Compendium #4
This site is not the only place to find my writing; I have been published at numerous other outlets across the web. In this recurring series, I’ll post some choice passages from these outside pieces and show you where to find the rest. Think of this as a mere tasting of the full smorgasbord. Without further ado, here’s Compendium #4, covering September 2024 through mid November 2024.
America’s 1970s Problems Are Her 2020s Problems, Providence Magazine, September 12, 2024
In this piece for Providence Magazine, I detailed how the problems of the 2020s – inflation, foreign chaos, political violence, and corruption – are the same ones bedeviling us this decade, and lay out an argument for attacking them in the same way we did in the 1980s.
The 2020s are shaping up to be the worst decade for American foreign interests since the 1970s. Two early catastrophic failures set the terrible tone. China was not held accountable for its starring role in the pandemic that killed over a million Americans. And in August 2021, America ignominiously abandoned its 20-year engagement in Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to regain control and anti-American terrorism to flourish unabated once again. That withdrawal came at the price of billions in military equipment, an immense amount of prestige, and more than a dozen American lives.
Since then, our enemies have been on the march, taking advantage of repeated displays of weakness and a misplaced fear of escalation. China has expanded its claims over the territory of its neighbors, enforcing these bogus prerogatives with military force and diplomatic threats – and not just towards Taiwan. Russia invaded Ukraine in the first major land conflict in Europe since the Second World War, slaughtering innocents, bombing cities, and seeking to annihilate its smaller neighbor’s independent existence. Iran, both directly and through its terrorist proxies, is carrying out the broadest and deadliest campaign against Israel since 1948. Russia and Hamas both hold American hostages. Even bit players like North Korea and Venezuela are getting in on the act, rattling the nuclear saber and crushing pro-democracy protests, respectively. Yet American leaders seem more infatuated with diplomacy and appeasement than confrontation and resolve.
Read the rest HERE.
Netanyahu’s Statesmanship Exam, Providence Magazine, September 26, 2024
In this piece for Providence, I describe the challenge facing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his prosecution of the defensive war against Israel’s enemies: whether to prioritize long-term national security over the political victory of getting a less-than-ideal hostage deal.
Statesmanship requires that one make the hard choice and put country before popularity, national interest before self-interest, and the foundations of the future over the whims of the present. Most politicians fail this test, but the ones who pass are those history remembers and celebrates. Politicians who follow public opinion wherever it leads sacrifice the permanent interests of the nation at the altar of convenience. This is not statesmanship, and it endangers the patrimony that leaders are meant to safeguard. Edmund Burke, the famed 18th century conservative thinker, discussed this with respect to political representation, writing: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Statesmen are not mere tribunes of the people, but men of judgment who take into account the long-term interests of the nation as a whole when making tough choices, particularly about security matters.
Benjamin Netanyahu now faces such a decision. He has to choose between two options that are increasingly mutually exclusive: either a hostage deal that ensures Hamas’s survival or victory in the war against antisemitic terrorism. There is only one correct choice here, the one that secures Israel’s future as a nation. We shall see if Netanyahu passes this test of statesmanship; the fate of his nation may well depend on it.
Read the rest HERE.
Labour’s Lost Love for Advancing the U.K.’s National Interest, National Review, September 28, 2024
In this article for National Review, I break down the disastrous foreign policy instincts of the Labour government in Britain, all based around their distaste for Britain’s successful geopolitical past. I argue that Labour’s policies overseas will dramatically reduce that nation’s global standing and directly endanger American interests.
The United Kingdom is one of the few nations on Earth that has genuinely expansive geopolitical interests and connections — a legacy of the British empire that makes it a valuable ally to the United States. The “special relationship” between the two primary nations of the Anglosphere stood as the bulwark of liberal democratic capitalism and global security for the whole of the 20th century, helping to win two world wars and the struggle against Soviet Communism and ushering in an era of unprecedented advances in the human condition. Losing such a stalwart ally would be disastrous for America’s ability to emerge victorious in the 21st century, putting us at a strategic disadvantage against the axis of Eurasian foes we face. Having our longtime friend commit geopolitical suicide by choosing weakness over strength and appeasement over confrontation would add insult to injury.
The West must stand together against those who seek to overthrow the world order, relying on our shared values, cultures, and histories to unite us. There is strength in numbers, but only if we remain resilient and self-confident. The Labour foreign policy under Lammy and Starmer would undermine such unity in a quixotic quest to improve the U.K.’s image with those who are predisposed to despise it. If it succeeds, the empire on which the sun never set will become a geopolitical backwater, if not an outright laughingstock.
Read the rest HERE.
Myths Disproven One Year After 10/7, Providence Magazine, October 7, 2024
In this one-year anniversary piece of the October 7 pogrom, I break down the myths surrounding the Israel-Palestinian conflict that have been fully destroyed by the events of the past year.
Next is the idea that a peaceful two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is even possible; a grand vision of the left since the Oslo Accords in 1993 sparked the ‘peace process.’ From the Second Intifada and the ‘Pay for Slay’ program to the election of Hamas in Gaza, history has shown the idea of a two-state solution to be fundamentally unworkable. Still, the idea remains strong among the Western foreign policy elite. The year since October 7 should have totally dispelled these notions.
The Palestinian population largely supported the Hamas massacre and favor the terrorist group over its rivals. The actions taken by the Palestinian people, their leadership, and their backers abroad since October 7 have shown that there is no peace to be had between the two sides without a sea change in Palestinian national ideology. As of now, that national idea is primarily based on hatred of Jews, the destruction of Israel, and the ‘reclamation’ of land they falsely believe is theirs. The creation of a Palestinian state after the violence of the last year will only entrench terrorism in the nation’s founding mythos, ensuring constant regional conflict.
Read the rest HERE.
Britain Imperils Key American Airbase in Indian Ocean, Providence Magazine, November 12, 2024
In this follow-up piece to my article in National Review on Labour foreign policy, I detail an example of this disastrous policy in action: the unilateral surrender of British sovereignty over an Indian Ocean archipelago containing one of America’s most crucial strategic bases.
America is always ill-served when our closest allies – not to mention the other half of the Anglo-American “special relationship” – are determined to self-immolate on the altar of progressive foreign policy. Ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius seems designed to serve a two-fold purpose of being an exercise in humiliation which also profoundly endangers American and Western interests and security. The deal should not be allowed to stand. Washington should heavily pressure London to renege on this agreement, promising diplomatic cover and support in international institutions. Regardless of whether Labour follows through, we must take the security of Diego Garcia into our own hands. That means increasing maritime and aerial patrols, hardening the military and intelligence infrastructure against outsider attack or espionage, and creating a large perimeter around the base in which non-allied nations should not be allowed to operate. Chinese-linked facilities must be opposed, regardless of what the Mauritian government thinks. And, if push comes to shove, America should be willing and ready to hold onto Diego Garcia by force.
None of these moves would be necessary had the British government not fully embraced progressive foreign policy and surrendered its rightful sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. And this is only the beginning. Lammy, Starmer, and their ilk have held office for less than 6 months. The next several years could be utterly disastrous. America should make plans for our national security that do not rely on London. And that is a sad reality for a truly special relationship.
Read the rest HERE.
America Should Be Ready for Lame-Duck Chaos Abroad, National Review, November 17, 2024
In this piece for National Review, I argue that the current lame-duck period in American politics may be one of the most chaotic periods for our foreign affairs, especially given the unique status of Trump as a returning president and Biden as a senile caretaker presiding over two major wars.
Normally, the period between the November presidential election and the January inauguration is fairly quiet for America on the international stage. The outgoing president often tries to avoid making major foreign policy alterations during the transition period. Of course, there are always exceptions. Notably, the outgoing Obama administration sought to cement its strategy of realignment in the Middle East by bolstering the JCPOA nuclear deal and undermining Israel at the United Nations. We have already seen the beginnings of such an approach under Biden, with the White House quietly waiving sanctions on the Palestinian Authority, considering imposing sanctions on Israeli military units and politicians, and surging military aid to Ukraine. For the most part, foreign actors follow the same anodyne playbook as they are trying to tease out the new president’s potential policies and personnel choices. Many keep their heads down after congratulating the president-elect, seeking to get on his good side for the next four years.
This lame-duck period, however, is an aberration. Not only is the party in power changing, but the man who will be taking over as president has already served in the office. This situation has only occurred once in American history, and the geopolitics of 1892 are not even remotely similar to those of 2024. Other nations have an idea of what a Trump administration will be like, something that does not usually occur with a change in power. That makes it far easier for our allies and enemies to plan and act geopolitically, particularly during the lame duck. On top of that, the sitting president is widely believed to be, at best, mentally diminished and, at worst, totally senile. Outside of Washington, the world is in a state of chaos that it hasn’t seen in decades. There are hot wars engulfing two major regions and heavily implicating American interests; there are still American hostages in Gaza, and our enemies are confident and aggressive. This is, put together, a recipe for a not-so-lame duck.
Read the rest HERE.
Coates the Charlatan, Commentary, December 2024 Issue
In my debut for Commentary Magazine, both online and in print, I review the new book by progressive hero Ta-Nehisi Coates. I break down how Coates misstates history, exaggerates reality, and engages in antisemitic conspiracy theory, proving once and for all how he is nothing but a charlatan.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author and thinker who has served as the avatar of the progressive racial movement since he began blogging at the Atlantic during the Obama administration, has reemerged after a hiatus spent writing comic books. His new work of nonfiction, The Message, harkens back to his 2015 bestseller, Between the World and Me, as both books discuss social politics and history through a highly personal lens. Coates’s earlier work earned him a MacArthur “genius grant,” literary accolades, and rare standing as a celebrity intellectual. As such, he has largely been immune from criticism by the liberal media establishment. This protective cover has been put to the test by Coates’s return to the spotlight.
The Message, like much of Coates’s work, is a Rorschach test: If one is already primed to agree with him, the book likely seems a staggering work of genius. But for those who are skeptical or neutral, it is clearly lacking as a persuasive or even accurate portrayal of the issues it discusses. The book is set up like a travelogue, collecting Coates’s political, historical, and cultural takeaways from trips to Senegal, South Carolina, and, finally, Israel. The last section, which takes up more than half of the book, has received the most attention, but The Message is shaped throughout by an approach and vision characterized by narcissism, parochialism, factual errors, deliberate decontextualization, incuriosity, and deep-seated bias. Any one of these flaws would deal a severe blow to any claim for The Message, but combined, they should be fatal to Coates’s reputation.
Read the rest HERE.
That’s it for this edition of the Compendium, rounding up my other writing over the past few months. I’ll be back soon with more snippets from my work around the web. If you just can’t sate your curiosity for that long, check out my Twitter, where I post all of my work (and a veritable hodgepodge of other nonsense) as soon as it comes out.
Cheers!