Let my try again. I commented earlier today when your piece first appeared as a Reader Blog, but I guess the comment disappeared when your "Hello" was moved here to America Abroad.  

Welcome!

I checked out the Truman Project site. I look forward to reading your ideas.

I hope that you will be engaging in give and take. A pet peeve of mine is that some guest contributors speak but do not converse.

Happy to converse anytime--might be up to my eyebrows in work, but I do like the give and take of conversation.

My pet peeve-just so we have all cards on the table--is people who engage in ongoing commentary and comment without equal willingness to shed the convenient veil of anonymity. For instance, I'd love to know if Transhuman (the other commentator on my inaugural post) was part of the Millennial generation, if he/she had read some writers like Paul Berman discuss the history of the Democratic Party and our own internal battles over the last half century, and what the epithet "neocon" meant to him/her--particularly since my own reason for founding the Truman Project was precisely to OVERTURN the neocon foreign policy which I thought was making America less safe and harming the world.

So if you do want some dialogue, do let me know who you are--then go for it!

Director, Truman National Security Project
www.trumanproject.org

You're new, so you don't know who I am - fine. I'm an anarchist (free market brand), an atheist, and a Transhumanist. If you're not familiar with that last, Google is your friend - although I'm more a "radical Transhumanist" than most people who call themselves that.

I'm not part of ANY "generation" - except hopefully the "Transhuman" one if that comes to pass.

I'm also uninterested in the Democratic Party's navel-gazing of its own history. Time would be better spent analyzing why the Democratic Party is little more than the "left" wing of the War Party.

A "neocon" to me is someone who embodies the notion that this country needs to be an "Empire", running the lives of the people of OTHER countries as well as interfering in the lives of the people of THIS country, all for the purposes of their own pocketbooks and their own egos.

And THAT means that someone who believes in imposing the US belief system on Iran and engaging in interference with Iran's internal affairs by "covert means" for the benefit of Israel and the military-industrial complex and the oil companies qualifies.

I've read your site bio, by the way. I encourage everyone here to do so. Somebody with a history of Booze Allen and the World Bank and communications between the military and law enforcement engenders no trust from me.

Not to mention that anyone who spends their time emphasizing the "national security" of a country with a larger military budget than the rest of the world combined, not to mention the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, not to mention the largest intelligence and law enforcement organizations on the planet, not to mention the largest economy on the planet, and the third largest population, is obviously misapplying their concerns.

UPDATE: Upon visiting the Truman Project site, I see some general principles that nobody would disagree with absent any specific implementation details, some "pundit-talk" - and as usual, no explicit programs or content that would indicate how anybody involved would deal with the existing issues of Iran, North Korea, or Iraq.

If you want dialogue, let's see some specific ideas.

I know I did my best to put a stake in the heart of this "project" a year ago, but like a vampire of old, it just won't die.

What can you expect from folks who name their project after the godfather of the national security state.

Please don’t take this personally Ms. Kleinfeld, but I find your inclusion here in the America Abroad lineup extremely frustrating. That’s not because I think the voices of the Truman Democrats shouldn’t be heard. Even though I am no fan of the Truman Project and its offshoots, I believe all important voices in the Democratic debate should be represented, and all positions debated.

But America Abroad suffers from a depressing ideological uniformity, and its most pressing need is not yet another voice from the centrist, neoliberal mainstream or from its gah-gah interventionist youth brigade, as represented by you, Peter Beinart and the other young Trumans. Very sizeable constituencies within the Democratic Party are systematically ignored and excluded at America Abroad. Its organizers seem determined to scorn and suppress those constituencies. There are plenty of New Republic-style Democrats here. But where are the Nation Democrats, the Progressive Magazine Democrats, the realist Democrats, the green Democrats, the socialist Democrats, the labor union Democrats, the isolationist Democrats, the economic nationalist Democrats, the populist Democrats, the world federalist Democrats etc? Is centrist conformism the hallmark of the millenials of the “9/11 generation”?

The most prestigious academic departments and the Council on Foreign Relations are present, along with some well-heeled NGOs. But where are the voices of the main street activists, and the rank and file? And where are the intellectuals who stand outside the mainstream priesthood and the Clinton administration holdovers? Where are the dissidents who make up so much of what is generally termed “the left”? Almost all those people regularly vote Democratic. Don’t they have a right to have their positions represented and debated?

I visit TPM Café every day, and read posts from a variety of departments, both from the regular stable of contributors and from the commentators who contribute to the discussion tables. I read the debates in the comments section and contribute my own comments to those debates. Overall, the site has been a great success. It has provided a meeting place for Democrats of many stripes to meet, read, argue and hash out their differences.

However, the America Abroad component of the site has been deeply disappointing. There are several main factors underlying this failure, but I would single out two main, broad problems:

The first problem is infrequency of posts, and a general lack of commitment by many of the participants to the blog format. Not only do the individual commentators post infrequently, but the entire (rather large) group sometimes goes for several days without posting - sometimes as long as a week. One of the benefits of the blog format is its timeliness, but quite frequently a major foreign affairs event occurs, and then passes by, with no discussion on America Abroad. The participants have real jobs, of course, but if they do not have the time to pick up the pace, then I suggest the organizers go out and find a few people who are able to commit the necessary time. It surely can be done. Contrast the sporadic pace of postings at America Abroad to the other major departments at TPM Café, where the regulars post at least several times a week – and often several times a day.

Another sign of lack of commitment to the blog format is the unwillingness of many (not all) of the regular writers to engage in debate with the commentators, and even among themselves. Writers like John Ikenberry and Ivo Daalder frequently post and run, and appear to have no interest in debating commentators or promoting online community. It is hard to express how frustrating it is for those of us who take the time to compose some carefully thought-out comment (we’re busy people too, you know), and who hope that we might be able to have some small influence on the national debate and the direction of our government, to be treated so disdainfully by these smug elitists.

The second failure of America Abroad is the narrow range of opinion - and in particular a systematic suppression of the left. There is a house ideology at America Abroad, which freezes out informed, sophisticated discussion of interesting alternatives. It's a very civil kind of freezing out, but freezing out nonetheless. I don’t mean to say that the writers here are all the same, and never disagree. But ultimately their disagreements tend to be minor. That leaves it to the commentators to articulate the most important dissenting views. And this is most unfair, since the commentators are generally not professionals with the time or resources to do the requisite homework. Views with sizeable constituencies within the Democratic Party should be represented by competent defenders, and more should be done to promote vigorous and substantive debate about fundamentals – not just details and tactics.

I have complained about this ideological uniformity before, and several people said I should put up or shut up when it comes to suggesting a broader list of global affairs writers and intellectuals. That was a fair point, and I did make up a list. But an appropriate occasion to re-open the matter and post the list never seemed to come up. Perhaps this is a good time.

My list is not meant to be exhaustive. It consists of a few dozen people whose work I have personally read and profited from, and who represent what I think is a wide variety of viewpoints. I am sure others could post better, more inclusive lists representing writers who specialize on issues I don’t know much about.

The academics on my list are not just foreign policy specialists, but represent many fields. There are historians, economists, environmental scientists and sociologists. And the list contains not just academics, but journalists, diplomats, activists and others with professional competence in some area related to global policy and foreign affairs. Most importantly, the list does not just include Americans. While I understand that America Abroad appears to exist mainly for the purpose of discussing US foreign policy from the perspective of a politically active US citizen, that is no reason to restrict the lineup to Americans. Many non-Americans have important things to contribute to a discussion about our own foreign policy.

So here’s the list:

Sherle Schwenninger; Chalmers Johnson; Duncan Clarke; Anatol Lieven; Michael Klare; Baruch Kimmerling; James Gustav Speth; Robert Pollin; Robert Borosoge; Dilip Hiro; Rashid Khalidi; Uri Avnery; Tariq Ramadan; Robert Smith Thompson; Arundhati Roy; James S. Henry; Richard Falk; Ilan Pappe; Loretta Napoleoni; Jonathan Schell; Immanuel Wallerstein; Vandana Shiva; Ronald Bruce St. John; Nir Rosen; Elizabeth Economy; Col. Dan Smith; Hans Blix; Leila Sadat; William Quandt; William Hartung; Graham Usher; Jason Vest; Patrick Seale; William Nordhaus; Andrew Arato; Stephen Zunes; Ian Bremmer; William LeoGrande; Noah Novogrodsky; Paul D’Amato; Walden Bello; Michael Mann; Tom Athanasiou; Pratap Chatterjee; Christian Parenti; John Pike; James A. Paul; Gary Sick.

The blogosphere is free, and there is no law or moral requirement that any blog provide access to multiple points of view, or foster dissent and debate. The blog's producers can make of it whatever they want.

But it was my impression that TPM Cafe strives to provide more than the usual one-note blogotribes, and seeks to provide a very open and comprehensive space for a broad diversity of opinions - partticularly those found on the Democratic side of the national divide. Might not some of the authors on the above list be willing to contibute some time here?

You're being rather generic about a fairly diverse special operations community.

It is good to have some around to do the really nasty jobs that need to be done, but would you want your kids hanging around with one, or your daughter marrying one?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I do post under my real name, and hope I can continue to do so indefinitely. And from time to time I have choosen to reveal aspects of my personal and professional life, and my educational background, where it seemed relevant to the discussion.

However this calls for discretion, and I respect the decisions of who choose to maintain strict anonymity, and who seek to guard their privacy jealously. A great thing about the online world is that it allows for the expression and discussion of some very unpopular opinions. But depending on individual circumstances, a very real potential may exist for all sorts of negative personal and professional repercussions as a result of the expression of these opinions.

It is also regrettably the case in our society that divulging information about gender, ethnicity, age, profession and credentials might have an adverse impact on some discussant's efforts to be treated as an equal in the discussion.

I don't understand the need for personal background information as a precondition for dialogue. If someone who presents themselves only as 'X' says something worth responding to, I will do do. If it is not worth responding to, I will refrain.

In the groups where I have the most personal contacts, the comment is a little closer to do "We do the dirty jobs that shouldn't have to be done, but have become necessary." Especially the psychological operations people work, within civilian-imposed control, on prevention--when possible.

True enough, Howard. There are many dirty jobs that are still necessary jobs.

But isn't it the case that one of these dirty jobs is killing people, and that the people who do them are trained killers? And I don't just mean run of the mill trained killers, adept at the basics of slaughter, such as make up most of the military - but rather "specialists" trained in some rather diabolical arts.

And as for the specialists in psychological operations, while their acquired skills do include the dissemination of propaganda that might be grounded in large elements of truth, isn't it also the case that those skills also include techniques of spreading rank disinformation and outright lies?

So with all due respect to the gentlemanly professionalism and soldierly discipline of these specialists, I am not so sure I would want my own daughter involved with a man who is a master or breaking necks, perforating kidneys, slitting throats, fomenting paranoia and telling lies - the depressing necessity of these jobs notwithstanding.

Nor do I think it is unfair to stigmatize these men in this way. They are all volunteers after all. Nobody forced them to acquire these skills and take these jobs. Something about the arts of killing and lying must have appealed to them.

I have never killed anyone. I have saved lives. Some people do both. One friend of mine retired as an Air Force parajumper, who are first rescuers, but, since they work behind enemy lines, they may need to kill.

What, specifically, do you mean by diabolical arts? You are aware that many physicians could be quite diabolical with a knife. I assume you are aware most chemists and chemical engineers could cause catastrophic events. I've always liked the comment of an anesthesiologist I know: "My job is killing people, but not quite." Trained killer?

Arguably, I've been trained to kill -- at least, there are martial arts techniques one doesn't use unless one accepts the possibility that one may kill one's opponent. I've had people go at me in the street, knives against my bare hands and feet. I've been doing news reporting, trying to be nonpartisan, when a violent demonstrator tried to smash my head against a concrete walls.

In my judo and tae kwon do classes, there was strong pressure to find ways to walk away from fights. If it was necessary to fight, one wins.

You belittle the idea of "trained killer". To me, a trained killer is one who can precisely apply the minimum necessary amount of violence.

In those cases of being attacked, I believed my life was in direct danger, and I used techniques that could kill -- as opposed to ones that definitely would. No bodies were found afterward, so I suppose my opponents were simply injured. I have no qualms about that.

If it saves lives by demoralizing, I see nothing wrong with spreading rank disinformation and outright lies. There are reams of psychological warfare data about enemies that surrendered peacefully as a result of such, rather than have to be blown out of their positions.

Oh -- and this is different from political negative advertising, besides the difference in pay, exactly how?

If selective killing can reduce total deaths, I see nothing wrong with that. There is a reason one does not salute on a battlefield -- snipers look for officers being saluted. If an enemy force can be demoralized, and even quit, because a sniper takes out a commander with a shot from a mile away, I call that a good thing if the alternative was mass slaughter.

Is there a moral difference between that military sniper, and a police sniper who kills someone about to commit arson, or kill hostages?

Nobody forced them to acquire these skills and take these jobs. Something about the arts of killing and lying must have appealed to them.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Josh is in charge. See the Masthead "psuedo"button above  

Editor & Publisher* Joshua Micah Marshall

Managing Editor Kate Cambor

 Associate Editor  Matthew Yglesias

For more about the history and relationships see the About "psuedo" button above.

TPMCafe is a public meeting place to read about and discuss politics, culture and public life... It is owned and operated by TPM Media LLC, edited by Joshua Micah Marshall,....

...Joshua Micah Marshall started publishing Talking Points Memo (TPM), a political blog, in November 2000... The site has been in continuous publication ever since. It has a monthly readership of well over half a million readers and is frequently noted....

TPMCafe was launched as a companion site to TPM on May 31st, 2005 to provide a forum for commentary, discussion, collaborative journalism and activism.

Hmmm...A Democrat who sounds like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney...

What's wrong with this picture?

Thanks for proving that "Truman Democrats" are little more than neocon Republicans.

Except that as soon as the American people learned fellows like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter wanted "to make the world a better place," they terminated the gentlemen's political careers with prejudice. Not much support for the Truman Project's theory or yours.

And you may note, as well, that GWB, who admittedly knew next to nothing about the world outside the United States, ran against Clinton's policy of international involvement in 2000 and came up a winner. 

Ellen,

So, as you seem to contend, the American public rejects the internationalist policies of Truman, Johnson and Carter (was Carter really an internationalist? I dunno). If that's the case, how do you explain the American public picking their successors/challengers? Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan... not exactly isolationist doves. That's not very convincing of your theory.

BTW, both Truman and Johnson were reelected. One by a crushing landslide. An electoral smackdown since exclusively reserved for ideologies very much in accordance with the Kos kind.

The 2000 defeat was not really at all related to Clinton's foreign policy, largely because America had other priorities until 9/11. Bill can shoulder a portion of the responsibility for galvanizing the right-wing with his personal indiscretions. The rest of 2000 is solely Al Gore's doing.

Chris

Most Americans are not isolationists. Taken as a whole, they are realistic nationalists who support engagement abroad when they believe that engagement advances US interests and promotes US security; they do not support engagements abroad when they believe those engagements are harmful to US interests and security.

It is not internationalism Americans reject. Americans are generally internationalists, but their internationalism is prudential, not ideological. There was broad bipartisan support for US engagement with the international insitutions built in the postwar period. Americans supported those institutions because they believed they promoted US interests and were keys to US security.

But there are several things Americans don't support:

Adventurism - costly military engagements abroad which are designed to help people in other countries, or promote some ideological agenda, but whose connections with US interests are tenuous, speculative or non-existent.

Corruption and Waste - spending of any kind, including on the miltary, which lines the pockets of its recipients but does nothing to advance the national interest.

Costly Entanglements - alliances and partnerships with foreign countries and agencies, which incur continuing costs for US citizens and their interests, carry few compensating benefits, and are kept alive through institutional inertia or special interest lobbying.

Bullshit and Lies - this one explains itself.

Both Eisenhower and Nixon were elected following campaigns which emphasized their promise to end an ongoing war. Similarly, the winner in 2008 is likely to be the candidate who offers the public the most compelling case that he or she is the one who can be trusted to look after US interests while getting us out of Iraq.

Ronald Reagan was elected in the wake of the ongoing Iranian hostage crisis. Americans did not wnat him to "fix" or reform Iran, or change its regime. They wanted him to get our people home. Getting them home was in fact his first act, accomplished (amazingly) on election night, even before he took office. Reagan proved later in his career, by the way, that he had no problems in doing business with Iran.

Truman Democrats have no clear international agenda. As Ms. Kleinfeld admits, they took no position as a group on the most important foreign policy decision of our time. Their policy prescriptions, such as they exist, are vague recommendations to pursue a "tough" approach, "rooted in our values". What they seek is a long term improvement in Democratic electoral fortunes through the use of more effective symbols and language, and through networking Democrats with national security types, particularly in the military. They coach candidates and sitting politicians and sponsor workshops and networking events.

Some movements are built around certain national or international goals, and the movement's leaders then worry about how to sell their goals to the public. The Trumans are different. They are mainly interested in building networks of Democrats professionals and candidates, and then selling those Democrats to the public, and have a general rhetorical strategy for doing so. The actual goals and policy prescriptions are to come later.

They believe Democrats must "reclaim" the national security debate. They plan to do so through "reclaiming words like strength, security, and values" As I read them, they don't have any clear ideas at all about what should be done, but are convinced that, whatever those ideas turn out to be, Democrats can win by injecting a sort of mindless, content-neutral militarist vocabulary and imagery into their foreign policy discourse, and by building friendships and alliances within the military.

There are indeed some serious thinkers in their lineup of fellows and principals. But there are also an abundance of lawyers, speechwriters, communications specialists, political consultants and generic government types.

They appear to be not so much a group of committed intellectuals, but government professionals and careerists. They represent the heirs apparent of the foreign policy establishment, but are locked in to the Democratic side, and so require Democratic victories to get ahead.

For the sake of argument, I'll assume all Truman project people are careerists. That being said, and if they are looking for ideas and are here, is there not some potential value to throwing out ideas and finding if they get anyone involved with the kinds of things you want thought about?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Archimedes Patti's account of the OSS mission to Ho. Again, I wonder how we managed to reinstall the French."

My understanding is this: The Postsdam Conference decided that Chiang Kai Shek's army would repatriate Japanese troop in the north, and the British 12th (Indian) Calvary would do the deed in the south. As far as I know this is what created the 17th parallel, cartographers notwithstanding. For a brief period Vietnam was united, but there was a huge celebration in the streets of Saigon commemorating the release and arrivival of Vietnamese political prisoners from Pulo Condore Island (Con Son). But there was an incident in Cholon, someone important was assasinnated in the streets (by the brits? OSS? I don't think it is known) and that set off a "Rodney King" style riot, which quickly spread to Saigon and beyond. The Brits moved to quell the riot, and in the process rearmed the Vichey French Prisoners to help, and it all ended up with the French regaining power. Meanwhile, Uncle Ho was helpless to intervene, since Chaing's army was conducting a wholesale looting of Tonkin to prepare his troops better for the war with Mao.

Does that sound accurate to you? (even semi-accurate would be ok - its something that's not well studied, I think.)

Neoboho

Sorry, I'm not a Democrat and couldn't care less about "purging" the Party (except perhaps in some more direct sense of the word "purging", if you get my drift.)

"The third camp believes America's imperfection isn't a reason to not make the world a better place, even if it means risking some mistakes. (me, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton and pretty much any Democrat who has or ever will win a national election.)"

Your last phrase on "who has or ever will win a national election" pretty clearly establishes YOUR "purge" predilection.

But then, neocons aren't noted for being able to completely conceal their ulterior agendas, no matter how hard they deny them. Their arrogance inevitably gives them away, as your post proves.