Thomas M. Nichols

Very interesting book treating the very sensitive area - state security and handling of the external threats post Cold War.

After the Cold War every state found itself endangered by previously unknown threats (terrorists with access to very dangerous weapons that can cause indiscriminate destruction on the major scale) and for the West (mainly NATO countries) super hero complex of we need to save the world after we destroyed the USSR , that started with certain in-decisiveness and then (as time went by) bloomed into equivalent of Justice League organization with goal of promoting West's political views.

First chapters of the book are investigation into the topic, pitfalls and dangers of the use of preventive war as a means of international relations. Author shows how it is not just US but almost every major power in the world (from East to the West) that have created national security document (lets call it national strategy) that has placed significant accent on preventive military actions against anybody endangering their interests in the world.

And then direction of the book deteriorates into defense of the author's home country and its approach to the world politics. Basically author falls into the trap of the, lets call it that way, "liberal democracy". Trap is thinking that if every country is liberal democracy then world would be such a beautiful place to live in, only problem being that it needs to be "our" type and approach to liberal democracy that we can amen and accept (not that this will guarantee anything in the long run because "we" keep the right to pick you up and make a place for you to live in and role to play).

Main problem is that liberal democracies are liberal democracies for their own people, as it should be. This means say UK is democracy for its own people but it has nothing, absolutely nothing with my country or me, neither leanings to help my country nor myself with any internal issues we have - for those relations there is diplomacy, mutual interests etc and I do not doubt for a second we would be living in bomb shelters or in absolute poverty if any Western power sees us a danger to their interests. And this is again the way things are, lets be realistic.

Whether we like it or not international relations are not led by good intentions, never have been and never will be. Every state has its own goals - just look at comments and wishes of countries like Poland and Japan this year towards other country's territory, old nationalist flames and aspirations are constantly simmering very close to the surface (and these countries are just an example) - and it will follow up on these goals because of either internal pressure or international situation.

And again this is as expected.

Author's solution - turning the UN into two story building, ground :chat" floor belonging to countries aspiring to the liberal democracy and top floor (where actual decisions are made) to "proven" liberal democracies that might allow from time to time someone from ground floor to sit at the desk and with huge awed eyes look at the big boys at work, is somewhat naive and counter to everything author stated in the chapters before. Author's solution (for lack of better word) assumes two things that are not guaranteed or not possible in real world:
- liberal democracies will always tend to help "damaged" countries - this is the "impossible" part; for this to work there needs to be approach so that giving side feels they are achieving something and receiving side feels they are not being played by bigger power and they can value the help given. Unfortunately this can work only in case both giver and receiver belong to same tradition, or are even of same nation or very similar culture and (again for the lack of the better word) predispositions. Because for everything else this is equal to first contact with aliens, every step is analyzed by both parties and any mistake can have grave consequences. What every country lacks is patience and long term planning (it is usually 4 year election period in liberal democracies) and rebuilding states is loong period. So this is cause for following things: (a) newly elected liberal democracy government might say we are going out (just look at the way Kurds got screwed by US not once but twice (current situation in Syria is still open) just because the US decided to move along "but constantly suffering with them") or (b) newly elected liberal democracy government might say what is in it for us?(Poland in Japan again come to mind as rather exotic countries with their goals in Iraq - it was never about oil, right?) And this opens the can of worms called neocolonialism by academia which will spark terrible things if benefactor country (liberal democracy) has history with the area they are "enlightening".
- people of targeted country want something else, maybe a different form of democracy, or they want to deal with their own existential threats in immediate neighborhood that might collide with the interests of the "benefactors" so they might get more liberal ways of control and oppression to change their views (of course this term "oppressive" might come from the perspective of the people.... ignorant people). Also what if new government (supported by the benefactors) decides that they are the best solution and follow up elections just dont work (and government is looked at with sympathies from benevolent benefactors)? Complex, ain't it.

So it is very complex thing and creation of the exclusive club that will be tasked with keeping the people of the world happy and justly ruled (most tricky part, because by who?) is a very dangerous thing. Because let us not forget that these liberal democracies did some scary things in Africa (sub-Saharan and North Africa), Asia (with all the collective liberal democracies condemning the China they are more than ready to move their shops there (and rest of Asia) for cheap (slave) labor) and Central and South America (School of Americas anyone). And do we need to mention relations with Arab countries that are armed, trained, and even supported in combat (like in Yemen) by these liberal democracies. Why? Because of national interests. As I said liberal democracies are liberal democracies for their own people, but they are definitely not liberal democracies for their immediate neighbors or wherever their interests are jeopardized. Just look at the way EU countries treated their neighbors that are not in EU during the recent pandemic - these neighbors could be the most desolate third world countries just because they do not belong to the club. And of course internally as soon as pandemic struck internal borders went up - yes that happens between liberal democracies too.

So while book starts in investigative way, exposing elements that brought the idea of preventive war to become rather dominant in international relationships (especially with evolving military technology that allows stand off attacks to be made with ease) it ends with a very naive (I hope this is the reason) conclusion that puts this book into apologetic set of works when it comes to preventive wars of Western countries. Author had me laughing when he commented on the perception of some liberal democracies as neocolonial powers, like nothing happened and changed in the meantime but keeps on commenting on other countries as half-democracies or eternal baddies like they never changed and never will. Little bit strange, dont you agree?

Last chapters of the book are there to give explanation that liberal democracies just do what they need to do and this is where book becomes somewhat ideological by separating the world between the "us" and "them", with the accent on that only "we" have means and moral duty to do something in the world. Considering the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan and ongoing strife in Northern Africa and Middle East all caused by Justice League's approach to world politics this moral-view approach shows that it just does not work because exclusive club of allied nations very soon becomes a bully pushing and prodding everyone because they start to see themselves as chosen ones with great destiny (and this is most corrupting way of thinking ever).

Interesting book, recommended reading definitely but work that utterly fails in the final parts with conclusion that one needs to accept the world and ruling elites (strong states) circumventing existing international mechanisms because they do it for the "good" of everyone - basically countering everything author said in the first chapters. It is like author says "better us than them" - approach that does not solve anything.… (plus d'informations)

Excellent book but one that came out very very late. Same as with Jill Japore's book on mind-messing spin-based companies this one came too late, at least for public to read. Experts knew about this but let it roll and that brings us to our current times.

Book covers everything - failures in the society from general feeling-first approach to things (reason, dont need it because you need to be passionate about.... who cares, just deny everything else that you do not agree with), failure of education, mass media and web that became full circus that cannot be trusted at all any more (because everybody needs to be an activist - again that feeling-first approach) and utter breakage of society which does not know where the head or tail is, and of course does not know what equality and democracy are (last part of the book was especially on the point).

One of the main failures of expertise is that experts decided to treat their fellow countryman/layman as children (which is something that mentioned countryman/layman so want to be - which is something that is completely mind numbing to me). As a result just look at last year - nobody from power even thinks twice about what they are saying to the people (WE will tell you what to do! YOU are guilty for all of this! Declamations and rhetoric that would make Stalin blush, not to mention [again] activism because hey these are our guys! Yeeee!), they do not think about when message is supposed to go out to public and when there is need to wait a bit (again, last year, all those MDs and experts - saying contradictory things every 2 weeks) and are more than ready to gas-light people for the sake of it (do-this-and-you-will-be safe followed by "even if you do this it will be years (years people) before we even go back if we ever do") to the now raising cults of personalities that puts North Korea to shame (populists unite).

Providing drama to the populace that craves it (which is something that is sickening in itself) is one of the greatest sins of experts.

It seems that people chose hippie/age-of-aquarius as a way of living loooong time ago. Fortunately reason and critical thinking that built up in last 300 years (lets just take most recent developments in sciences - technical, math and sociology - in general this was accumulation of thousands of years) took like 60 years to decompose in the currently existing mush. That is quite a result if you ask me, sense and sanity endured for a looong time. But I guess when you enter the period where adults want to be kids and behave like spoiled children in toy store, reason plays no role.

And then power grab happens - technocrats took the opportunity and oh boy what additional mess they made (because, again, everybody needs to be an activist for a cause (whatever this might be), you need to be passionate (one of the most poisonous words today)).

Good thing these periods will pass and humanity will come back to its senses. Hopefully not like in beginning of Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey.

Highly recommended.… (plus d'informations)

Tom Nichols was a working academic and taught international relations (and military history). He was affiliated with the American Republican party. His 2017 book, The Death of Expertise expands from his article in 2014 in the modern conservative online journal The Federalist.
The book present an argument about the effects of the internet, social media and modern ideas about equality on the acquisition of knowledge. The author asserts that people who have earned advanced university degrees who are employed as university-level teachers have earned more respect that they get in debates in American institutions.
His criticism of the Internet and internet projects like Wikipedia is not argued in detail. He relies on the meritocratic assumtion that a crowd of recognized experts has more knowlege than a random crowd of Americans, and it more likely to have a more accurate understanding of how the world works.
The author does not explain the methods and the consensus of the political science of international relations, or explain how international relations or other humanities and social sciences can be compared with disciplines that are grounded in the physical facts of the real world or should be "respected" by less educated citizens.… (plus d'informations)