Episode 106
Joshua Landis | US Withdrawal and the End of the Rules-Based Global Order
Episode 106
Joshua Landis
Joshua Landis | US Withdrawal and the End of the Rules-Based Global Order
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Joshua Landis, a Middle East scholar and Syria expert about the disorderly withdrawal of American forces from Syria and the larger shift in the balance of power that we are seeing as nations scramble to remake alliances in the wake of America’s absence.
It seems that what we’ve seen transpire in the Middle East during the past week is a symptom of a much larger trend: the deterioration of the rules-based international order, the fulcrum around which the world has turned for three generations—the entirety of living memory. It is the break-down of national borders, in many cases borders that have been artificially constructed and maintained by the credible threat of American military power. As America begins its long-anticipated withdrawal from the world stage, others will rise to take her place. It was probably naive to imagine that this could happen in a managed way. Perhaps it was always destined to be messy. As much as Trump’s detractors wish to blame him for the mess in Syria, the truth is, he is only an accelerant. He isn’t responsible for assembling the reactants.
The forces currently being unleashed in what was once Northern Syria remain contained within the Greater Middle East, but Turkey’s involvement creates the potential for spillover into the Balkans and southern Europe at some indeterminate date in the future. Turkey has been flexing its geopolitical muscles with Greece for years. It is no longer inconceivable to imagine that its membership in NATO will prove to be an insufficient deterrent for curbing Turkish military aggression or the expansionary ambitions of Erdoğan in the Aegean. Erdoğan seems to be staking his political career on the vision of a more assertive and expansionary Turkish foreign policy. Turkey remains strategically indispensable to the US & NATO. If he expands Turkey’s current activities in Cypriot waters, it isn’t clear who will stop him.
It’s a cliché, but all bets do seem to be off. If the nations of the world decide that America can no longer guarantee their security or maintain the integrity of their borders, we may start to see a rapid reorganization of the international order along radically different lines. It’s hard to believe, but Russia has played its cards better than any one of the major powers. It has capitalized on (and in some cases stoked) the chaos of political dysfunction both within and across the transatlantic relationship. It seems to have positioned itself as the new dance partner for any country suddenly in need of an escort. Its economy may be half the size of California’s, but this has not stopped Putin from rebranding the Russian Federation as “the new neighborhood muscle,” that will have your back when the US doesn’t.
America’s leaders have exhibited remarkable incompetence in the area of foreign policy, displaying only flickering instances of humility and foresight since being thrust upon the world stage as the new global hegemon and the only standing survivor of the Cold War. For years, we’ve been asking ourselves what this new world is going to look like, a world without America guaranteeing security for the liberal, democratic order. The events currently transpiring in Syria may be giving us our first real glimpse of what that world will look like. It’s chaotic. It’s authoritarian. And it’s more violent. This is the new backdrop for which the circus that is American politics will play out in 2020. Democratic candidates who have staked their candidacies on demonizing Donald Trump, while avoiding addressing the forces that brought him to office in the first place risk being totally blindsided by even lower voter turnout and a re-election of Donald Trump in 2020. If that happens, American foreign policy will likely go into crisis. It’s really unclear at that point what would happen. The proverbial “Deep State” has resisted his candidacy from the beginning but has not gone so far as to overthrow his popular mandate. Should he be re-elected, what will Washington’s elite, its intelligence agencies and wealthy benefactors do? Will they sit by and watch while Trump dismantles what is left of their dysfunctional experiment in American empire? Or, will they impeach him? He certainly hasn’t made it difficult with his actions, but they no longer have the credibility to do it without further sacrificing their own legitimacy.
This is truly uncharted waters. We should all pray that a new consensus can emerge in the next twelve months that will bring enough of the country together to stop the bleeding, but it is not clear from what source this unanimity will spring.
This week’s rundown is a 16-page compilation of all the information (including pictures and links material referenced during the episode) compiled by Demetri ahead of his recording with Joshua Landis. You can access this document, along with a transcript to this week’s episode through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers also gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily be added to your favorite podcast application.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Subscribe & Support the Podcast at http://patreon.com/hiddenforces
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Joshua Landis is Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and Associate Professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oklahoma’s Department of International and Area Studies. He writes “Syria Comment,” a daily newsletter on Syrian politics that attracts some 3,000 readers a day. It is widely read by officials in Washington, Europe, and Syria. Dr. Landis regularly travels to Washington DC to consult with the State Department and other government agencies. He is a frequent analyst on TV and radio and has appeared on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, Charlie Rose Show, CNN, Fox News, and been quoted widely in the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, and comments frequently for NPR and BBC radio. He has spoken at the Brookings Institute, USIP, Middle East Institute, and Council on Foreign Relations.
He was educated at Princeton (PhD), Harvard (MA), and Swarthmore (BA). He has lived over 14 years in the Middle East; having been brought up in Beirut, he returned to the region in the 1980s to teach in Beirut and study at universities in Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul. Most recently, he spent 2005 in Syria as a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow and lived several months in Damascus in 2007. He teaches: Political Islam, International Relations in the Middle East, Islam, The Modern Middle East, Culture and Society in the Middle East, the US in the Middle East and other courses.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Paupertas si malum est, mendicus beatus esse nemo potest, quamvis sit sapiens. Sed nimis multa. An potest, inquit ille, quicquam esse suavius quam nihil dolere? Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis?
Est tamen ea secundum naturam multoque nos ad se expetendam magis hortatur quam superiora omnia. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Atque adhuc ea dixi, causa cur Zenoni non fuisset, quam ob rem a superiorum auctoritate discederet.
Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum. Pudebit te, inquam, illius tabulae, quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. Nihil illinc huc pervenit. Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere?
Quod quidem nobis non saepe contingit. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quonam, inquit, modo? Quid, quod homines infima fortuna, nulla spe rerum gerendarum, opifices denique delectantur historia? Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Cave putes quicquam esse verius. Tantum dico, magis fuisse vestrum agere Epicuri diem natalem, quam illius testamento cavere ut ageretur. Quid enim est a Chrysippo praetermissum in Stoicis? Tu vero, inquam, ducas licet, si sequetur;
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem?
Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit? Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Qua igitur re ab deo vincitur, si aeternitate non vincitur? Sed quid sentiat, non videtis. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Tibi hoc incredibile, quod beatissimum. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias?
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nam cui proposito sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras suo genere laudabiles. Non enim, si omnia non sequebatur, idcirco non erat ortus illinc. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere? Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante. Proclivi currit oratio. Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Et certamen honestum et disputatio splendida! omnis est enim de virtutis dignitate contentio. Ita ceterorum sententiis semotis relinquitur non mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuti cum voluptate certatio.
Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Cum id quoque, ut cupiebat, audivisset, evelli iussit eam, qua erat transfixus, hastam. Tum, Quintus et Pomponius cum idem se velle dixissent, Piso exorsus est. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? An quod ita callida est, ut optime possit architectari voluptates? Et quidem, Cato, hanc totam copiam iam Lucullo nostro notam esse oportebit; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Respondeat totidem verbis. Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Sed mehercule pergrata mihi oratio tua. Uterque enim summo bono fruitur, id est voluptate.
Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Sed virtutem ipsam inchoavit, nihil amplius. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster?
Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Nulla erit controversia.
Qui potest igitur habitare in beata vita summi mali metus? Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Quamquam ab iis philosophiam et omnes ingenuas disciplinas habemus; Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Nec tamen ille erat sapiens quis enim hoc aut quando aut ubi aut unde? Non prorsus, inquit, omnisque, qui sine dolore sint, in voluptate, et ea quidem summa, esse dico. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Heri, inquam, ludis commissis ex urbe profectus veni ad vesperum. Quid est igitur, inquit, quod requiras? Vidit Homerus probari fabulam non posse, si cantiunculis tantus irretitus vir teneretur;
Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Hoc enim constituto in philosophia constituta sunt omnia. Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. An me, inquis, tam amentem putas, ut apud imperitos isto modo loquar? Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Tum ego: Non mehercule, inquam, soleo temere contra Stoicos, non quo illis admodum assentiar, sed pudore impedior; Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis.
Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Deinde prima illa, quae in congressu solemus: Quid tu, inquit, huc? Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt.
Sit, inquam, tam facilis, quam vultis, comparatio voluptatis, quid de dolore dicemus? Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda.