Scott Horton Interviews Doug Bandow

Scott Horton, March 07, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Doug Bandow, policy analyst and Robert A. Taft fellow with the American Conservative Defense Alliance, discusses the War Party’s need for a new enemy, their attempt to make China fill that role, the progress toward liberty there since the days of Mao, the defensive nature of their military establishment, the lack of neccessity of American hegemony in the east and the benefits of free trade.

MP3 here. (23:08)

Doug Bandow is a Washington-based political writer and policy analyst and Robert A. Taft Fellow with the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign.

He has been widely published in leading newspapers and periodicals and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has written and edited several books, including Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire (Xulon Press), The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea (Palgrave/Macmillan, coauthor), Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World (Cato), Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World (Cato, coeditor), and Military Manpower and Human Resources (National Defense University). His latest book is Foreign Follies (Xulon Press).

3 Responses to “Doug Bandow”

  1. As a listener to Antiwar Radio I am much disappointed. The question of US missile defence has come up in two recent interviews Scott Horton has conducted with General Robert Gerd and in this one with Doug Bandow.
    Scott Horton is oblivious of, or seems to ignore, important points some of the comments to his interviews contain.
    After the interview with General Gerd, it was convincingly argued in 2 ensuing comments that the US missile defence system is part and parcel of Pentagon persistent attempt at acquiring an unbeatable first strike capability against Russia and China.
    In his comment to Gen. Gerd interview Aren haich wrote:
    1. “Simple logic indicates that US missile defense system in Eastern Europe is solely aimed at guarding US mainland against a possible retaliatory missile attack, after US has unleashed its devastating first strike capability on Russia.
    General Gard fails to explain Why Russians are making such great fuss over this issue if their missiles can in the event of war easily overwhelm these meager defenses.
    US has for a long time been striving to achieve nuclear primacy over Russia and China. (See the article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, in the 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs.)
    There the authors argue that the United States has achieved (or is just about to achieve) nuclear primacy, which would make the concept of mutual assured destruction obsolete by taking “mutual” out of it. The United States, the authors argue, is striving at the capability of destroying all — and they mean literally every single one – of Russian strategic launchers in a first counterforce attack.
    US first strike capability to decapitate Russia will be incomplete and insecure without its anti-missile defense components in Eastern Europe and the Far East.”
    And Claus Hamle in his comment to the same interview writes:
    “Former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge wrote: “The US has or is very close to achieving an unanswerable first-strike capability. Former chief of US Air Force Missile Defense, Lt. Col. Robert Bowman stated: “Missile Defense is the missing link to a First Strike”. After a First Strike, missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic will be very useful to shoot down any surviving missiles. The Russians may have no other choice but implementing Launch On Warning. The terrible consequences of a mistake will be caused by the bloody and inmensely stupid Pentagon.”

    Scott Horton should have taken up the point made about this aspect of US missile defence by Claus Hamle and Aren Haich, when he talked to Doug Bandow about US perceptions of the Chinese military threat.
    It is hoped Scott Horton will prepare his interviews better next time.

  2. This guy is clueless about U.S. jobs. Overall employment grew at a very anemic rate since the first W recession, and is now entering another downturn. Real wages per worker per hour haven’t grown since the end of the 1960s, except for a small blip during Clinton. Labor productivity is created by the substitution of capital for labor, and the benefits accrue to the owners of capital, not to labor. And golly gee, look at corporate profits soaring relative to GDP.

    Not all of this is owing to cheap imports, but try telling that to workers.

    BTW, consumer spending has grown despite the dismal income picture because (1) workers are working longer hours, (2) more family members are working, (3) increased borrowing, most recently on the appreciated value of homes. How’s that working out for you now?

  3. An interesting aspect of the missile defense story is its constant portrayal as a failure through tests. It is difficult to know for sure whether they are incompetent or machiavelic, but I could see that under reporting progress in that domain could be part of minimizing the concerns about an effective missile defense that would then unsettle the balance of disuasion.

Leave a Reply