The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
Can Iraq’s new prime minister finally rein in its armed factions?
English Summary
Iraq's new Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi faces the enduring challenge of integrating the Popular Mobilization Forces into state control, made more urgent as Iran-aligned militias draw Iraq into the US-Israeli conflict with Tehran. While some faction leaders—including Muqtada al-Sadr and Qais al-Khazali—have signaled willingness to integrate, groups more deeply tied to Iran's 'axis of resistance' such as Kataeb Hezbollah refuse, exposing the limits of any consolidation effort. Past integration attempts, like the Badr Corps after 2003, show that formal incorporation into state institutions does not sever informal loyalties or transfer real coercive power, particularly control over drones and rockets, to Baghdad. The war may offer a political opening as some PMF leaders prioritize the economic gains of stability over resistance, but entrenched patronage networks and US pressure for faster action complicate the path forward.
中文摘要
伊拉克新任總理乍伊迪（Ali al-Zaidi）面臨將「人民動員部隊」（PMF）納入國家管控的長期挑戰，而隨著親伊朗民兵將伊拉克捲入美國與以色列對德黑蘭的衝突，此一課題更顯迫切。部分派系領袖——包括薩德爾（Muqtada al-Sadr）與哈扎利（Qais al-Khazali）——已表達整合意願，但與伊朗「抵抗軸心」關係更深的團體如真主黨旅（Kataeb Hezbollah）則拒絕配合，暴露出整合努力的局限。過往的整合經驗，如2003年後巴德爾軍團的納編，顯示正式併入國家機構並不能切斷非正式的效忠關係，也無法將真正的強制力量——特別是無人機與火箭的控制權——移交給巴格達。戰爭或許為部分人民動員部隊領導人提供了政治契機，使其優先考量穩定所帶來的經濟利益而非抵抗路線，但根深蒂固的庇護網絡與美國要求加速行動的壓力，使前路更加複雜。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
4.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
5.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.