You "love" Dan Carlin?

Really?

As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.

Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.

Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context  is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.

1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):

He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.

He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its'  positions in order to maintain peace and order.

Wait, what?

I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?

My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand  he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.

2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:

This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.

He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?

Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?

And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.

As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.

Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.

If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.

Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus  far lacking, well.... common sense.