The Deterrence of Pres. Harris Playing Against Type

I have no patience at all for neocon type thinking; regime change, nation building, and that whole fetid bag of tricks has done nothing good for this world.

However, there's a spectrum of aggression and intrusion short of a full Rumsfield. And Andrew A. Michta, of the Atlantic Council, makes a convincing argument that America has languished at the wrong edge of that spectrum.

Recent circumstances show we've lost some of our deterrance power, due to weak, vacillating leadership (I was generally a fan of Obama's, but his refusal to follow through after Syria brazenly crossed his red line re: use of chemical weapons was a catastrophic failure that launched a thousand miseries...and counting).

Read Michta's interesting thread here.

And it dawns on me that I just got done expressing my concern about Kamala Harris being forced to be "the most hawkish, shock-and-awe leader in memory" because, as a woman, she can't play into stereotype.

Our first female president, and the next few after her, will need to be Thatcheresque steel-spined high-testosterone bad-asses. No action or incursion unreciprocated, no threat unrequited.

Connecting to broader considerations, it may actually be just the right time for some backbone. A recharge - even one forced by political necessity - could be incredibly timely.


Am I contradicting my stated disdain for neocon bellicosity and interventionism? No, people. I'm showing nuance and flexibility. I don’t cling to one simple slogan through shifting complexity. Centrists enjoy the superpower of judicious grey shades.