Okay, everyone on my timeline is dumping on this tweet and I have 15 minutes to kill so what the hell I’ll try to defend it. 1/
Everyone is exercised by Kristol’s tweet because he will forever be associated with the notion of forcible regime change in Iraq. That... did not go well. Trying something similar in China would be a catastrophic move. 2/
But that’s not what Kristol said in his tweet. He just said “regime change.” And believe it or not, back in the day the United States used to occasionally use peaceful methods like fostering civil society as a means to foment regime change. 3/
[Side note: by “peaceful regime change, I am NOT referring to the varieties of covert action that triggered coups across the developing world during the Cold War. #notendorsingcoups] 4/
One of the problems with U.S. foreign policy this century is that it has become so militarized that we have lost the muscle memory of how countries used to democratize. It would be nice if that non-coercive prong of U.S. capabilities was enhanced. 5/
Given some of the more disturbing trends within China under Xi, I don’t think it’s a mistake to want to see the character of the regime change in a more liberal direction. 6/
So for those of you who want to dunk on Kristol, I certainly understand. But don’t act like the Chinese government trying to perfect the Panopticon State isn’t a big deal. Or that trying to foster a less repressive China wouldn’t be in U.S. interests. 7/
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Twitter. #fin 8/
