorced from the moment, again, because where Danny WOULDNT be supporting genocide but WOULD focus on abstract longviews of other countries not involved in the moment because what is currently happening is either seen as natural or is outside of their desire to address. Can you see my point?
Remember, Marx preached worker revolt, that things had to be reordered. This will never happen as it isnt realisitic. Purity is the opiate of the Marxist. And since it cant happen, they tend to either slip ihto dogmas, to nihilism, or simple displaced sttention.
To finish, if more than thing can happen at once, why hasnt he comprehensively written about the current thing to with equal fervor? At length. I would be fine with this, even agreeing to some of it, hence why I subscribed in the first place because I DO like Danny. But making a note of the conspicious absence of long form writing in a moment of urgency is not illegimate. I point to none other than George Orwell to show how a socialist can write not just in support of socialist principles, including English issues most of all, while ALSO covering and then partiicipating in the Spanish rebellion against fascism. Orwell met the moment comprehensively. I dont think it illegimately for Danny to do that. As I have been a professor in my time, I understand the needs of that profession quite well. But if you are going to write for the public about foriegn affairs, international ones, it behooves you to focus on affairs that arent strictly tied to US action. Other people can be bad actors too, so you cover them fully too, no?
you sound like someone who hasn't actually read Marx (or at least beyond the communist manifesto). There's plenty of great stuff out there to get you informed.
It is absolutely relevant that Orwell's coverage and participation in the Spanish Revolution was in solidarity with a then-vital international socialism. The comparison with the current situation in Ukraine is thin, as though Orwell would be writing Homage to Kyiv (please don't read this as saying the people in Ukraine should be sacrificed because there is no international socialist movement, just taking issue with your Orwell comment).
I have read Marx. His analysis, spot on. His critiques most have something to them. His perscriptions were not feasible, utopian, from his perspective.
You are taking the Orwell statement literally in so far as you are trying to cross apply them. I wasnt. Orwell is an example. I am sleepy. Cheers.
All of my accusations may be in error, and I am happy to amend my opinion to reflect facts. But I am reluctant to do so sans proof. And my classification of Danny and much of dirtbag left, who I have an affinity for, as I have comes from experience of listening to them. If they cant take earnest critique, fairminded and without agenda in good faith, then they arent scholars so much as ideologues.
They’ve discussed (at the time alleged) Russian massacres in Bucha and elsewhere on the podcast, and are loudly critical of Putins war on the pod as well. I’m not going to recite their words go listen yourself. Secondly Danny is quite literally a historian of international relations, most specifically a historian of American diplomacy and foreign affairs. He writes and is an expert on AMERICA, not Russia. Thirdly, are you saying that people shouldn’t critique their own government of which they are citizens and voters. They’ve discussed this on the pod as well; they are positioned to have an obligation to hold their own elected officials to task. If all you want is a boiler plate “war crimes bad” disclaimer on every article, every podcast, and every tweet, just ask. And as far as all the debate club word salad you keep sending my answer is I don’t care. The simple fact is you are implying that being critical of America is being pro-Putin and that is complete nonsense. In sum, they’ve addressed your criticisms before on the pod and if all you think we shouldn’t criticize our own governments because our “enemies” are bad then I’m sorry your simply incorrect.
You dont think I listen to the pod, friend? My listening kind of informs my thoughts. Heres my mea culpa. I have seen he is a scholar of American foriegn relations, not international relations. My critiique was thus Ill Informed. That said, I was responding to your mischaracterization,.but I was wrong. That all said, I will also add this. He does identify himself as such. Again, Mea Culpa. My issue, then, is, and this ports with what I did say, is the reflexive return to a Marxist framing that often downplays such things as natural to Marxist thinking. This strictly regards the pod. My critique of Marxists,.of who I am a fan of occassionally, hence my buy in, is that they don't register or do justice to the horrors of what is happening. I would say the same of our Iraq crimes. You dont have to focus on it, but they can be a little too casuap and dismissive of it.
I actually agree that there’s a cadre of western socialists and communists that end up being too lenient on Russia, but I will add that on a fundamental level “Marxist’s” as you call them have little to no effect on actual policy. Socialists and Communists are so politically reviled in mainstream western political life that in the end what they write or say is simply opinion. In a larger sense foreign policy in all countries (I’m Canadian) is fundamentally not democratic; speaking about the horrors in Ukraine is all well and good but it’s effect is minimal. I’m not sure what use there is in demanding constant ideological consistency for no gain.
The US Military trains for a lot. My issue isnt reportage on anything, just the timing and focus when Russia is engaged in a hot war of aggression. This kind of article, submitted at this moment, de facto implies that, in this moment of war, the US Military is somehow what is to be focused on. News is a matter of the moment.
Again, I am not accusing Danny of being a tankie, but this focus on the US in this moment, is a tactic we are seeing all over the place. Its a distraction by abstraction. It's "US bad" to use a dumber parlance. And at this moment, the immediste concern is "Russia bad" because they are commiting genocide. So this would be the equivolent of an Englishperson while Neville Chamberlain allows Nazi attrociates say "England hegemony bad". It clearly was in many ways, our kinda template, but is Naxi bad more important than England bad at that moment? Yes.
The US could have played this so many different ways, Gene. Is it a coincidence that the way that have done is also the way that enables the US military to clear a substantial cache of its old weapons, body armor and ammo, sloughing it all off to Ukraine, making way for a lot of shiny new toys for itself with its $800 billion of our tax money? There's been an awful lot of military industrial complex water under the bridge since Chamberlain's hey day. How credulous are we supposed to pretend to be? Why does Zelenski ask only for more and more weapons and never for medicine or food?
As it happens, I was a student in Jerusalem during the Yom Kippur War when the US dumped its defective tanks on the IDF. I knew boys who were immolated in those tanks when the treads stalled in the Sinai. That's a horrible way to die. With some of the other girls I visited wounded (horribly burned) soldiers from the tank brigade in Hadassah Hospital--one guy who survived a blast was uncontrollably weeping sand out of eyes six weeks later. Sand steadily streaming from behind his eyeballs. As a 17 year old I saw for myself how the US treats its friends. Maybe Ukraine will be luckier, and the many rocket launchers they're getting from the US will in fact launch.
Last week I was given a tour of a training base. At this moment, they are swapping out the faux stucco and minarets for more urban scenery. I also learned that the current pinks and greens (dress uniforms) are reminiscent of WWII style uniforms -- "the last time we won anything," a soldier said to me. I left with the near certain feeling that these old generals want one more shot at being victorious in their lifetimes.
My comments as stated elsewhere was somewhat misinformed, and for this I apologize. I still hold some of my statements are true, but I was wrong to critize the American focus as that is Danny's degree.
As far as weapons being supplied, its totally irrelevant if provided to those engaged in acute defense of their nation. I am sure those additional requests were made. But you cant defend with bread sticks against tanks. As to the rest, I have no response because its anecdotal, although I dont doubt the veracity of your ezperience, rather I question how widespread its serves as proof of anything.
You're right about that, Gene, my personal early formative experiences in a US-backed war, and last week on a US military base watching heat flares detonate over my head don't prove anything. But they do inform my understanding and appreciation of this post.
Mostly, I think it explains really well that even if we could achieve "armed primacy," the cost is too great and it's not a thing worth wanting.
Moreover, "armed primacy" may already be a well known concept to experts, but isn't it the job of movement scholars to explain it to a wider audience, especially since it's driving our budget and possibly curtailing our collective longevity?
I think we should amplify it, Gene, not quibble about its timing. Anyway, I'm glad you apologized to him. It's an important post if only because it reminds us that it's a choice among others, like cooperation, one we can try to influence with reason.
It gives me no pleasure to report that Danny's Substack profile picture is absolutely dripping with contemptuous swag.
Excellent article. I knew some but not all of what the elites are doing. I don’t know how we get them to stop this insanity. Voting doesn’t change a thing because the elites have corrupted it. The lesser of two evils turns out to be only one evil as the two parties are the same with the same agenda. We the people have been conned again and again. It doesn’t change and the military industrial complex keeps turning and consuming all. The amount of money thrown at war is robbing us of anything that could benefit the people. The blind ambition and out of control greed is terrifying when fully realized. We as a country have never fully admitted our faults or crimes against the native people, the people dragged here as slaves or even the interment of Japanese Americans in camps after Pearl Harbor. I firmly believe that there is much that needs to be done to address these and other atrocities committed by our government but all they seem to do is more of the same insane things they did in the past. I don’t think this will end well for us if leadership doesn’t wake TF up and change what they do and how they do it. I don’t hate people from any country or want to hurt them in anyway. I do think that when a countries elites want to attack another then only the elites do the fighting. It’s time they suffered casualties instead of the people.
i would like to apologize for my misunderstanding of your scholastic focus, Mr. Besiner. I believe much of what I have written as a matter of generality, but it was misinformed and, thus, my objection was ill advised.
This is such a graceful response. Although I am nowhere near Danny in terms of knowledge, I have been concerned about this American Hegemony/Primacy drive since it first arose during the 90's. Having read all of your comments, I can say that your initial objections are also much of what I am also hearing as part of this misunderstanding. In my attempt to stay relatively cool while having some pretty heavy accusations heaped upon me, I have stayed quiet on one thought that I will share here - no doubt plenty flawed, needs some work, but here goes:
The American reaction to discussing the trouble with U.S. primacy during what is happening in Ukraine particularly disturbs me because as we move from conflict to conflict and/or regime change to regime change, it is cycling much like America's school shootings, and much like what we hear after school shootings, it is also accompanied by the outcry that now - in the midst of this tragedy - is not the time to talk about this. If we follow this line, I am uncertain when we can catch the U.S. between wars to talk about this.
I have no issue with complaints about American hegemonic practice, but I find it suspect that you go on at length about it right now because it comes off a distraction away from Putins war on genocide. To offer an example of why this is problematic, it would be like a newspaper in Chicago railing about America's power stance re: the Monroe Doctrine as the Civil War is in its darkest hour. So revelant in the abstract, but not the matter of the moment. The publishing of such deflections, sadly, is often a ploy used by interested parties. I am not saying you are a tankie, but I am saying this is a tankie kind of article because right now, Putins genocide is being perpetrated, yet you focus on America's faults at this moment.
Three things; Danny is a international relations scholar and his work might not always be about what the broader discourse is obsessing over. Secondly saying that Danny is pro genocide/a “tankie” because he wrote a critique of American power is peak Cold War brain; and finally, history isn’t over because of Russian crimes in Ukraine. More than one thing can happen at once, and more than one thing can be true at the same time.
Ad hominem attacks are fallatic and dismissive, by the way. Saying someone has "peak cold war brain" is ad hominem. Ad hominem attacks are often made in cases where a difference on the issue or concern at hand is something beyond ones reach.to argue. Is that you? By the way, your argument, also employs appeals to experience (which is different from citation), non sequtiors (more than one thing can happen at once), and the claim history isnt.over. Re: this last, um, is he a historian or an international affairs scholar? Seems to me that the later encompasses both current and past affairs. Since current events are always more salient because they are more acute, it behooves the scholar, the professor, to address them at least in equal measure. So he can and should address both. My only issue is that he isnt, and I couls have missed that he did in which case I.apologize, and I believe it may be because he approaches issues as a Marxist Socialist Int. Affairs scholar, not a just a fair minded one. Thats fine, his right. But because of that, if true, I would then ask, "How is different from any other ideologue, including the Neo Cons he rails against, rightfully so?"
I believe I was very clear in stating I am NOT accusing him of being a tankie. The thing is, he comes from a very fatalist perspective, frankly as many followers of Marx do, and potentially a nihilistic one where things like this invasion are "natural" under their framework and therefore to be expected. That comes from a lost cause perspective that provides the comfort of determinism that absolves believers of not having to deal with pressing issues of the moment that are worthy of focusing on, allowing them to return to bromades that are divorced from the moment, again, because where Danny WOULDNT be supporting genocide but WOULD focus on abstract longviews of other countries not involved in the moment because what is currently happening is either seen as natural or is outside of their desire to address. Can you see my point?
Remember, Marx preached worker revolt, that things had to be reordered. This will never happen as it isnt realisitic. Purity is the opiate of the Marxist. And since it cant happen, they tend to either slip ihto dogmas, to nihilism, or simple displaced sttention.
To finish, if more than thing can happen at once, why hasnt he comprehensively written about the current thing to with equal fervor? At length. I would be fine with this, even agreeing to some of it, hence why I subscribed in the first place because I DO like Danny. But making a note of the conspicious absence of long form writing in a moment of urgency is not illegimate. I point to none other than George Orwell to show how a socialist can write not just in support of socialist principles, including English issues most of all, while ALSO covering and then partiicipating in the Spanish rebellion against fascism. Orwell met the moment comprehensively. I dont think it illegimately for Danny to do that. As I have been a professor in my time, I understand the needs of that profession quite well. But if you are going to write for the public about foriegn affairs, international ones, it behooves you to focus on affairs that arent strictly tied to US action. Other people can be bad actors too, so you cover them fully too, no?
you sound like someone who hasn't actually read Marx (or at least beyond the communist manifesto). There's plenty of great stuff out there to get you informed.
It is absolutely relevant that Orwell's coverage and participation in the Spanish Revolution was in solidarity with a then-vital international socialism. The comparison with the current situation in Ukraine is thin, as though Orwell would be writing Homage to Kyiv (please don't read this as saying the people in Ukraine should be sacrificed because there is no international socialist movement, just taking issue with your Orwell comment).
I have read Marx. His analysis, spot on. His critiques most have something to them. His perscriptions were not feasible, utopian, from his perspective.
You are taking the Orwell statement literally in so far as you are trying to cross apply them. I wasnt. Orwell is an example. I am sleepy. Cheers.
All of my accusations may be in error, and I am happy to amend my opinion to reflect facts. But I am reluctant to do so sans proof. And my classification of Danny and much of dirtbag left, who I have an affinity for, as I have comes from experience of listening to them. If they cant take earnest critique, fairminded and without agenda in good faith, then they arent scholars so much as ideologues.
They’ve discussed (at the time alleged) Russian massacres in Bucha and elsewhere on the podcast, and are loudly critical of Putins war on the pod as well. I’m not going to recite their words go listen yourself. Secondly Danny is quite literally a historian of international relations, most specifically a historian of American diplomacy and foreign affairs. He writes and is an expert on AMERICA, not Russia. Thirdly, are you saying that people shouldn’t critique their own government of which they are citizens and voters. They’ve discussed this on the pod as well; they are positioned to have an obligation to hold their own elected officials to task. If all you want is a boiler plate “war crimes bad” disclaimer on every article, every podcast, and every tweet, just ask. And as far as all the debate club word salad you keep sending my answer is I don’t care. The simple fact is you are implying that being critical of America is being pro-Putin and that is complete nonsense. In sum, they’ve addressed your criticisms before on the pod and if all you think we shouldn’t criticize our own governments because our “enemies” are bad then I’m sorry your simply incorrect.
To repeat, I was wrong, and you were correct on much, but not all.
You dont think I listen to the pod, friend? My listening kind of informs my thoughts. Heres my mea culpa. I have seen he is a scholar of American foriegn relations, not international relations. My critiique was thus Ill Informed. That said, I was responding to your mischaracterization,.but I was wrong. That all said, I will also add this. He does identify himself as such. Again, Mea Culpa. My issue, then, is, and this ports with what I did say, is the reflexive return to a Marxist framing that often downplays such things as natural to Marxist thinking. This strictly regards the pod. My critique of Marxists,.of who I am a fan of occassionally, hence my buy in, is that they don't register or do justice to the horrors of what is happening. I would say the same of our Iraq crimes. You dont have to focus on it, but they can be a little too casuap and dismissive of it.
I actually agree that there’s a cadre of western socialists and communists that end up being too lenient on Russia, but I will add that on a fundamental level “Marxist’s” as you call them have little to no effect on actual policy. Socialists and Communists are so politically reviled in mainstream western political life that in the end what they write or say is simply opinion. In a larger sense foreign policy in all countries (I’m Canadian) is fundamentally not democratic; speaking about the horrors in Ukraine is all well and good but it’s effect is minimal. I’m not sure what use there is in demanding constant ideological consistency for no gain.
Gene, The US military is training as we speak for peer to peer warfare. When is Danny supposed to publish the piece, after we’re already at war?
The US Military trains for a lot. My issue isnt reportage on anything, just the timing and focus when Russia is engaged in a hot war of aggression. This kind of article, submitted at this moment, de facto implies that, in this moment of war, the US Military is somehow what is to be focused on. News is a matter of the moment.
Again, I am not accusing Danny of being a tankie, but this focus on the US in this moment, is a tactic we are seeing all over the place. Its a distraction by abstraction. It's "US bad" to use a dumber parlance. And at this moment, the immediste concern is "Russia bad" because they are commiting genocide. So this would be the equivolent of an Englishperson while Neville Chamberlain allows Nazi attrociates say "England hegemony bad". It clearly was in many ways, our kinda template, but is Naxi bad more important than England bad at that moment? Yes.
The US could have played this so many different ways, Gene. Is it a coincidence that the way that have done is also the way that enables the US military to clear a substantial cache of its old weapons, body armor and ammo, sloughing it all off to Ukraine, making way for a lot of shiny new toys for itself with its $800 billion of our tax money? There's been an awful lot of military industrial complex water under the bridge since Chamberlain's hey day. How credulous are we supposed to pretend to be? Why does Zelenski ask only for more and more weapons and never for medicine or food?
As it happens, I was a student in Jerusalem during the Yom Kippur War when the US dumped its defective tanks on the IDF. I knew boys who were immolated in those tanks when the treads stalled in the Sinai. That's a horrible way to die. With some of the other girls I visited wounded (horribly burned) soldiers from the tank brigade in Hadassah Hospital--one guy who survived a blast was uncontrollably weeping sand out of eyes six weeks later. Sand steadily streaming from behind his eyeballs. As a 17 year old I saw for myself how the US treats its friends. Maybe Ukraine will be luckier, and the many rocket launchers they're getting from the US will in fact launch.
Last week I was given a tour of a training base. At this moment, they are swapping out the faux stucco and minarets for more urban scenery. I also learned that the current pinks and greens (dress uniforms) are reminiscent of WWII style uniforms -- "the last time we won anything," a soldier said to me. I left with the near certain feeling that these old generals want one more shot at being victorious in their lifetimes.
My comments as stated elsewhere was somewhat misinformed, and for this I apologize. I still hold some of my statements are true, but I was wrong to critize the American focus as that is Danny's degree.
As far as weapons being supplied, its totally irrelevant if provided to those engaged in acute defense of their nation. I am sure those additional requests were made. But you cant defend with bread sticks against tanks. As to the rest, I have no response because its anecdotal, although I dont doubt the veracity of your ezperience, rather I question how widespread its serves as proof of anything.
You're right about that, Gene, my personal early formative experiences in a US-backed war, and last week on a US military base watching heat flares detonate over my head don't prove anything. But they do inform my understanding and appreciation of this post.
Mostly, I think it explains really well that even if we could achieve "armed primacy," the cost is too great and it's not a thing worth wanting.
Moreover, "armed primacy" may already be a well known concept to experts, but isn't it the job of movement scholars to explain it to a wider audience, especially since it's driving our budget and possibly curtailing our collective longevity?
I think we should amplify it, Gene, not quibble about its timing. Anyway, I'm glad you apologized to him. It's an important post if only because it reminds us that it's a choice among others, like cooperation, one we can try to influence with reason.