Comments on: About Those Critics http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/10/about-those-critics/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:15:32 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: otto http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/10/about-those-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-29312 otto Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:07:28 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8066#comment-29312 You may want to see Ross talking with Matt Y about W&M on bh.tv here. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17045?in=39:45&out=50:06 And you should go back on bh.tv yourself. You may want to see Ross talking with Matt Y about W&M on bh.tv here.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17045?in=39:45&out=50:06

And you should go back on bh.tv yourself.

]]> By: Charlie http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/10/about-those-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-27418 Charlie Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:50:44 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8066#comment-27418 <i>“Even The Nation reviewer didn’t like the book,” while neglecting to mention that the reviewer accepted the main thesis of the book almost as a given.</i> Walt and Mearsheimer's "main thesis" is not that there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. It is, to quote Walt and Mearsheimer, that "the thrust of US policy in the [Middle East] derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’." If "oil and empire" are as important as, or more important than, than the role of "the Israel Lobby" then Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong. So Lazare's not "accepting the main thesis of the book almost as a given." This isn't nit-picking. Walt and Mearsheimer are making an extremely strong argument that there is a virtually mono-causal explanation for US foreign policy vis a vis Israel. If there are multiple strong influences on US policy in the Middle East then Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong. Just to explain where I'm coming from: I studied international relations as an undergrad at the University of Chicago, and became dubious of it as a discipline. Standard operating procedure seemed to be to make an extremely bold and far-reaching argument about why states behave as they do, and then defend that argument against obvious objections by hemming and hawing about whether the thesis is actually as bold and far-reaching as it originally claimed to be. I heard Mearsheimer do this in defending his theory of "offensive realism", which was laid out as an iron law of state behavior and then walked back to just being a series of general guidelines when various real-world case studies seemed to weaken its explanatory power. So I know that, when Walt and Mearsheimer do basically the same thing in "The Israel Lobby," it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, anti-Israel bias, or any of that nonsense. It's just a failure common to the discipline in which those guys have made their academic careers. “Even The Nation reviewer didn’t like the book,” while neglecting to mention that the reviewer accepted the main thesis of the book almost as a given.

Walt and Mearsheimer’s “main thesis” is not that there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington. It is, to quote Walt and Mearsheimer, that “the thrust of US policy in the [Middle East] derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.” If “oil and empire” are as important as, or more important than, than the role of “the Israel Lobby” then Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong. So Lazare’s not “accepting the main thesis of the book almost as a given.”

This isn’t nit-picking. Walt and Mearsheimer are making an extremely strong argument that there is a virtually mono-causal explanation for US foreign policy vis a vis Israel. If there are multiple strong influences on US policy in the Middle East then Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong.

Just to explain where I’m coming from: I studied international relations as an undergrad at the University of Chicago, and became dubious of it as a discipline. Standard operating procedure seemed to be to make an extremely bold and far-reaching argument about why states behave as they do, and then defend that argument against obvious objections by hemming and hawing about whether the thesis is actually as bold and far-reaching as it originally claimed to be.

I heard Mearsheimer do this in defending his theory of “offensive realism”, which was laid out as an iron law of state behavior and then walked back to just being a series of general guidelines when various real-world case studies seemed to weaken its explanatory power. So I know that, when Walt and Mearsheimer do basically the same thing in “The Israel Lobby,” it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, anti-Israel bias, or any of that nonsense. It’s just a failure common to the discipline in which those guys have made their academic careers.

]]> By: Winston http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/10/about-those-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-26298 Winston Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:42:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=8066#comment-26298 There were two fundamental problems with the Walt and Mearsheimer book. One was a matter of definition: They never defined specifically who was part of the Lobby - or more accurately, they sloppily included pretty much any supporter of Israel in the Lobby by the end of the book. This made their thesis of outside nefarious influence of American policy much more difficult to sustain. Still, were this the only fundamental problem, reasonable people might still disagree. Where Walt and Mearsheimer went off the deep end - and this is an issue you fail to address, Mr. Larison, undercutting your entire argument - is in suggesting that the Iraq war would not have occurred but for the Lobby's influence. With upwards of 4,000 American dead, and 20,000 wounded, that is a case you had better make with hard evidence. This they did not do at all. There was no reference in their book whatever to internal policy discussions of the Bush administrations. Yet substantial evidence already in existence at the time they wrote their book demonstrated fairly conclusively that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were committed to an attack on Iraq virtually from the outset of the Bush administration. There's none of this in the Walt and Mearsheimer book - virtually their entire evidence consists of pro-Iraq-war statements by (Jewish) neo-cons. It is as if Bush and Cheney did not exist as independent actors. Would Iraq have been invaded in a Gore administration, if exactly the same neo-con arguments had been published? The question pretty much answers itself. (It's even far from clear Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, though personally I believe he would have done so.) It is blaming the Iraq war on Israel that, in my judgement, and in the judgement of Ross and Mead in particular, places Walt and Mearsheimer beyond the Pale. There were two fundamental problems with the Walt and Mearsheimer book. One was a matter of definition: They never defined specifically who was part of the Lobby – or more accurately, they sloppily included pretty much any supporter of Israel in the Lobby by the end of the book. This made their thesis of outside nefarious influence of American policy much more difficult to sustain. Still, were this the only fundamental problem, reasonable people might still disagree. Where Walt and Mearsheimer went off the deep end – and this is an issue you fail to address, Mr. Larison, undercutting your entire argument – is in suggesting that the Iraq war would not have occurred but for the Lobby’s influence. With upwards of 4,000 American dead, and 20,000 wounded, that is a case you had better make with hard evidence. This they did not do at all. There was no reference in their book whatever to internal policy discussions of the Bush administrations. Yet substantial evidence already in existence at the time they wrote their book demonstrated fairly conclusively that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were committed to an attack on Iraq virtually from the outset of the Bush administration. There’s none of this in the Walt and Mearsheimer book – virtually their entire evidence consists of pro-Iraq-war statements by (Jewish) neo-cons. It is as if Bush and Cheney did not exist as independent actors. Would Iraq have been invaded in a Gore administration, if exactly the same neo-con arguments had been published? The question pretty much answers itself. (It’s even far from clear Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, though personally I believe he would have done so.) It is blaming the Iraq war on Israel that, in my judgement, and in the judgement of Ross and Mead in particular, places Walt and Mearsheimer beyond the Pale.

]]>