But what exactly are these “classic liberal aspirations”? I assume you don’t mean “classical liberal” in the sense of “libertarian” – the necons are anything but libertarians.
Yes, of course, indeed it does . . . that’s why Bush dispatched all those troops to stop the genocide in Sudan . . . oh, wait, that was Clinton and Kosovo!
Here’s something some of you might find interesting. Here’s Charles Krauthammer’s speech at the 2004 American Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner, where he lays out what he sees as the four major philosophies of American foreign policy.
But you’re making the mistake of believing that Bush is a neocon, and that the Bush administration foreign policy is a neocon foreign policy, when it plainly is not. Most neocons would probably support intervention in Sudan, even though with Bush in office and the Iraq war still bubbling it isn’t going to happen. Most neocons supported intervention in Iraq, that doesn’t mean they must therefore approve of the handling of the war, or the way the war was sold.
Let’s say that you opposed the war in Iraq for valid justifiable reasons. That doesn’t mean that other people, even though they were arguing for the same policy, were arguing for unjustifiable reasons. Likewise, just because there are factions that supported the war in Iraq for unjustifiable reasons doesn’t mean that other people couldn’t have supported the war for justifiable reasons.
In my opinion intervention in the Sudan would be morally justified…but we don’t have the military and political resources to do so at the current time. Does that make me a supporter of intervention or an opponent? What obligation do we have to use military force to end humanitarian disasters? Just because an intervention would be moral doesn’t make it wise. I would be morally justified in hopping a plane to Darfur and trying to put an end to the genocide there single-handedly with nothing but a song in my heart and smile on my face. Except it wouldn’t work. For an intervention to be wise must not only be morally justified, it has to have a good chance of working, and it has to have the assent of the people who are being asked to pay for it. First we have to decide it should be done, then we have to decide if it is possible to do, then we have to convince the American people that they should support the intervention. If we can’t do that then the intervention can’t happen.
So do you support sending troops to Sudan, or not? Why? And why are you insinuating that since the Bush administration hasn’t sent troops to Sudan it therefore follows that neocon foreign policy is bankrupt?
So, how would a true neocon administration have handled Iraq differently?
We would, if we had not squandered those resources on Iraq.
Yes, because:
-
Thousands are being murdered. (Same reason we should have intervened in Rwanda.)
-
We could intervene effectively with a definite exit strategy: Secure the independence of the southern half of the country, and make it clear any attempt by the North to retake it will not be tolerated. We could then maintain that status quo with only a temporary token troop presence.
-
Intervention in Sudan would not detract from our international credibility because there is no obvious way such an intervention would benefit any U.S. business interests.
Insofar as the Bush Admin’s policy is neocon foreign policy (which you deny, of course), it is clear that the decision to intervene in Iraq (where there are chances for American corporations to make millions off juicy, no-bid sweetheart contracts) and not in Sudan (where there is nothing to attract us but a just cause) shows what really is motivating it.
Thanks for your replies furt & Lemur. Although I was asking why the neo-cons are supportive of Israel so much, to the extent of it being a principal reason for the Iraq invasion.
Cpt A’s waffle about self-evident truths notwithstanding, the answer seems to be “because they’re Jewish.”
Or conversely, it could simply mean that the cupboard is currently bare in the US and perhaps some of those Europeans you dote on, who AREN’T strapped militarily atm (having mostly, and perhaps wisely, stayed out of Iraq), should get off their lazy asses and do something for a change. I don’t see how the fact that we invaded Iraq but not Sudan shows “that neocon foreign policy is bankrupt” or anything else.
Its your INTERPRETATION of events (in the worst possible light I might add) that shows that, nothing more. To me, the REAL hypocrites are the Europeans (governments) who fed off the Iraq ‘food for oil’ sanctions then put their hands in their pockets and mouthed piously about staying out of Iraq on ‘moral’ grounds, then kept their collective heads up their ass about the Sudan. What ‘moral’ grounds are keeping them from intervening, since America is so morally bankrupt?? Body count not high enough yet? Or would it be too hard to bestir themselves in any kind of meaningful way?
BTW, for your UK dopers, I fully realize you are hip deep in the shit in Iraq. However, France (who has pretentions of being a world power and leader of the EU), Germany and most of the rest certainly aren’t.
The fact that the US had put its dick in a blender in Iraq in no way excuses the Europeans who sat it out on the fence and refused any assistance afterward (perhaps rightfully, perhaps not) in Iraq from doing anything meaningful in the Sudan. Rightly or wrongly, America DID invade Iraq, and we ARE strapped there. We don’t have it to send to the Sudan. From my perspective, if it were MY decision, I wouldn’t have messed with Iraq…and WOULD have intervened in the Sudan. But to sit there and say that, given we ARE in Iraq, and knowing the fight we are in and how strapped we are, to say the neocon vision is ‘bankrupt’ because we sent troops to Iraq but not to the Sudan…well BG, normally I respect your opinion even when I don’t agree with it, but this smacks of simply trying to score some points to me. Where is your criticism of the EU for NOT sending in THEIR troops to the Sudan, in light of the fact that (with a few exceptions) THEY aren’t currently fighting in Iraq??
-XT
I was responding directly to questions posed by Lemur866, in which he never mentioned Europe, so I did not consider it, and in fact the idea that the EU might intervene in Sudan had never occurred to me before. And my point was simply that in terms of what appear to be the purported moral and political values of the neocons, intervention in Sudan would be much more defensible than intervention in Iraq.
But since you raise the subject, it does raise some interesting possibilities:
Consider that NATO has never militarily intervened anywhere before Yugoslavia or since Yugoslavia, and never outside Europe. After 9/11 the other NATO members did offer to help out in Afghanistan on the principle that an attack on NATO member is an attack on all, but we spurned them – I still don’t understand why. But how would it look, now, if NATO minus the U.S. intervened in an African country?
There’s also the EU, as distinct from NATO. Now, I don’t think the EU, as had, has put together an effective military force independent of NATO. If it did, and deployed such a force outside Europe – that would raise the possibility of a united Europe emerging as a military power in its own right, independent of the U.S., and not necessarily coming down on the same side as the U.S. in every conflict. In other words, a world with more than one military superpower. Is that a development neocons would welcome? Or one they would want at all costs to avoid?
Oh, and I repeat my question to Lemur866: What exactly are these “classic liberal” values which motivate the neocons, and that the neocons decided they could better achieve in alliance with the post-Goldwater American conservative movement than in alliance with the left?
Is it your contention that European nations can ONLY intervene militarily if its a NATO operation??? Then how is it that several European nations intervened in Iraq with the US? NATO doesn’t need to intervene Africa, and in fact that would be inappropriate. However France, Germany, etc can do as they like, and if they REALLY have such lofty ideals they should ALREADY BE THERE…no?
France has its own military. So does Germany. Is it your contention they are incapable of doing anything militarily to help in the Sudan?? As to a “a united Europe emerging as a military power in its own right, independent of the U.S., and not necessarily coming down on the same side as the U.S. in every conflict” you totally lost me. Are you saying that the Europeans aren’t helping in the Sudan because they don’t want to…what? Become a threat to the US? Because they are unsure if the US would approve???
As to what the neocons want or don’t want…well, who gives a fuck, especially from the Europeans perspective?? Are you saying Europe is dancing to the strings of what the neocons want and THATS why they won’t intevene?? Thats nuts, BG.
If you are going to claim the US (or the neocons) policies are bankrupt based on our going into Iraq but not the Sudan, it behooves you to at least acknowledge the realities of the current situation. Now, if it was 3 or 4 years from now, with the neocons still in power, a quite and productive Iraq and the full withdrawl of our troops from the ME, and THEN we didn’t intervene in a Sudan situation, then you’d have a point. But not as things stand currently.
-XT
OK, but simply asserting that Bush foreign policy is neocon foreign policy doesn’t make it so. Do you really believe that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are neocons who run a neocon administration?
After all your threads on politics I would have thought you’d know better than that.
I confess I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Your logic seems to be:
- Neocon foreign policy, to be consistent, would favor military intervention in the Sudan on humanitarian grounds.
- However, the Bush administration does not favor military intervention in the Sudan.
- Therefore, if neocons claim to support military intervention in the Sudan on humanitarian grounds, they must be lying.
- Neocon foreign policy must therefore really be plundering foreign countries and using American tax dollars to enrich their corporate masters.
because:
- Bush foreign policy is neocon foreign policy, neocon foreign policy is Bush foreign policy.
Could you therefore provide some justification for 5? I know you are capable of differentiating the various policies of the Bush administration, Congress, the Republican party, members of the above who identify as neocons, and neoconservatism as a small intellectual movement.
I’m still struggling with your argument that the Bush Admin is not neocon in its foreign policy, since in the past two years there has been no end of coverage of the neocon “Vulcans” who are calling the foreign-policy shots.
So who is a neocon? Isn’t Paul Wolfowitz? And how can you classify Rumsfeld as not-quite-neocon? Isn’t Bill Kristol a neocon, and hasn’t his thinking had a lot of influence on Admin foreign policy? Isn’t the Project for a New American Century a neocon think-tank? And hasn’t it had a lot of influence on Admin foreign policy? I have never heard any of these persons or organizations express any serious principled criticism of the Administration’s actions.
Captain Amazing started this thread to explain what neoconservatism is and isn’t, but I must admit that after almost a whole page of posts, I’m still in the dark about that.
And I repeat two questions you still haven’t answered:
-
How would a genuine neoconservative administration have handled Iraq (and the whole post-9-11 situation) differently than the Bush Admin did?
-
What exactly are these “classic liberal values” that you say motivate the neocons?
Oh, and here’s one more:
- Can you point me to any instances where neocons have counseled courses of action that would be to the detriment of, or at least would not profit, American business interests?
One more time - there is currently little or no fighting going on in southern Sudan - the two sides currently have a shaky cease-fire that is more or less holding.
The current fighting is in western Sudan, it is of much more recent vintage than the struggle in the south to which it is almost entirely unrelated, it is Muslim on Muslim, and the area has not traditionally been a hotbed of secessionism. There is a secessionist militia operating the region now, but it dates back to all of 2003. The larger group fighting government-allied militias claims to want to preserve Sudan as a nation. In fact the Fur and other non-Arab peoples in that region largely backed the Sudanese government in its war against the south and at various times supplied up to half the manpower of the Sudanese army.
Your proposed exit strategy is a non-starter for this one.
- Tamerlane
I don’t know what their troop strengths are nowadays, but if I had to guess, I would be skeptical of the idea that any single European power, at the moment, would have the uncommitted military resources sufficient to intervene in Sudan with success. I could be wrong. At any rate, the Europeans generally (except possibly for the British) seem to have come around to thinking that in the future they will take military actions all together, or not at all, and are divided only on the question of whether to act independently of the Americans.
From “German Greens and Pax Europa,” by Paul Hockenos, an article published in The Nation, July 19/26, 2004, discussing Joschka Fischer, who is Germany’s foreign minister and also leader of its Green Party:
Now, I don’t know whether that 60,000-man Euro force is ready, as yet, to the point where it might be deployed in Sudan and stop the genocide. But the fact that all of the above is going on raises the question: To neoconservatives, is the above set of devekopments – Europe uniting, developing its own common military forces, and going its own way without following the lead of the U.S. – a good thing, or a bad thing?
I was confused about the situation. So, since you seem to know a lot about this – what exactly is the cause of the war in Western Darfur? What are they fighting over? Why the mass murders?
The area has traditionally been marginal and starting in 1980’s a series of intermittent droughts pushed the pastoralists ( a majority of whom, but not all, are Arab ) and settled agriculturalists ( mostly non-Arab, with the Fur being the largest group ), who traditionally have coexisted in the region for a millenia, into conflict over scarce resources. Arab pastoralists in search of fodder pushed onto agricultural land and muscled the agriculturalists. The government, dominated by Arabs, has clearly backed ( or at least not hindered ) the violent pastorlist militias that have done much of the damage. Some claim it is a deliberate policy at ethnically cleansing the area, but whether that is intention or not it is creating massive displacement. In 2003 the violence ratcheted up as the Fur and others began fighting back more determindly.
So it was at least initially an economic struggle for survival in lousy conditions, with probably a nice little bit of ethnic and cultural racism ( Arab vs. black African, nomad vs. farmer ) thrown in since then and perhaps now some wider political agendas cropping up ( secessionism, what have you ).
- Tamerlane
Sounds like an Old West range war, only bloodier . . .
So, in your opinion, could foreign military intervention (by the U.S., France, Germany, or anybody else) do any good here?
No they don’t. One of my screen names begins with “neo” (Neoxphile, nothing to do with neo-cons, for the record). People who do not know it means “new” keep asking if it’s something to do with “that guy from the Matrix.” So obviously a neo-conservative is one that goes overseas to fight wars but does all sorts of cool slow-mo moves to beat the forces in Iraq. And wears lots of leather. :dubious:
** Captain Amazing**, can you explain what puts the “neo” in neo-con? So far all I’ve been able to gleen is people think neo-cons used to be liberals when they were younger…until they made money. 
Is that at all accurate for your average neo-con? Are most neo-cons really former liberals?
Brainglutton
It’s kind of hard to say. Most of what a neocon administration would do would probably be similar. There would be some differences. A neocon administration probably would have put more forces on the ground in Iraq to begin with, rather than Rumsfeld’s attempt to win the war with only a few troops. The administration wouldn’t have worried so much about getting UN approval. I like to think it would have handled the reconstruction contracts question better.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free markets, democratic government, pluralism, etc.
China. Most American business interests want the US to have strong relations and full trade with China. It’s a major market and a cheap source of labor. The neoconservatives want the US to reject free trade with China and take a hard line against it, until China improves its human rights record, commits to nonproliferation, and recognizes Taiwan.
Right, you’ve caught us. It’s all about being Jewish. It has nothing to do with the fact that Israel’s a democratic state surrounded by dictatorships and authoritarian monarchies that want to destroy it, or because it has an independent judiciary, free elections, or, unlike its neighbors, has never had a coup d’etat or violent attempt to overthrow the government. It’s not even because, when the rest of the Middle East was condemning the US for being imperialist, nationalizing Western firms, and accepting money and weapons from the Soviets, the Israelis weren’t doing that.
Nope, it’s the Jewish thing. That’s the same reason neocons support other major Jewish centers, like Taiwan and South Korea, and we support Costa Rica because its president speaks such good Hebrew.