Sean-Paul Kelley | San Antonio | May 13

The Agonist - Yesterday I spent some time going over this post and re-reading the pertinent sections of Henry A. Kissinger's "A World Restored." Here's what I came up with:  

Fortuitously, at least for me, Henry the K wrote this piece at the IHT. In it, Kissinger identifies some thought provoking historical parallels:

John Judis has called this "inverted Trotskyism." And Andrew Bacevich shows how the adoption of this ideology and the subsequent invasion of Iraq have morphed a hitherto status quo power into revolutionary one:

The old system, based on legitimacy, and defined by Kissinger here,

. . . is out. Today the UN, in particular, is under attack, and multi-lateralism receives a broad-based and general assault. The Bush-Bolton Battering Band and the Cheney-Wolfowitz wrecking crew have destroyed the order we created in the aftermath of WWII. At the same time, just like the Concert of Europe, by inviting too many members into the club, was watered down in post-Napoleonic Europe, NATO has duplicated the same process. A new order isn't really in the offing as of yet. Indeed, the current state of affairs can continue, as the collapse of Concert of Europe did, for a great deal of time. But the revolutionary state is not permanent. Something else will replace it at some point. My gander is that it will not be to our liking. And the upheaval that replaces the old order will be like all the others that have come before it: extremely destructive.  

So, just how does a revolutionary power affect an international system? For that we turn to Henry the K:

Sound familiar? America used to have absolute security, or at least the illusion of it (two big oceans). But, after 9/11, not anymore. And I think the primal fear 9/11 unleashed is the one thing that has led so many Americans into the Neo-Con embrace.

Like Kissinger, I am concerned about the impact this ideology will have on the current international system:

To a great degree this is already happening in East Asia. China's military spending is increasing rapidly. So is India's, not to mention the smaller powers of the region. Of course, Japan flirts, from time to time, with the idea of changing its pacifist constitution too.

In my previous post I cited some concerns for the future:

I fret about the limitlessness of the Bush Doctrine. In the previous post I wrote that that if the doctrine were taken to its logical conclusion, it might possibly be the overthrow of the Chinese-Communist regime, the Uzbek regime and the Pakistani regime. These are hardly plausible options, but we should remember the other many implausible actions other revolutionary powers have taken in the past.  

I also asked, "how far is too far?"

I just don't know, but I can say that when we get there, a coalition of powers will be aligned against us. And like I said earlier in this post, it won't be pleasant.

The real problem, however, is that most people don't recognize the danger and if they do, well, this quote is instructive:

As a final note, let me just add, I may well indeed be wrong. (It's certainly happened before.) Bush may end up being as popular and succesful as Reagan, in that Reagan "transformed" the Soviet Union and Bush will transform the Middle East.

For my children's sake, I certainly hope Bush succeeds.