Some interesting aspects of this article. First, the idea that the U.S. needs a defense policy for the Middle East is obviously true but raises a hard question: what does an approach that advances U.S. interests in the ME *while supporting* the focus on the PRC look like? 1/x

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1714288800657195231

Second, what should the deterrent posture be in the ME? GEN McKenzie (ret.) comments need to be parsed since his invocation of deterrence raises multiple issues simultaneously. 2/x

I'm teaching my regular "Preparing and Delivering a Briefing" professional skills course tonight at @SAISHopkins.

Any illustrative briefing horror stories or cautionary tales from #natsec / #miltwitter to share with my students? Replies and DMs are open. @SAISHopkins I've accumulated quite a battery of (anonymized) stories featuring equipment failures, PowerPoint chart disasters, flubbed facts, and tough audiences -- both from my observations and from friends.

I would like to read a piece that enumerates how dramatically reduced Russian military capacity due to the war in Ukraine should effect U.S. posture in Europe with an eye towards the Western Pacific and a Taiwan Strait scenario. 1/ Unfortunately, the current debate over tradeoffs in security assistance between Ukraine and Taiwan and posture in Europe vs. the Indo-Pacific in some defense circles seems overdrawn, especially when the positions of the two main camps focus what will best deter Beijing. 2/

As ever, I didn't get through nearly as many books this year as I'd like. But here's the wrap-up on some of my favorites for 2023 and some of what I look forward to reading in 2024. 1/x @LaurentBinetH's CIVILIZATIONS (2019), translated by @SamTayl66360996, left a big impression: a revisionist novel in which the Incan emperor Atahualpa arrives in Europe, displacing Charles V, converting Henry VIII, and upending history in the process. 2/x bit.ly/3GwmmF2

THREAD. I got through a lot of books this year -- and am hoping to finish at least one more before we ring in 2022. But here are a few that stood out in particular. 1/x THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON by Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) and Susan Glasser (@sbg1) -- a fascinating portrait of politics, world order, and how DC works (worked?) through the life of James Baker. Despite having read much about his heyday, I learned a ton. bit.ly/3qGxCFk

There’s a complex set of historical debates about why the atomic bombs were dropped and moral debates about whether it was justified. This explanation is far closer to fact-free “propaganda” than pretty much any of those arguments. Ironically, of course, this “explanation” also robs the Japanese leadership of agency and doesn’t really reckon with the aspects of the decision-making around the bomb and war termination that warrant reflection.

Counterfactual exercise: what was the most important *close* U.S. presidential election? 1/x The 1876, 2000, and 2016 elections are obvious contenders. 1960 and 1976 are also worth consideration. Perhaps the 1796 and 1800 elections too. But I'll put in a qualified plug for 1916. 2/x

@thomaswright08's piece on the future of Republican foreign policy is an excellent read that captures many of the major strains in a necessary and long-deferred debate. 1/x

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/… He sees three camps:

- Nationalists, focused on great power competition, mainly w/ China;

- Internationalists, holding to the verities of the post-war system (whether realist/neocon/other); and

- Neo-isolationists, whose concerns vary.

(All vexed terms but bear with me) 2/x

I’m not going to retweet Malcolm Nance because he’s a laughable grifter. But these views are unfortunately widely held by a certain set of veterans and civilians alike and they are deeply troubling. It’s also a pretty sad commentary on the mediocrity of many “expert” pundits who regularly appear on cable news on the basis of a job they once held and a willingness to say whatever flatters viewers’ sensibilities — as opposed to having something knowledgeable to say.