ideals and the dignity of all individuals, even an esteemed general like Patton couldn’t escape opprobrium because, by publicly striking a subordinate, he seemed like a fascist tyrant, not a defender of liberty. So why, then, does it matter that the Pentagon will execute (8/11)
If there’s no ability to command the psychological respect of the people, all that’s left is punishment. (11/11)
I have a series of thoughts about the news that the Pentagon will be executing Hasan on an internet livestream, all paid for by the American taxpayer. Here’s an effort to put it into historical context, as I get past the shock: (1/11)
nytimes.com/2026/10/08/us/po…
lesser, inferior civilization. That is part of the reason why the US military itself switched away from corporal punishment. Public flogging used to be a central part of US military discipline in the Civil War. But in the post-war years, the military moved away from (6/11)
became a symbol of Western, “modern” civilization. Indeed, by the time that European imperialists were in Qing China, the fact that the Qing judicial system relied on public displays of punishment was a reason for Europeans to feel that the Chinese were in fact of a (5/11)
You didn’t need to behead people before a crowd: as a head of a modern state, you have things like police, courts, prisons, and laws to exert your power. Punishment could switch from attacking the bodies of criminals to policing their minds and interior selves. This also (4/11)
You can see such a motivation in Sec. Hegseth’s statement that the point of a live-streamed execution is to ensure that people will watch and understand consequences. But states moved away from highly public forms of punishment, in part because they became more powerful. (3/11)
Foucault once analyzed how regimes before the 19th century used highly theatrical, public displays of punishment. Flogging, execution. Mel Gibson disemboweled before an audience. The point of this kind of violence was to demonstrate to a wide audience the power of the sovereign.
Syrus Solo Jin, PhD retweeted
So, I wrote a report, and it got a lot of feedback.
I hoped the report would open a wider debate on posture and strategy in Asia. It did that, so in that spirit, I will respond to some of the common criticisms.
They are grouped into four categories: security, economics, questions about American decline, and questions about my personal motivations/loyalties. 🧵
(1) Security.
One area of disagreement is over what kind of U.S. military presence is required to maintain a balance of power in Asia that protects U.S. interests. In part, this depends on how those interests are defined. I define them narrowly. People can disagree with that, but the military requirements I specify are based on that narrow definition.
Critics of my paper argue that the only way to maintain the necessary balance of power is to protect the status quo, preserve U.S. security guarantees and keep posture unchanged. I disagree. Countries like Japan and South Korea are strong and wealthy. There is no reason to believe that they cannot build the capabilities to deter aggression against them over the timeline outlined in my report, which is 5-10 years. They benefit from favorable geography and access to advanced technology. They can choose to spend the required resources and generate the necessary industrial production.
Syrus Solo Jin, PhD retweeted
At Defense Priorities, we are advocates of the US national interest. Nobody else’s. Jennifer made a rigorous argument about how to protect US interests in Asia at less cost and risk.
She did so knowing she’d get a lot of flak, and she deserves credit for that. Still, it’s sad—pathetic actually—to see people employed to think about US foreign policy, as opposed to the standard trolls, smearing her as a Chinese agent or some other ad hominem BS. Try reading the piece and making a substantive critique.
The lazy, personal attacks to me are evidence for the theory that what’s protecting the policy status quo today is less its evident wisdom than the name-calling or shunning that awaits heretics. People are enforcing a social norm that you don’t say this precisely because their intellectual case is weak and getting weaker.
(4) Motivations and Funding.
Many of the comments here question my motivation and loyalties. These are unserious and immature criticisms. My organization does not take government money, U.S. or foreign. I have spent my entire life working to advance U.S. national security interests. We can disagree on how that should be accomplished, but I have the same goal as those people here who have attacked me, directly and indirectly.
Many of the people who have chosen to comment on my report work at think tanks that take money from the very governments in question (South Korea, Japan, etc) or from defense contractors who benefit from more war. If my motivations are to be questioned or called corrupt and compromised, then theirs should be too. I will resist the urge to go through the people who have smeared me and discuss their funders and question what it means for their motivations, but I could. I won’t do it because it’s a distraction from the hugely important questions our country faces. Perhaps we could all try to debate these issues on the substance instead.
My latest for @ForeignPolicy :
Trump's pressure on South Korea to send forces to Hormuz reawakens a troubled history, and reinvigorates doubts within the Korean left and right-wing about the alliance.
foreignpolicy.com/2026/09/10…
"Made in Thailand" might mean textiles to most Americans, but that's about to mean something very different: it's the name of a major Thai defense industrial drive.
But as I argued in @ForeignPolicy, "self-reliance" is a paradox.
nationthailand.com/news/poli…
The major point of my piece was that "self-reliance" is rhetoric, and the actual work of building a defense industry will ironically demand GREATER international cooperation and interdependence.
foreignpolicy.com/2026/07/29…
This is the last episode History in Focus (that I worked on): In 15 minutes, Darren Dochuk dresses down the origins of Joseph McCarthy's right-wing populist style and its legacies.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…
I learned audio editing with little experience. Turns out, making high quality audio experiences while incorporating archival audio and sound effects takes a lot of work! I'm definitely better, but the senior producer on the podcast, Daniel Story, was also the wizard.