Reading notes

The Bush doctrine, with its tenets of preemptive war, regime change, and permanent American military primacy, promised a new global order. The best way to think of that order is by analogy with the internal organization of a nation-state. What makes a state a state is its monopoly over the legitimate use of force, which means that citizens don’t have to worry about arming to defend themselves against each other. … In the world of the Bush doctrine, states take the place of citizens. As the President told graduating cadets at West Point in 2002, America intends to keep its “military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.” … What the Bush doctrine calls for — paradoxically, given its proponents — is a form of world government. …

Conservative ideologues, in calling for an international order in which America would have a statelike monopoly on coercive force, somehow forgot what makes for a successful state. Stable governments rule not by direct coercion but by establishing a shared sense of allegiance. …

The empire-makers of 2002 weakened America’s covert empire because, at a critical level, they didn’t understand how it worked. …

As Fareed Zakaria observed last year, after speaking to government officials in dozens of countries around the world, almost every country that has had dealings with the Bush Administration has felt humiliated by it. …

Excellent, Josh. This is clear thinking and skillful writing the likes of which I don’t see every day.

I score this a must-read.