I don’t know that we really disagree so much. I’ll check out your article — it sounds good. The Afghanistan situation is complex, and I can’t disagree with the role the Cold War played in that, and a whole lot of other stuff (Iran, Iran, said the Shah!). The whole thing was a convoluted mess. If we hadn’t had a policy of propping up malfeasant Middle East kingdoms for the sake of oil, we wouldn’t have been hated by certain groups. But you can also argue that if we hadn’t supported Afghan insurgents and bin Laden’s cohorts in the 80s, they wouldn’t have been in a position to do any damage.

I guess a cold warrior would claim that the Soviets would have seized the Middle East oil fields if we hadn’t played power politics, but I don’t buy it. I think that history has shown that of the two major food groups in international diplomacy, that of Keohane and Nye (who promoted complex interdependence — war with China today would be almost as mutually destructive as a nuclear war would have been with the Soviets) is the more graceful.

The alternative views, pushed by adherents to Hans Morgenthau, argue that strength and power must rule the roost. This necessitated, in their view, warm relations with unpleasant regimes in order to extend power. Morgenthau’s reputation as a warmonger was probably unfair — he believed in many brands of imperialism, including cultural imperialism, of which America has mastered. But he believed strongly in a comprehensive military-industrial complex like ours.

I, and Keohane and Nye, would argue that by encouraging interdependence we simply make it more difficult to engage in warfare, and in general provide better lives for world citizens. The global economy so many people rue has resulted in a world quite remarkably free of hot conflicts for several decades now. Even India and Pakistan, who both have legitimate claims over Indus water supplies and Kashmir, have managed to keep their swords sheathed, not in small part because of their interdependence.

Of course, a major course correction is needed — today’s wealth disparity would make even Ayn Rand blush. I think Biden understands that, quite a bit better than I thought he did.

Russia, ironically, is still a huge concern, maybe more so than during Soviet times, because it is ruled by a true enemy of America. He very nearly toppled our government. He poisons his opposition and hacks electrical grids of sovereign countries. He is toying with the idea of re-initiating the Russian empire. I am working on a software project with folks in Ukraine and they don’t want to have to think about Russian tanks. I’ve also, long ago now, worked closely with a few Russian software engineers — I don’t even know where they are anymore. So the world is not in a great place when Russian software engineers are pulled out of the world economy and are now being used for unpleasant things like hacking electrical grids or creating social networking mayhem.

Under Putin, Russia has resisted interdependence. There’s a great story somewhere in the news cycle about how Putin, upset with sanctions, realized there were very few cheesemakers in Russia. Now there are hundreds. He is pretty determined to establish a Russian economic silo apart from the rest of the world.

So in a sense, this circles back in a strange way to your Afghanistan argument, and the possibility that it could soon enough be about another country. As I write this, I realize I’m glad I’m not Joe Biden. But I’m very thankful that we’re no longer pointing the Trump shotgun at ourselves.