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. Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; Illa sunt similia: hebes acies est cuipiam oculorum, corpore alius senescit; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Tubulum fuisse, qua illum, cuius is condemnatus est rogatione, P. Nemo igitur esse beatus potest. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt.
Illa videamus, quae a te de amicitia dicta sunt. Sed id ne cogitari quidem potest quale sit, ut non repugnet ipsum sibi. Graecum enim hunc versum nostis omnes-: Suavis laborum est praeteritorum memoria. Sed tamen enitar et, si minus multa mihi occurrent, non fugiam ista popularia. Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere. In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus.
Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Verum tamen cum de rebus grandioribus dicas, ipsae res verba rapiunt; Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet. Cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum. Quid enim ab antiquis ex eo genere, quod ad disserendum valet, praetermissum est? Atque etiam valítudinem, vires, vacuitatem doloris non propter utilitatem solum, sed etiam ipsas propter se expetemus. Dici enim nihil potest verius. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Non prorsus, inquit, omnisque, qui sine dolore sint, in voluptate, et ea quidem summa, esse dico. Num igitur eum postea censes anxio animo aut sollicito fuisse?
Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Nam ante Aristippus, et ille melius. Ergo opifex plus sibi proponet ad formarum quam civis excellens ad factorum pulchritudinem? Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Quod quidem nobis non saepe contingit. Quod mihi quidem visus est, cum sciret, velle tamen confitentem audire Torquatum. Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est?
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas. Quae cum essent dicta, finem fecimus et ambulandi et disputandi. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Respondeat totidem verbis. In motu et in statu corporis nihil inest, quod animadvertendum esse ipsa natura iudicet? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Etsi qui potest intellegi aut cogitari esse aliquod animal, quod se oderit?
Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus. Cupit enim dícere nihil posse ad beatam vitam deesse sapienti. A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. Quae adhuc, Cato, a te dicta sunt, eadem, inquam, dicere posses, si sequerere Pyrrhonem aut Aristonem.
Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Nec tamen ullo modo summum pecudis bonum et hominis idem mihi videri potest. Invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum.
Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur? At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus. Si verbum sequimur, primum longius verbum praepositum quam bonum.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. Si longus, levis. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Idem fecisset Epicurus, si sententiam hanc, quae nunc Hieronymi est, coniunxisset cum Aristippi vetere sententia. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam.
Non autem hoc: igitur ne illud quidem. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est? At miser, si in flagitiosa et vitiosa vita afflueret voluptatibus. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Non igitur de improbo, sed de callido improbo quaerimus, qualis Q. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Quacumque enim ingredimur, in aliqua historia vestigium ponimus. Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet.
De vacuitate doloris eadem sententia erit. Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Modo etiam paulum ad dexteram de via declinavi, ut ad Pericli sepulcrum accederem. Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam.
Sed quid sentiat, non videtis. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam? Nec vero intermittunt aut admirationem earum rerum, quae sunt ab antiquis repertae, aut investigationem novarum. De ingenio eius in his disputationibus, non de moribus quaeritur. Praeclare enim Plato: Beatum, cui etiam in senectute contigerit, ut sapientiam verasque opiniones assequi possit. Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres. An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit? Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Ne vitationem quidem doloris ipsam per se quisquam in rebus expetendis putavit, nisi etiam evitare posset. Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit.
extra material
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Totum autem id externum est, et quod externum, id in casu est. Tollenda est atque extrahenda radicitus. Sic, et quidem diligentius saepiusque ista loquemur inter nos agemusque communiter. Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias? Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Confecta res esset. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Id enim volumus, id contendimus, ut officii fructus sit ipsum officium. De quibus cupio scire quid sentias.
Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Cur igitur, cum de re conveniat, non malumus usitate loqui? Quamquam haec quidem praeposita recte et reiecta dicere licebit. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. At quicum ioca seria, ut dicitur, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia? Quae in controversiam veniunt, de iis, si placet, disseramus. At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate.
Quod idem cum vestri faciant, non satis magnam tribuunt inventoribus gratiam. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Familiares nostros, credo, Sironem dicis et Philodemum, cum optimos viros, tum homines doctissimos. Pudebit te, inquam, illius tabulae, quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Quid enim possumus hoc agere divinius? Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis. Sed nimis multa.
Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Immo alio genere; Est tamen ea secundum naturam multoque nos ad se expetendam magis hortatur quam superiora omnia. Universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto. Sin autem eos non probabat, quid attinuit cum iis, quibuscum re concinebat, verbis discrepare? Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes;
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Cur id non ita fit? Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. Quem Tiberina descensio festo illo die tanto gaudio affecit, quanto L. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Sic enim censent, oportunitatis esse beate vivere. Habent enim et bene longam et satis litigiosam disputationem. Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Quis animo aequo videt eum, quem inpure ac flagitiose putet vivere?
Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt. Atque ab his initiis profecti omnium virtutum et originem et progressionem persecuti sunt. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Non laboro, inquit, de nomine. Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum. Nam ista vestra: Si gravis, brevis; Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?
Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Ergo in gubernando nihil, in officio plurimum interest, quo in genere peccetur. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Hoc etsi multimodis reprehendi potest, tamen accipio, quod dant.
