Example #1: Why the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty is a Bad Idea

The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty and Sanctions On Iran, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 28, 2009. "Earlier this week, the Heritage Foundation published a lengthy study of the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty. The study details numerous problems inherent in this proposal, which is now being considered by a New York-based working group. The campaign behind the treaty is based on faulty premises, and the treaty, if brought into being as currently projected, will facilitate, not curb, the illegal arms trade, while at the same time posing a danger to the Second Amendment, to the ability of the U.S. to resist tyranny around the world, and to U.S. export controls. In a fine article posted on Real Clear World, Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow in The Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and a former senior advisor in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, explains part of what is at stake."

After A Stab in the Back, A Slap in the Face

A Slap in the Face to Poland?,, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 28, 2009. "As we reported yesterday morning, it now seems all but certain that the Obama Administration has abandoned our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is a terrible decision that reduces NATO’s security, encourages Iran to proceed full speed ahead with its nuclear program, kowtows to Russian pressure, and stabs our Polish and Czech allies in the back, after they made the difficult decision to support us. And now the administration appears to have added insult to injury. World War II began on September 1, 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. That was seventy years ago."

What Might John Stuart Mill Say About Engagement?

J.S. Mill and Burma, Contentions, August 27, 2009. "Van Jackson, founder and executive editor of Asia Chronicle, has written a column titled 'Principles impede progress for Burma,' attacking those—like a colleague of mine here at the Heritage Foundation—who have the temerity to argue that U.S. policy toward Burma should be based on principles. Jackson, by contrast, prefers the meaningless criterion of effectiveness devoid of any actual objectives. In his pursuit of steely-eyed utilitarianism, Jackson makes the amusing claim that 'British philosopher John Stuart Mill would turn over in his grave at the idea of allowing such a failed policy to continue.' Jackson appears to know just enough about Mill to be dangerous, i.e., that Mill was a utilitarian. True indeed—at least until Mill suffered from a nervous breakdown at the age of 20 and turned to the poetry of the Romantics as a relief from the dust-dry pursuit of utility. Partisans of policy without principle might take a lesson from that."

A Lengthy Update on Britain's Procurement 'Crisis'

Assessing Britain's Procurement Problems, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 27, 2009. "Last week, we noted that a set of slides summing up an internal report from Britain’s Ministry of Defense on defense procurement that had been leaked to the BBC did not place its serious charges into context. The full report has now been leaked to the Sunday Times, which will presumably publish it in due course. Only then will it be possible to assess the report’s merits and demerits. But even now, the parts that have been produced raise important questions."

Barone on Obama's Faulty Liberalism

The "Lyrical Left", Contentions, August 26, 2009. "Michael Barone has an article in today’s Washington Examiner that is—like all he writes—thought-provoking and worthy of a read. Titled 'Obama’s lyrical Left struggles with liberalism,' it argues that Obama is a member of the 'lyrical Left'—basically, a dove. But it wasn’t a dovish foreign policy that made the state big, argues Barone: it was the undovish liberals like Wilson and FDR who fought wars, because wars grow the state. As Barone concludes, 'A big-government president, Obama is learning, needs to be a war president first.' Well, maybe."

The Case Against the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty

The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty: A Dangerous Multilateral Mistake in the Making, co-written with Steven Groves, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2309, August 21, 2009. "The treaty contemplated by the U.N.’s October 2008 arms trade resolution would be a license to almost all states, no matter how irresponsible, to buy and sell arms. It would endanger U.S. arms export control policy, clash with the Constitution, offer a dangerous justification for dictatorial rule, and make it illegal under international law for the U.S. to support freedom fighters abroad."

The Problem With A Core Curriculum

When ACTA Speaks . . ., Contentions, August 21, 2009. "I hope that everyone listens, though there’s not much chance of that. On Wednesday, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni released a new study—”What Will They Learn?”—accompanied by a very spiffy site of the same name. The study, timed to hit the market as the annual U.S. News and World Report rankings appear, grades colleges and universities not by easily manipulated and subjective criteria but by doing what is most damaging to academia: taking it at its word."

A Tiny Illustration of the Problem with State Ownership

Obama Goes NASCAR, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 21, 2009. "As part of his on-going effort to reduce carbon emissions – or perhaps in an effort to charm a conservative-leaning audience that’s skeptical of his health care plans – President Obama yesterday honored Jimmie Johnson, the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Champion, and extolled the virtues of this 'uniquely American sport.' It’s not a sport he appears to have much liking for: his jokes were labored and he butchered the name of one of the honorees. Presidents have to do a lot of this sort of thing, of course, and it is hard to blame the President for so evidently finding the job a chore. But he didn’t have to take the next step."

The Health of the System

Britain's Sacred Cow: The NHS and Daniel Hannan, New Ledger, August 21, 2009. "Daniel Hannan is in trouble. The young Tory European MP, who became a YouTube sensation earlier this year for his denunciation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as the “devalued prime minister of a devalued government,” has made what can in politics be a serious error: he has challenged orthodoxy in a way that is both substantive and interesting. Boring substantive challenges can be seen off, and soaring rhetoric that says nothing is the stuff of politics, but having a point and knowing how to make it will always raise bellows from the defenders of the gored sacred cow."

Are Islamists Putting Britain First?

Is Britain Target No. 1?, Contentions, August 20, 2009. "Newspapers around the world are reporting that an Islamist Internet site affiliated with supporters of Abdullah al-Faisal—Jamaican-born Trevor William Forest, who was deported from Britain in 2007 after serving a jail sentence for soliciting the murder of Jews, Americans, and Hindus—is promising 'spectacular attacks' in Britain, to be launched by 'home-grown terrorists.'"

What the Latest British Defense Scandal Means

Procuring Problems in Britain's Defenses, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 18, 2009. "A set of slides summing up an internal report from Britain’s Ministry of Defense on defense procurement have found their way to the BBC. The slides make for damning reading, and though the Ministry denies they are authentic, they accord with Britain’s experiences over the past decade. In a nutshell, the slides conclude that the Ministry “does not really know the price of any kit and project management does not exist in the Department.” The result is pervasive over-optimism about procurement, regular and costly reprofiling of major programs, and a procurement budget that will only come into balance in 2028 – assuming nothing else is ordered in the interim."

Why Islamists Intimidate

Self Censorship Watch, Contentions, August 18, 2009. "I’m not afraid of Islamists. As long as we in the liberal West don’t browbeat ourselves into submission, and as long as we take sensible measures to defend ourselves from the threat of mass terrorism—especially from WMDs—there is no reason for free, modern, and enterprising societies to fear losing to medieval Islamism. What makes me nervous is that there are too few leaders today willing to follow Reagan’s example from the Cold War in saying this, and that there are too many 'opinion leaders' and officials who are eager to split the difference between good and evil."

No Bulldogs in Britain

Brown’s Red Tape is Separating Britain From Its Friends, Yorkshire Post, August 12, 2009. "Yale University is one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in the United States, and is among its most Anglophile. Its Yale Centre for British Art holds the finest such collection outside Britain's borders. Its Political Union is modelled on those of Oxford and Cambridge. And 'Bulldogs in Britain', which brings Yale students to Britain for a summer internship, is among its most popular programmes. Or rather, it was among Yale's most popular programmes. This spring, Yale was forced to suspend 'Bulldogs in Britain'. The reason? Britain's new visa regulations, which came into force in 2008, made it impossible for citizens of most nations outside the EU to take entry-level jobs or internships in Britain."

What's On Syllabi at Yale?

Re: Mearsheimer at Yale, Contentions, July 30, 2009. "My friend Adam Hirst takes Prof. Bruce Russett of Yale moderately to task for assigning readings from Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, including their 2006 magnum opus on 'The Israel Lobby,' in a course on 'Classics of World Politics' and a week on 'Contemporary Realism.' I won’t pretend to speak for Prof. Russett on this subject. But I will offer a personal perspective."

Hague on Britain's Strategic Options

Will Britain Chose 'Strategic Shrinkage?', Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 24, 2009. "As Britain embarks on its first defense review since 1998, both press and official comments continue to hint that spending cuts are in the offing. The argument, to the extent there is one, is that since the U.S. does it all, and can pay for it all, Britain does not need to over-insure in expensive capabilities, especially those relevant to land war. This is a curious argument to make at precisely the moment when the U.S., under President Obama, is embarking on a procurement holiday. Equally wrong-headed is the increasingly popular argument that Britain no longer needs its strategic deterrent: an alliance of tightwads, nuclear weapon haters, and advocates for defense spending realignment threatens to disarm Britain unilaterally."

Can Ministers Think?

A Painful Admission of Incapability, Contentions, July 23, 2009. "Jacqui Smith was Britain’s Home Secretary from late June 2007 through early June 2009. She was ultimately forced to resign when, as part of the ongoing scandal of parliamentary-expense claims, it was discovered that her husband had requested reimbursement for pornographic movies. Quite enough has been said about this episode, which reflected poorly not on Ms. Smith, but on her husband and the expense system. But yesterday, the BBC reported that she has given a thoroughly depressing interview to Total Politics magazine. She admits that she had 'never run a major organization' before taking over the Home Office, and that if she did a good job it was 'more by luck than by any kind of development of [my] skills.' "

The IMF and OECD on Britain's Finances

Britain's Financial Quagmire, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 21, 2009. "The International Monetary Fund has just published its annual “Staff Report” on Britain’s economy. It makes for grim reading. The IMF projects that Britain’s national debt will grow from 43% of GDP in 2007/08 to 73% of GDP in 2009/10. Its budget deficit in 2007/08 was 2.4% of GDP. By 2009/10, it will be 12.8%. And even those projections, though more pessimistic than the government’s widely-panned forecasts, may be too optimistic: the most recent public borrowing figures show that the pace of borrowing is accelerating as revenues fall. All due to the recession, you say? Not so, say both the government and the IMF . . . ."

When Did Britain and the US Diverge?

Barone on the Anglo-American Divergence, Contentions, July 21, 2009. "Michael Barone has a column today at Real Clear Politics that’s summed up by its title: “Britain and United States Go In Different Directions.” His thesis is cogent, and to an extent correct: the Obama Administration is trying to drag the U.S. to the left (he might well have said that the Administration is trying to Europeanize it), whereas in Britain, the next government looks likely to be Conservative, and to be more interested in shrinking the state (or at least restraining its growth) than expanding it. This divergence is limited only by the fact that it’s not easy to change the direction of politics: whatever the situation, no matter what the crisis, the status quo has inertia on its side. Arguing with Michael Barone about U.S. politics is a losing proposition. But he does miss an important piece of the British context . . . ."

A Troubling Meme on the Special Relationship

Sir Michael Howard on the Special Relationship, Contentions, July 18, 2009. "In the latest Times Literary Supplement, Sir Michael Howard, in the course of a largely admiring review of two recent works on Winston Churchill, makes a claim that made me pause. According to Sir Michael, 'The myth of the “special relationship” that Churchill invented and that so many of his admirers on both sides of the Atlantic continue to propagate is briskly demolished. . . . Throughout the war the United States consulted her own interests, as any state is bound to do: and these did not extend to helping Britain either to remain solvent or to retain any part of her empire once the war was over.' I am, I suppose, one of those propagating admirers."

Two Things Britain and the US Need to Do on Defense

Recognizing, and Averting, A Threat to the Special Relationship, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 17, 2009. "Yesterday, the UK National Defence Association released the latest in a series of reports on Britain’s armed forces. Titled 'A Compelling Necessity,' it makes the case for an increase in British defense spending, in spite of the economic downturn, in order to restore and preserve Britain’s defenses. Of particular importance is the statement by economist Irwin Stelzer, who correctly notes in report’s foreword that, while the U.S. and Britain face the same threats – international terrorism and a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran, among others – Britain needs to shore up its forces if the Special Relationship is to endure."

Why Judge Sotomayor's Disclaimer Doesn't Mean What It Seems

Judge Sotomayor on Foreign and International Law, Contentions, July 16, 2009. "Yesterday, in response to a question from Sen. Coburn (R-OK) asking whether there is no authority for a Supreme Court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the Constitution or statutes, Judge Sotomayor gave what appeared to be an unambiguous answer."

My Favorite Book

Booklist: David Potter’s Impending Crisis, New Ledger, July 16, 2009. "I keep, mentally, a short list of revelatory works. These are not simply great books. They are books that, because they contain or refute a world view, reveal (or, at least, revealed to me) a new way of thinking about large subjects. The list does not contain any of the obvious works: anyone who is not influenced by Thucydides, Gibbon, Burke, or Smith is simply not very smart, and classics like these are included on any list of worthwhile reads by right. My list fluctuates slightly towards its tail, depending on the times and my concerns. Lower down in the list are B.G. Burkett’s Stolen Valor, which will demolish everything you think you know about Vietnam; Correlli Barnett’s Collapse of British Power, a remarkably angry work of cultural history and imperial strategy; Christopher Andrew’s Sword and the Shield, the story of the KGB and of the greatest intelligence coup of the Cold War; and J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, a conservative epic of grand strategy. At the top of the list sits, securely, David M. Potter’s The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861."

Mexico, Guns, and the U.S.

Delegate Norton Calls on Mexico to Be “Very, Very Angry” With U.S., Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 16, 2009. "In a recent meeting of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) told Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division within the Justice Department, that it was 'extremely embarrassing that Mexico has been as kind to us.' According to Delegate Norton, the U.S. bears primary responsibility for the armed lawlessness of Mexico’s drug cartels. From the Mexican perspective, Delegate Norton argued the U.S. is 'essentially shipping down arms to kill my people'. If she were Mexican, she 'would have been very, very angry at the Big Kahuna in the north.' "

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity

Happy Bastille Day!, Contentions, July 14, 2009. "There are two traditional ways to mark Bastille Day. First, parades. This year’s festivities were noteworthy for the inclusion of 400 Indian troops, to celebrate, as AFP put it, France’s “strategic relationship with the world’s biggest democracy.” Personally, I thought Clive of India pretty much put an end to Franco-Indian ties, but it turns out that AFP is referring to India’s appetite for France’s nuclear reactors and world-beating military technology (insert joke here). Why is it that European “strategic relationships” are mostly about money? The other way to celebrate is by burning cars and attacking the police."

What I'll Be Working On For The Next Year

Britain's Defense Review, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 13, 2009. "On Tuesday, the British Government announced that it is beginning a process that will lead to a Defense Review in 2010. The review will take place in two parts. First, a Green Paper will assess the purposes and conduct of British defense policy. Then, after the general election, a broader defense review, with cost estimates, will be published. There is no question: Britain needs a defense review. It has not had one since 1998. And though that review has been supplemented several times post-9/11, it was never as coherent a statement of defense doctrine as legend has made it out to be. But there are many questions to be asked about this announcement, both on form and substance."