A Neo-Con Repents

Great Debates
61

  1. Cheney signed it. That in itself means something. Businessmen (which Cheney was at the time) generally prefer to not seek out controversy that could sour business relationships. (Bauer was immune to that problem.)

  2. As Suskind illustrates at length in The One Percent Doctrine, Cheney was very much a believer in some of the neocons’ core beliefs, such as using the exercise of American might against one nation not just to prevent that nation from doing anything to threaten us, but to change the thinking of other possible opponents as well.

I can’t think of many, either. Doesn’t mean they’re mutually exclusive.

At that level, planning isn’t something you just forget to do. The failure of officials at that level to plan, and their willingness to go ahead with a war in its absence, is prima facie evidence of their disconnect with reality.

Planning certainly comes with costs, but they’re trivial compared to those of even a short, quick war. So it’s hard to imagine that economizing was an issue. Besides, you’ve already got the people on the payroll; it’s just a question of what account their time might be charged to. And it’s not like the kind of army needed for the postwar was an issue until they had done some planning for it. I don’t ‘get’ you at all here.

Here’s the thing: even that takes some sort of basic plan, even if it looks like:

“9 April 2003: pull down Saddam’s statue.
10 April 2003: proclaim Ahmed Chalabi as President of Iraq.”

And even that skeleton forces the people involved to take further steps. Bush would have to sign off on installing Chalabi as President; Chalabi would have to be notified to prepare himself for this; Chalabi would want guarantees of the extent to which the U.S. government would be prepared to back him with force if the army and the bureaucracy didn’t accept the legitimacy of his rule; and it quickly becomes clear to everyone that a plan for the transition is needed that everyone can agree on.

But there wasn’t even that much of a plan. Jay Garner was going to be in charge of Phase IV, as they call it, but he was never given significant guidance on what he was supposed to do, or what help he could call on to get it done.

No, there was overreliance on the idea of the U.N. taking over afterwards, without actually negotiating with them in a substantive manner before the war over the nature of their postwar role. The U.N. existed so the Bushies could say, “oh, the U.N. will do the nation-building stuff; we don’t have to worry about that.” Until.

They didn’t realize, themselves, that we were going to have one. But once again, even a minimal role in Iraq would have required planning in order to smoothly, quickly exit while leaving even a shell government in charge that would collapse the week after our last soldiers left the country.

The failure of the Bushies to make any plan for the postwar was to live in a dream world.

62

The link in this post gives a picture of the extent of their planning. It’s a story from the New York Times about the dispute as the number of troops and the cost of the proposed Iraq invasion.

Wolfie explained how he got the number.

Looks like a tissue of daydreams. “No history of ethnic strife.” Maybe not but wasn’t there quite a history of enmity between Shi’ia and Sunni? Hadn’t Saddam, a nominal Sunni, given all the power to Sunnis and repressed the Shiites?

Give him credit, he was right on one thing though. He did say that Iraqis would oppose an occupation force that stayed too long.

Rumsfeld’s estimate was equally casual

Having stepped on Shinseki and given their estimat of around 100000 they had the colossal gall to have us believe that Gen. Franks would set the actual number. Does anyone believe Frank’s would differ much from that of Rummy and Wolfie? The only one in the whole picture who had actual experience in occupying an area in order to keep the peace was Shinseki who was slapped down.

The whole thing from the beginning was a “pie-in-the-sky” concept based on the illusion that once the Iraqi military gave up, the people would put their shoulder to the wheel and rebuild Iraq as a democracy.

And congress bought it hook, line and sinker. I don’t think any of the incumbents who swallowed this fairy tale deserve reelection.

63

Here is a picture of one of those “left wingers” who seem to be so anamored with a pyschopathic mass murder…taken about the time when he was commiting most of the mass murders in fact!

64

[sub]Bolding Mine[/sub]

They will be, Buddy, they will be.

65

Well, I’m certainly not going to argue that the Bush Administration’s actions in Iraq were wise. They clearly haven’t been. I just don’t think the failure of the Iraq war in itself means that neoconservativism has failed.

Part of the problem is, I don’t really see any good alternatives to neoconservativism. I only see a few other possible choices as to how we could shape foreign policy, and none of them seem all that great:

  1. We could be isolationist, withdrawing from the rest of the world, and setting up a kind of “Fortress America”. I just don’t see that working. The world is too small now and the global economy too complex.

  2. We could be realists, saying that other countries’ internal affairs are none of our business, pursuing alliances only when they directly benefit us, and doing what it takes to maintain international stability. The problem with that is ihat it’s what got us in this mess in the first place.

  3. Alternately, we could work for change through international institutions like the UN, and only act when we have a broad international consensus and through coalitions. That has potential, but it’s dangerous. International groups like the UN tend to be slow to act, corrupt, and it’s an attack on our sovereignty to make our actions dependent on the will of the world community.

So, it’s that neoconservativism seems like the best of the available options. I don’t really expect you to agree with me, or really anybody else on this board to agree with me, but there you go.

66

However, neoconservatism has provided every single objection to this point except your odd claim of a lack of sovereignty.

Their actions are dangerous (as they are based on ignorance of the situation and ignorance of the reactions of others–see nearly any of the threads posted on this board challenging the rosy picture prior to the invasion).
The actions of the neo-cons have provided lots of room for corruption (no-bid contracts, lost reconstruction funds KBR, etc.).

Working with the international community does not require us to surrender sovereignty; to the extent we find common ground, we cooperate, to the extent that we disagree, we bow out of any particular action.

67

Obviously, but insisting on multilateralism does limit our options. If you look at the Cold War, for example, because of structural issues (the Soviets being a permanent member of the Security Council, for example), with the exception of the Korean Conflict, the UN was pretty much powerless to fight against Communism. The Soviets could just veto any such action. The US was forced to rely on a combination of unilateral action and alliances with friendly nations like NATO and SEATO.

68

However, that is a limit on effectiveness, not an intrusion on sovereignty. (And given that the Cold War was much more about the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. butting heads in the Great Game than about expanding or containing “communism,” that lack of effectiveness was probably a good thing since it prevented the U.S. from organizing the UN into a “let’s get the U.S.S.R” mob and touching off WWIII.)

69

What you are missing is that the central quality of neo-conservatism is deceit. All this talk of spreading democracy, wine and roses is exactly and nothing more than a choice of words to waylay the little people. Unless, you yourself are a willing participant in the deceit. There may be an even chance of that.

Fortunately for like-minded idealogues, there is a strong and enduring tradition of servility throughout the USA, such that a near-majority of its voting public are most content to be held unfit to know the true motivations of the ruling class.

Indeed, what does N-C have to say about Burma/Myanmar? Somalia & Rwanda? Tibet, Afghanistan, Mongolia, China, North Korea? The post-war planning of Iraq? In each case nothing substantial, because NC ideology is indifferent to all these. No, the real passions of the NC’s have sufficient infamy that I need not repeat them here.

Of course, it’s proponents well-know how vile their passions are and repulsive to all right-minded people. Which is why they paint that way, in all those pretty words.

70

I’m not 100% sure what you mean. Perhaps you do need to repeat them here.

And yes, I’ve read your other post in this thread.

71

Doesn’t living in any sort of social organization limit our options? As individuals in the US, we don’t have absolute freedom. Why should any nation have absolute freedom to exercise any option in its dealings with others? I see no problem with our options being limited to those that are absolutely necessary, especially when our leaders are a rogue group.

The matter of self-defense vs aggresive war is a case in point. As an analogy, if your neighbor and you have an argument and he buys and axe then starts muttering about how he’ll deal with you, you can’t burst into his house and kill him reemptively. In fact you can’t kill him at all until the danger to you becomes imminent.

In Iraq we burst into someone else’s house based on half-truth and the arousal of unreasonable public fears by our political leadership. There was little danger from Iraq and certainly not immediate threat that required a war to assuage.

72

So what?

73

So what?

Fighting Communism was never the UN’s purpose anyway.

74

Vanity Fair does, indeed, regularly print articles guaranteed to cause distress among the rightward-leaning types. But it’s a slick publication with high-end advertisers. Other articles include gossip about the rich & famous, profiles of movie stars & fashion news. It’s hardly the fiery Marxist propanda organ depicted by some.

75

Be fair! He never said that! (Did he?)

76

Somalia:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/012/396gitqe.asp

As for Rwanda a lot of leading neocons supported US intervention to stop the genocide, but I can’t find any articles for you now. Neocons are also pretty much united in the desire to stop the genocide in Sudan, even by unilateral invasion if it should become neccesary.

Try this, from before 9/11:

[quote]
Since America’s counterterrorist forces cannot unilaterally reach inside Afghanistan, we have only one option. Play realpolitik the old-fashioned way.

Taliban leaders truly fear only one thing: the possibility that Afghanistan’s many tribes will put aside their differences and unite to topple them from power. They’ve launched numerous offensives against Ahmed Shah Massoud, the strongest of the anti-Soviet Afghan commanders. His troops are the only ones still seriously contesting Taliban rule. As long as Mr. Massoud survives, he is a threat. . .

It is too late to save Bamiyan’s treasures, but it is not too late for the United States to play hardball. The Bush administration could give a small slice of the multibillion-dollar counterterrorist budget to Mr. Massoud. That might bring Mullah Omar down to earth. He and his supporters, particularly the Pakistanis, might reconsider the unthinkable – shutting down Mr. bin Laden’s operations – if the alternative were the dissipation, and perhaps the destruction, of Taliban rule.

[quote]

You’ve got me. I can’t find one statement or article by any prominent neoconservative or neoconservative organization about Mongolia.

Way too much to even list

Try this for one:

77

Of course not. I’m a conservative by philosophy and a supporter of both Bush and a Republican controlled congress. I’m not pleased with the war the war has been handled, and I’m not pleased with the way my team seems to have a tendency to blow it once they finally get into power, ala 1984 and now. I have posted many times in support of Bush and I would still prefer him to any Democrat I’m aware of in terms of the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and in terms of government overall. But I haven’t said Bush is doing a "heckuva job’–and especially not recently, as rjung’s post suggests.

Fairness, accuracy, and integrity is not something to expect from an rjung post.

78

Okay, purest hijack here, but my curiosity got the better of me.

A partisan Democrat neo-con :p?

Speaking as someone who is a amorphous hybrid of realist and internationalist in terms of foreign policy ( based on your list ), but is a registered independent and doesn’t really identify with the Democratic Party ( though admittedly I tend to vote for them most of the time, though not 100% ), this just tickles the hell out of me :D.

I have to assume it represents in your case an academic attachement to neoconservatism, but your foreign policy leanings are overshadowed by domestic concerns and the Republicans just don’t fit the bill for you. Close?

  • Tamerlane
79

I’m aware of that, Bridget. I read the magazine regularly despite certain aspects of its editorial content. I was responding to BrainGlutton’s assertion that Vanity Fair was no more political than Cosmopolitan or GQ.

Vanity Fair is a magazine with a decided leftward slant, both in the articles it publishes and in its editorial page written by Graydon Carter. Now its editors have shown themselves to be dishonest–both in their dealings with people from the other side and in portraying accurately what they’ve said–in an effort to have an effect (however miniscule it may be) on the outcome of the upcoming election.

I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s a leftist propaganda organ, but its certainly shown itself to be willing to abandon honesty and journalistic integrity in order to promote its own political agenda.

80

:slight_smile: Yeah, pretty much. I agree with most of the Democratic positions more than most of the Republican ones And also, I come from a pretty Democratic background, where voting for Republicans, especially conservative Republicans Just Wasn’t Done (Maybe a Jacob Javitz might be acceptable).

And, you know, neoconservativism started as a movement in the Democratic party, after all. Pat Moynahan and Scoop Jackson, the grandfathers of the movement, were both Democrats. So, I guess I’m just following in their footsteps.