Left Flank

The 'five generals' have devised a serious and remarkable global platform to reinvigorate conservatism for the 21st Century.

The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

Cato's Stanley Kober matches bombast with concision: it's all about Afghanistan! Or, is it about fighting irrelevance?

Look East, NATO, to nurturing a liberal, European Russia!

On the other hand, why not just send in 'Saint Jude'?

1. "I think that Mr. Bernanke has been drinking the same sort of Keynesian Kool-Aid that other prominent economists like Larry Summers have been drinking." (Economic Retardant Package)

2. Shameless adoration for Thomas Jefferson. (Capitol Tribune seconds that vote, with a satirical aside.) Anyone who wants to buy me this book will also be worshipped!

Actually I'm not a Jefferson fan (as readers might gather from my trip to John Marshall's home in Richmond, Virginia). I just like a book that undercuts hagiography.

Ata Ur Rehman's neat contrast between American political parties and support for tyranny (via TMV) might be put to the test. Rehman argues that Democrats in the White House coincide with democratic leaders in Pakistan; Republicans favor dictators.

Yet, two conservative publications, Strategic Forecasting and Cato Institute disagree wildly about US policy in Pakistan after Benazir Bhutto's assassination. George Friedman (from an email alert, not a subscription), after a unsurprising analysis concludes with a zinger:

But the United States now faces its endgame under far less than ideal conditions. Iraq is stabilizing. That might reverse, but for now it is stabilizing. The Taliban is strong, but it is under pressure and has serious internal problems. The endgame always was supposed to come in Pakistan, but this is far from how the Americans wanted to play it out. The United States is not going to get an aggressive, anti-Islamist military in Pakistan, but it badly needs more than a Pakistani military that is half-heartedly and tenuously committed to the fight. Salvaging Musharraf is getting harder with each passing day. So that means that a new personality, such as Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, must become Washington's new man in Pakistan. In this endgame, all that the Americans want is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way U.S. luck is running, they might not even get that.

Cool, calm conservatism, indeed.

Cato Institute's Justin Logan must be voting for Ron Paul, though.

As Pakistan remains wracked by political unrest, Washington must keep its policy priorities ordered. First among them is ensuring the stability and security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration should make clear that it intends to cooperate with Pakistani authorities on anti-terrorism and, if necessary, in securing the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. At the same time, cooperation on those issues should not take the form of blanket support for the regime in Islamabad. Too often in the past America has allied itself with sitting governments only to see them toppled by opposition forces that then turn on the government's American patron. What is required today is close attention to American security interests in Pakistan, but an aloofness from the tumult of domestic Pakistani politics.

Gee whiz, another lecture about the Prime Directive, Captain Picard!

There might just be more interesting debates happening at the Republican convention this year!