Patrick Porter – författare

Why did Britain go to war in Iraq in 2003? Existing accounts stress dodgy dossiers, intelligence failures, and the flaws of individual leaders. Deploying the large number of primary documents now available, this book puts ideas at the centre of the story. As the book argues, Britain''s war in Iraq was caused by bad ideas that were dogmatically held and widely accepted. Three ideas in particular formed the war''s intellectual foundations: the notion of the undeterrable,fanatical rogue state; the vision that the West''s path to security is to break and remake states; and the conceit that by paying the ''blood price'', Britain could secure influence in Washington DC. These issues matter, because although the Iraq War happened fifteen years ago, it is still with us. Aswell as its severe consequences for regional and international security, the ideas that powered the war persist in Western security debate. If all wars are fought twice, first on the battlefield and the second time in memory, this book enters the battle over what Iraq means now, and what we should learn.

Why did Britain go to war in Iraq in 2003? Existing accounts stress dodgy dossiers, intelligence failures, and the flaws of individual leaders. Deploying the large number of primary documents now available, this book puts ideas at the centre of the story. As the book argues, Britain''s war in Iraq was caused by bad ideas that were dogmatically held and widely accepted. Three ideas in particular formed the war''s intellectual foundations: the notion of the undeterrable,fanatical rogue state; the vision that the West''s path to security is to break and remake states; and the conceit that by paying the ''blood price'', Britain could secure influence in Washington DC. These issues matter, because although the Iraq War happened fifteen years ago, it is still with us. Aswell as its severe consequences for regional and international security, the ideas that powered the war persist in Western security debate. If all wars are fought twice, first on the battlefield and the second time in memory, this book enters the battle over what Iraq means now, and what we should learn.

Why did Britain go to war in Iraq in 2003? Existing accounts stress dodgy dossiers, intelligence failures, and the flaws of individual leaders. Deploying the large number of primary documents now available, this book puts ideas at the centre of the story. As the book argues, Britain's war in Iraq was caused by bad ideas that were dogmatically held and widely accepted. Three ideas in particular formed the war's intellectual foundations: the notion of the undeterrable, fanatical rogue state; the vision that the West's path to security is to break and remake states; and the conceit that by paying the 'blood price', Britain could secure influence in Washington DC. These issues matter, because although the Iraq War happened fifteen years ago, it is still with us. As well as its severe consequences for regional and international security, the ideas that powered the war persist in Western security debate. If all wars are fought twice, first on the battlefield and the second time in memory, this book enters the battle over what Iraq means now, and what we should learn.

The oldest ideas are the best. This book is a defense of an ancient way of thinking about international politics: realism. Patrick Porter, a scholar of international relations, defends the realist approach to understanding the world by addressing head-on the most robust critiques of the tradition. Drawing from a wide literature, Porter restages three prominent criticisms of realism: that it is immoral, unrealistic, and provincial. In erudite, clear, and at times morbidly funny prose, Porter makes the case that realism is, in fact, everything its critics believe it is not: moral in its commitment to securing the polity and its interests in a world where there is no higher government; realistic and the best starting point for explaining how human groups tend to behave; and practical for use by everyone, everywhere, including beyond the Euro-Atlantic. From Thucydides to Kautilya to Machiavelli, realists claim that the world is an inherently dangerous place defined by the shadow of conflict, whether we like it or not. As the 21st century grapples with multiple interlocking crises concerning economic dislocation, climate crisis, and war, we need realism now more than ever. This book is for readers who are looking for sensible guidance on how to work within that reality and survive in an increasingly hostile world.

The oldest ideas are the best. This book is a defense of an ancient way of thinking about international politics: realism. Patrick Porter, a scholar of international relations, defends the realist approach to understanding the world by addressing head-on the most robust critiques of the tradition. Drawing from a wide literature, Porter restages three prominent criticisms of realism: that it is immoral, unrealistic, and provincial. In erudite, clear, and at times morbidly funny prose, Porter makes the case that realism is, in fact, everything its critics believe it is not: moral in its commitment to securing the polity and its interests in a world where there is no higher government; realistic and the best starting point for explaining how human groups tend to behave; and practical for use by everyone, everywhere, including beyond the Euro-Atlantic. From Thucydides to Kautilya to Machiavelli, realists claim that the world is an inherently dangerous place defined by the shadow of conflict, whether we like it or not. As the 21st century grapples with multiple interlocking crises concerning economic dislocation, climate crisis, and war, we need realism now more than ever. This book is for readers who are looking for sensible guidance on how to work within that reality and survive in an increasingly hostile world.

The oldest ideas are the best. This book is a defense of an ancient way of thinking about international politics: realism. Patrick Porter, a scholar of international relations, defends the realist approach to understanding the world by addressing head-on the most robust critiques of the tradition. Drawing from a wide literature, Porter restages three prominent criticisms of realism: that it is immoral, unrealistic, and provincial. In erudite, clear, and at times morbidly funny prose, Porter makes the case that realism is, in fact, everything its critics believe it is not: moral in its commitment to securing the polity and its interests in a world where there is no higher government; realistic and the best starting point for explaining how human groups tend to behave; and practical for use by everyone, everywhere, including beyond the Euro-Atlantic. From Thucydides to Kautilya to Machiavelli, realists claim that the world is an inherently dangerous place defined by the shadow of conflict, whether we like it or not. As the 21st century grapples with multiple interlocking crises concerning economic dislocation, climate change, and war, we need realism now more than ever. This book is for readers who are looking for sensible guidance on how to work within that reality and survive in an increasingly hostile world.

In an age of demagogues, hostile great powers and trade wars, foreign policy traditionalists dream of restoring liberal international order. This order, they claim, ushered in seventy years of peace and prosperity and saw post-war America domesticate the world to its values.The False Promise of Liberal Order exposes the flaws in this nostalgic vision. The world shaped by America came about as a result of coercion and, sometimes brutal, compromise. Liberal projects – to spread capitalist democracy – led inadvertently to illiberal results. To make peace, America made bargains with authoritarian forces. Even in the Pax Americana, the gentlest order yet, ordering was rough work. As its power grew, Washington came to believe that its order was exceptional and even permanent – a mentality that has led to spiralling deficits, permanent war and Trump. Romanticizing the liberal order makes it harder to adjust to today’s global disorder. Only by confronting the false promise of liberal order and adapting to current realities can the United States survive as a constitutional republic in a plural world.

In an age of demagogues, hostile great powers and trade wars, foreign policy traditionalists dream of restoring liberal international order. This order, they claim, ushered in seventy years of peace and prosperity and saw post-war America domesticate the world to its values.The False Promise of Liberal Order exposes the flaws in this nostalgic vision. The world shaped by America came about as a result of coercion and, sometimes brutal, compromise. Liberal projects – to spread capitalist democracy – led inadvertently to illiberal results. To make peace, America made bargains with authoritarian forces. Even in the Pax Americana, the gentlest order yet, ordering was rough work. As its power grew, Washington came to believe that its order was exceptional and even permanent – a mentality that has led to spiralling deficits, permanent war and Trump. Romanticizing the liberal order makes it harder to adjust to today’s global disorder. Only by confronting the false promise of liberal order and adapting to current realities can the United States survive as a constitutional republic in a plural world.

In an age of demagogues, hostile great powers and trade wars, foreign policy traditionalists dream of restoring liberal international order. This order, they claim, ushered in seventy years of peace and prosperity and saw post-war America domesticate the world to its values.

The False Promise of Liberal Order exposes the flaws in this nostalgic vision. The world shaped by America came about as a result of coercion and, sometimes brutal, compromise. Liberal projects – to spread capitalist democracy – led inadvertently to illiberal results. To make peace, America made bargains with authoritarian forces. Even in the Pax Americana, the gentlest order yet, ordering was rough work. As its power grew, Washington came to believe that its order was exceptional and even permanent – a mentality that has led to spiralling deficits, permanent war and Trump. Romanticizing the liberal order makes it harder to adjust to today’s global disorder. Only by confronting the false promise of liberal order and adapting to current realities can the United States survive as a constitutional republic in a plural world.

The Brain Fitness Blueprint takes you on a transformative journey into brain fitness, revealing the secrets to optimising cognitive performance and physical vitalityIn today’s unpredictable and often overwhelming world, a fit brain is no longer just about IQ. 'Brain fitness' encompasses emotional awareness and regulation, adequate cognitive rest, and resilience to meet the ongoing challenges we face every day.The Brain Fitness Blueprint is a holistic blueprint, providing practical techniques to achieve optimal brain health. Integrating ancient wisdom, such as meditation and mindfulness techniques, with new cognitive strategies, such as Unlimited Reality – a transformative practice that involves observing excellence in another person, then using imagery techniques to see through their eyes, hear through their ears, and feel every sensation in their body, as if you are living their experiences first-hand.In this digital era, constant connectivity and information overload can lead to mental fatigue and cognitive strain. The Brain Fitness Blueprint gives you the tools to not only survive, but truly thrive, in the modern world.

The Brain Fitness Blueprint takes you on a transformative journey into brain fitness, revealing the secrets to optimising cognitive performance and physical vitalityIn today’s unpredictable and often overwhelming world, a fit brain is no longer just about IQ. 'Brain fitness' encompasses emotional awareness and regulation, adequate cognitive rest, and resilience to meet the ongoing challenges we face every day.The Brain Fitness Blueprint is a holistic blueprint, providing practical techniques to achieve optimal brain health. Integrating ancient wisdom, such as meditation and mindfulness techniques, with new cognitive strategies, such as Unlimited Reality – a transformative practice that involves observing excellence in another person, then using imagery techniques to see through their eyes, hear through their ears, and feel every sensation in their body, as if you are living their experiences first-hand.In this digital era, constant connectivity and information overload can lead to mental fatigue and cognitive strain. The Brain Fitness Blueprint gives you the tools to not only survive, but truly thrive, in the modern world.

Does technology kill distance? Does the 'globalisation' of the world make the US and its allies vulnerable to violence, terrorism or cyber-assault? 'Globalism'-- the belief that changes in information, transport and communications are dangerously shrinking the world -- is a reigning assumption amongst security elites. It makes the United States and its allies feel perpetually insecure, haunted by rumours of chain reactions and the domino effect. At the same time, the vision of instant and borderless warfare can be seductive, making Westerners believe they must strike first, with new powers to tame a chaotic world. Under the shadow of Globalism, disastrous wars are fought, civil liberties are threatened and hysteria replaces sober debate about foreign policy. In 'The Global Village Myth', Patrick Porter demonstrates through studies of Al-Qaeda's global terror network, military tensions in the Taiwan Strait, drones and cyberwar, that Globalism is wildly overstated. Technology may accelerate movement and compress physical space. But it does not necessarily shrink strategic space, the ability to project power affordably across the earth.If distance is created by humans exploiting technology and terrain, the world in important ways is getting larger, not smaller. This makes us less powerful, but more secure, than we think. Porter offers an alternative outlook to lead policymakers toward more sensible responses and a wiser, more sustainable, grand strategy.