Ask the Neo-Con

Great Debates
101

Straw man, obviously. I expected better.

Sometimes. But I recognize that ultimately I listen to the cops because they represent the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence, and yet I neither hate them nor the government.

Sorry, this is a false dilemma. The whole point of TR’s quote is that when you have a big stick, you can speak softly and people will listen; if you have no stick, or if no one believes you have the stones to use it, why should they listen to you? Because you’re a nice guy?

It is. But if you think it’s always possible. you’re dreaming. Let’s try it out on a real world situation:

I give you the Sudan within the last 48 hours: after weeks of discussion, the UN summoned all its moral authority up to … issue a vague resolution with no specified consequences, which the Sudan wasted no time in announcing they would ignore (although I suppose as the head of the UN’s human rights commission, they know best). Please explain to me how exactly “Ideals and Reason” are going to persuade a government that has decided that it is in their interest to exterminate a minority. Please, be specific.

Let’s role play and I’ll be the Sudanese government. You can be Kofi Annan or Bush or Kerry or whomever.

Here’s how I’d start: “Screw you. We are a sovereign nation and will handle our internal affairs how we like. We are eliminating criminal elements and terrorists. If you try to stop us, our troops will defend our borders.”

Your turn.

102

Agreed. They have legitimate authority, empowered by the government, which governs with the consent of the governed. Without an international mandate, a better analogy to the neo-con philosophy would be organized crime thugs. You may ultimately listen to them (obey them), and you would do so out of fear for your life. It hardly gives them any legitimacy.

Agreed. I’m not suggesting that we put the stick down, just that we don’t wield it without legitimate authority to do so.

I do think it always possible. I recognize that it isn’t always successful or efficient. We don’t have to win every battle, we just have to win the war.

Somewhat akin to our “innocent until proven guilty”, and placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, where we accept that many guilty may go free, so as to minimize the number of innocent who are convicted.

The crisis in Dafur is an excellent case study - I agree. While I would like to see the UN act more resolutely toward the Sudan situation, that doesn’t appear to be likely (or timely). So I would suggest Bush begin (actually, to have begun, about a month ago), rallying the political support here in the states and abroad to intervene militarily. I have no problem with using US force overseas to quell situations like Dafur - the critical element is multi-lateral international support (UN or not) in those efforts.

If he/we can’t rally the political will to intervene, we have no business being there.

103

But these two paragraphs are contradictory. No one has sugested coercing any other state into adopting any particular cultural behavior. The proposals simply amount to suggesting that the US should lead the effort to prevent others from doing this. What I mean is that America is not imposing any sort of particular institutions on Iraq or Afghanistan. More importantly, we are not even there because of any cultural characteristic of either country.

I don’t understand this at all. Are you saying that if we could not have persuaded the Taliban to surender Bin Laden that we should not have invaded either? I think what you are trying to say is that unilateral actions cause tension in our relationship with countries other than those against who we take action. That is, you are not sugesting we need permision from an agressor to invade, but that we need permission from the rest of the world. Am I understanding you?

Partly. But the justification for taking the responsibility IMHO has more to do with the fact that it is in the self interest of the United States to see to it that the world is a peaceful place. There were those who argued that our participation in WWI and WWII were not adviseable. There were those who opposed our participation in the cold war as well. The challenge for the next century is nothing less than expanding the reach of globalization to the entire world. There are those who feel we should not attempt this either. IMO all three ideas are equally incorrect.

I think I need to stress something again. Integrating those parts of thw world which are not now part of the world economy will require military action. Multilateral action as much as possible, but unilateral action in some cases. However, military action is not the only sorts of things which need to be done, nor is it, perhaps, the most important. We are talking about military action in this thread, but I feel I should stress that American military action is neither sufficient nor even the most important activity needed to achieve global integration.

104

Ok, I was going to complain that you were limiting the word legitimate to mean UN Security council agreement. But the second paragraph here seems to have covered my objection.

Let me ask you then, what form are you suggesting “multi-lateral international support” should take? If the sorts of coalitions we built in Afghanistan and or Iraq do not qualify, then what does?

105

Ah, but what makes an authority “legitimate?” I would argue that it’s primarily the consent of the governed; and there is no supranational organization that has that mandate. In cases where there is no freely-chosen leadership … well, I wouldn’t necessarily say they are illegitimate, but their claim to legitimacy is of a different and lower order.

How much “international support” is needed? Is five allies enough? Ten? Thirty-two? Do big nations count for more than little ones, developed more than undeveloped? Does the amount of support needed change with the size of the mission? (i.e. maybe US intervention in Grenada only needed other Caribbean nations’ support, Kosovo needed all of NATO, Iraq needed the whole UNSC?) Do you apply a sincerity test: so-and-so gave support, but they get US aid so they don’t count? What if the nations opposing it are doing so because of their own vested interests? Does the severity of the crisis factor in?

I’m not just being sarcastic here; I’m all for “international support” as a general principle, and if we’re talking specifics here I think Bush did a piss-poor job on it in Iraq. But if you’re going to make it the determining criteria, it seems to me we’d better have a clear idea what it means.

You seem to regard the creation of a supranational government as an important goal in its own right; indeed THE goal, the “war” that must be won, even if it means losing yet more Darfurs and Rwandas. I don’t, but I’ll give you credit for honesty and philosophical consistiency. Unfortunately, I think the outcome of your proposed inaction would not be any sort of chastened world, but only to “the peace of the dead.”

Yes the barbarians butcher innocents, yes China invades Taiwan and shoots demonstrators in the street … but better all that happen than someone stop it without an adequate quorum of European nations approving? Sorry, I don’t see it.

I’ve no objection to a world government per se, it it ruled fairly, with the consent of the governed and with respect to human rights. But I don’t think such a government will be emerging anytime soon, if ever, for the simple reason that most people – and certainly most powerful people – don’t want to surrender national soveriegnty. In the meantime the most heinious regimes will be happy to use international institutions to handcuff the rest of the world while doing whatever they themselves want.

106

Yes. Sorry I was not clear. I’m pretty much in agreement with what you have written.

Afghanistan certainly qualifies, in my book, while Iraq did not. Afghanistan, however, was in direct response to an attack on the US, and represented a real ongoing threat. I don’t see it as a result of any neo-con philosophy, I think everyone except isolationists and pacifists supported that intervention. Iraq, on the other hand, was quite different.

I was under the distinct impression that this is exactly what was central to the neo-con philosophy of foriegn policy. Seems that I got that impression from PNAC.

107

Agreed, but I think “different and lower order” may be overstating the case, at least in terms of Iraq.

Your point is well taken - there is no objective basis to make such a judgement in any definitive manner. Like Justice Stewart on obscenity, I can’t offer much more than, “I know it when I see it.”

I can’t (or see no need to try to) refute the rest of your post - I generally agree. But someone needs to correct me if I’m mistaken that the neo-con philosophy shows no interest in “international support”. It certainly doesn’t contemplate any supranational government, but certainly does contemplate US global dominance. See what PNAC has to say about “American internationalism” (sic).

108

Why? What threshold of support was reached for one and not the other. You may want to check the list of nations who sent troops to one but not the other.

Cite?

109

Yes, but in a court a judge is authorized to make those calls. By what criteria did Afghanistan have enough support but Iraq not enough? Are they supposed to call you personally?

Again, I’m not really a neocon, but I’m think what they’d say is that such support is good and desirable and to be sought. But the point is that such support is not determinative: that is, you get what support you can how you can and then do what you think you gotta do and don’t apologize.

110

Just as an example, here is the take of a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, describing the neo-con influence on our country’s National Security Strategy. You be the judge.

Afghanistan was in direct response to an attack. Iraq didn’t represent an imminent threat, and didn’t even have international support from our major allies (well, up til …). Anything else is another debate.

As to this debate, neo-con policy wasn’t the motivator for Afghanistan as it was for Iraq.

I understand that you share this view with neo-cons. We will have to agree to disagree.

111

Don’t you think that the size of the task and the ability of the actors should have a place in this calculus of policy ventures?
It’s obvious (and it’s been obvious) that we’d need significant international suport to pull off the Iraq gig. It is and was a necessary ingredient for success.
Shouldn’t the feasibility and relative costs (relative to inaction, alternate actions, and, of course, benefits) of elective, military, foreign policy ventures be a significant factor when determining the course of a nation?

112

Actually, I’d prefer to hear them describe it themselves …

Should have clarified: in terms of “international support” how much difference was there? Most of NATO sent troops to Iraq, and IIRC China and Russia were not supportive of Afghanistan. And do you support deposing a government that won’t give up a fugitive? The Taliban themselves probably had no connection to or knowledge of 9/11.

Well, yes, obviously. No one’s suggesting you ignore practical realities; that’s why North Korea, frex, is off the table. However noble the goal might be, they are too well armed and South Korea is too much at risk. The neocons are idealistic, but not stupid.

As far as what *I * think, I have no problem asserting the moral superiority of the west to people like Mugabe and Hussein, I have no problem saying that recognizing the “national soverignty” of dictators is a sham (though one we sometimes have to put up with), and I have no problem saying that the UN is at best ineffectual, and at worst a hindrance to the increase of human freedom. I also agree with them that the idea that nations should not pursue their self-interest is BS; all nations do, and the ones who support and rely on international institutions do so because it’s in their interest to do so, not because they have some airy wish to be part of the brotherhood of man.

In that context, like the neocons, I find the assertion that the US has some sort of moral or legal obligation (as opposed to a practical one) to defer its interests (including the spread of democracy) to those of other nations to be risable. And even where we do work with allies, while “international support” is useful for diplomatic cover and money, when you start running these things by committee and bringing 18 chefs into the kitchen, I think you increase, rather than decrease the chance of the chance of failure.

Where I differ from them is in execution: simply, while I admire the neocon’s Wilsonian idealism, I have a much higher regard for the Law of Unintended Consequence, and I think we have to be careful not to underestimate the chance we’ll fuck things up even worse.

113

OK, fine. Here is their website. Specifically, read Rebuilding America’s Defenses (pdf), and then compare that to our National Security Strategy. And then show me where Jay Bookman’s analysis is somehow off base.

Simply put, we don’t need international support to defend ourselves. And I’m not aware of any NATO nation opposing our action in Afghanistan. I also don’t recall us asking for other nations to send troops (initially). But this line of discussion has nothing to do with neo-cons, and can be debated in any number of other threads here.

Hmmm. Seems our current administration has a done a flip flop on this one. Two years ago, the US drafted a UN resolution to authorize force to depose Saddam Hussien. They were unable to obtain carte blanche approval. So, instead of ignoring the “ineffectual” UN, the US decided to work with the international community and gain consensus. In a dramatic oversimplification, they redrafted the resolution to read, “based on a long track record of trouble-making, we are giving you, Saddam, one more chance to come clean, and if you fuck up, we just may come kick your ass”. The resolution passed the UNSC unanimously, and became UNSC Resolution 1441. For six months, we tried our damnedest to find where Saddam had fucked up - without success. So, the US (with the UK), basically said, “forget what we said before, we’re just going to kick your ass anyway.” And we did.

The point is - while the UN is far from perfect, it was the best we had. And if the UN is ineffectual, we can accept a significant amount of the blame.

Don’t twist this into thinking that I believe we need to the UN’s support or approval to defend our nation - we don’t. But if we are to perform international “constabulatory” duties - as the neo-cons propose - we need to have some sort of legitimate basis to do so. Otherwise, we are nothing more than vigilantes, dispensing justice by acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury; without any basis in the rule of law, and without any means of oversight or path of appeal. It is not only an exceptionally dangerous philosophy, I believe it is downright un-American.

Damn right. And a major benefit of an international mandate is to help spread the risk when we do fuck things up. As we have, and as we will continue to do so (but with the bestest of intentions).

114

Neoconism has nothing to do with unilateralism. It’s not a matter of politics but of necessity: no other country has anywhere near the military strength of America. The rest of the world has been riding on the back of America’s military strength, which has largely kept the peace since WW2. In the 19th century it was Britain which shouldered the burden of keeping the peace; for the past 60 years, it’s been America.

Britain is the leading European military power and our navy can take on one American battlegroup.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Bush asked the rest of the world for help.

115

AZCowboy I think you are getting caught up in misreading the principle of American dominance across the world. This phrase does not mean the same thing as German world dominance did several decades ago. It does not even mean the same thing as Brittish world dominance did before that. Although, I’ll admit this comes closer.

The point is that America does not want to be the dominant military power in order to enforce an economic dominance. It wants to be the dominant military power in order to enforce a global free market where whoever builds the best moustrap can be the dominant economic force.

When Mr. Bookman says:

he is not wrong in the particular facts he is portraying. He is trying to convey a characterization of those facts, however, which is incorrect. He is suggesting that America wants to expand our economic influence by force. This is patently ridiculous. I agree that there are dangers in expanding the role of the US military to include some sort of global cop function. I understand that misunderstandings can and will occur. But you are going to have to point to the part of the neocon documents you linked to which indicate that the neocons want to reshape the world in any way other than by making it more peaceful. I could not find the term muslim, islam, terorrist, or even christian in that document. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place.

Let me put it another way. Before 9/11 America had security agreements and partnerships all around the world. These agreements were largely concentrated within “western” or “developed” nations. This set of security agreements was put in place in order to fight the cold war. Specifically to prevent the cold war from becoming WWIII. Most of the security mechainsims of the UN are similarly designed to prevent small conflicts from erupting into WWIII. When the cold war ended, the world sort of drifted through the nineties hoping that this arangement would either lessen in prominence, or at least be sufficient to encourage the growth of world peace.

9/11 demonstrated very clearly that it could do neither. The exact same sorts of security arrangements America developed with Germany, Japan, Europe, India, China, and much of Asia must be expanded to include the middle east, South America, and eventually Africa. Such arrangements no longer have a large superpower to focus on, but that is a good thing. We don’t have to support nasty regimes simply because they are opposed (or say so) to this other super power. We can litterally engage in promoting world peace for the whole world.

From what I can tell* the neocons simply want to support this effort. I suppose some of them may want to do so to encourage the expansion of christianity, federal governmental principles, or even specific American comercial opportunities. But from what I can tell** they simply want to use America’s place as the lone super power as a force for world peace.

Again, I agree entirely that international support is critical in this effort. It is critical because the military portion of any action we take is going to turn out to be the smallest portion. Building the economies of the nations which are not now part of the world economy to a point at which they can participate on their own will require far more effort from America as well as the rest of the developed world. This part of the task cannot be accomplished unilaterally.

What I am trying to say is that the principle of pre emtive war as laid out by President Bush could be characterized as a bid for world domination by America (as Mr. Bookman does). But such a characterization misses much of the context within which the policy was put forth.

*I should confess that I do not identify myself as a neocon. I have recently begun to sympathize with some of their positions, though.

**I should also admit that I have not read very much neocon literature. If I have missed something I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

116

Well, sure. He also made it very clear that we didn’t need it. And he sure didn’t expend all that much effort trying to gain it.

I sure hope so. But your reading of the situation requires alot of generous interpretation and blind faith, from my perspective.

And I’ve already acknowledged that I believe their goals are noble and just.

Not just peaceful, but “American Peace” - Pax Americana. It won’t take long to find that phrase within their documents. I would hardly expect them to claim death and destruction as their ultimate goal. I just don’t think their method has any better chance of delivering world peace (ironic that the phrase “world peace” is such a cliche and synonomous with a pipe dream). As to the global cop function and the focus on American interests, perhaps you missed this gem right up front in their document:

[Emphasis added]

Just to make sure you are clear on the timing, this neo-con philosophy was developed well before 9-11, and this document was released a year in advance. It wasn’t discussing islamic terrorism or the response to it. It did, however, call out the triumvirate of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (which, after 9-11, became the “Axis of Evil”).

… through the coercive use of military power. Reminds me of Reagan’s nickname for ICBMs. You may buy into this crock of hooey, but don’t expect me to take it at face value.

I believe you are either gullible or naive to conclude “world peace” when they say “American peace to the world”, and imply that you accomplish this through US military superpower buildups. Here are their words, “If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence.” In fact, just for fun, go their document, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, and count the number of occurences of “world peace” and “American peace”. Never mind, let me save you the trouble:

American Peace: 14
World Peace: 0

Draw your own conclusions.

Which is apparently where you depart from the neo-con philosophy, which barely pays lip service to such an ideal. Sure the neo-cons are willing to accept international support where it is offered unconditionally, they certainly make no concessions to letting others have input to how best to achieve these overarching objectives. There is no discussion of consensus building, of giving our allies a voice. Might makes right, seems to be an appropriate motto for their philosophy.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you here. I just can’t find anything like this in the neo-con philosophy.

What context? It certainly wasn’t 9-11. What is pretty clear to me is that Bush didn’t buy into this crap until after 9-11. By appointing his trusted confidante, Condelezza Rice - a cold war relic (I mean expert) - he pretty clearly demonstrated that he did not understand the challenges this country was to be faced with regarding islamic terrorism. He further marginalized those that tried to get him to see the light, like Richard Clarke.

Clearly, Cheney and the neo-cons had influenced his thinking before the election, but only enough to muddle it up. Try to understand how his comments in the second debate with Al Gore made much sense. When the question of what to do in the middle east was brought up, here was his response:

But even more in that debate seems surreal. How about this:

[Emphasis added]

My conclusion, in this context, is that the neo-cons had some influence on Bush’s thinking pre-9/11, but not much. After 9/11, he bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Evidence of this can be found in the “Axis of Evil” and other comments in the 2002 State of the Union address.

So, pervert, I repeat my question from above - what context do you refer to?

And I also resubmit my question (from my first post in this thread, number 95) for anyone who self-identifies as a neo-con: What would be a neo-con foreign policy perspective with respect to Saudi Arabia? Should the US use force, even unilaterally, to bring freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and basic human rights to Saudi Arabia? How is support for the Royal Family tolerated by neo-cons?

117

As Pervert points out, it’s not in the words but the music.

A: The dogs need to be housebroken. If gentler means fail, you must not be afraid to smack them on the nose with a newspaper.

B: A supports the use of violence against animals if they do not act in a proscribed manner.
B is correct on the facts, but hearing it from his A’s mouth gives a different story.

The inescapable fact is that in many regards there already is “US Global dominance.” That wasn’t what we set out for in 1776, and it’s not what TR wanted when he made us a world power. Frankly, I wish we weren’t. But we spread westward, then accepted a lot of immigrants, geared up for WWII, then faced the cold world … and whammo here we are.

We are the heart of the world economy, our pop culture is embraced all over the world, living here is the dream of untold millions, our military is miles more powerful than the rest of the world, we are the epicenter of the scientific revolution. I don’t think any of those things makes the US morally better or qualtitatively superior to anyone else. It certainly doesn’t mean Americans deserve more or have some sort of inherent rights that others don’t.

And Americans aren’t going to just give that power; we’re not going to sink all our aircraft carriers or totally give up our standard of living just to “be fair.” To look at the the quotes you put in boldface: do you really think the US can or should or realistically will seek an “international security environment” that is NOT “conducive to American interests and ideals?” (and please note the word “preserve;” they’re saying it already exists). Are you seriously suggesting that deterring “the rise of a new greatpower competitor” is some sort of evil goal (especially if that competitor is China)? Philosophically, I suppose one can argue for the Cold War model, with two nations competing for supremacy, or the multipolar era of Great Powers that gave us Napolean and WWI as superior, but I don’t care to. Not that I think Pax Americana is the best of all possible worlds; but it’s a little naive to expect the US to intentionally slow down and let someone else catch up.

As to the phrase “American Peace,” if you look at the context, they’re not talking about peace exclusively for the US (and war for everyone else) they’re talking about where peace comes from. “World peace” begs the question of how we get there: is it enforced by a Global Government, by a balance of power, by universal cannabis distribution, how? They’re saying that peace and freedom all over the world is in the US’ best interest. (FTR, I’m not sure I agree. If we were really acting strictly in our own interest, we might do better to subtly try to play the rest of the world against each other. Historically, America has benefited from war and conflict in other parts of the world.)

The question is not what sort of world can we dream up – there are to my knowledge few neocon novelists – but given given the hard reality of the world’s status quo, where do we go? What do we do with our power? The tradionally conservative answer was and remains “not much” We use it to advance our own interests (narrowly defined), nothing more. The traditional liberal answer, from Wilson to FDR to Kennedy was to use all of it, including the military to advance and defend peace, democracy and human rights around the world, both becuase it’s morally right, and, admittedly, because it’s in our interest. Cf. JFK’s inagural address.

This is the traditionally liberal origin of the neocons. Where they have come to differ with the current left is that many liberals today embrace transnationalism: that is they accept supranational organizations such as the UN or even NGOs like Amnesty International as possessed of more moral and/or legal authority than national government, and hence nations must defer to them. This the neocons reject (rightly IMO) on the basis that those groups are not disinterested or impartial, but instead represent specific interested groups and/or nations with their own goals and ambitions. These are not inherently bad; in many cases they may indeed coincide with US interests. But neither do they inherently deserve deference.

The critical distinction that must be made is between moral, legal and practical considerations. No one, including the neocons, rejects the idea that it is often practical and useful to cooperate with other nations. But that is a very different thing from saying as many do that the US’s actions in Iraq (frex) were *illegal * and/or immoral without UN or NATO sanction.

In what sense were we defending ourselves? The Taliban did not and could not attack us. A group acting outside of their knowledge but within their borders did. If your answer is that governments are responsible for what happens within their borders and must be compelled to accept their sovereign responsibilities, congratulations on agreeing with the neocons.

Now we’re getting somewhere: you want NATO approval. Does it need to be all of NATO, or just a majority? A certain percentage? How do we handle it if another NATO member* is* the problem; say if Turkey starts exterminating Kurds, or they support a renewal of hostilities in Cyprus?

So that makes it better? If we don’t ask it’s OK, but if we ask and get turned down we can’t go? That leads to a rather obvious conclusion, doesn’t it?

On the contrary, it has everything to do with it; because I think that if we get down to brass tacks about what actual policies would look like in the real world (as opposed to vague formulations like “international support”), we will either find out on where you actually differ from them, or if in fact you may not share many of the same ideas.

Not at all; you are misreading pragmatism. For *practical * reasons, UN support was desirable: it would have made things easier politically for Bush and especially Blair, and it would have brought on board several nations who (or say they do, and for their own interests) recognize the UN as a moral or legal authority. When they didn’t get it, the US went ahead and did what they were going to do anyway.

As to the debate quote you offered, that is the “flip flop” if any. Bush ran as a neo-isolationist conservative on foreign policy. After 9/11 he decided that model was no longer tenable. Many people have observed it, and the admin itself has admitted it’s a new direction. There is an inconsitiency there, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to change one’s mind in the wake of an event like that.

I’ll buy that to a certain extent. We helped set it up, and are responsible for the basic structural problems it has. We also have (for our own purposes) at times used and contibuted to the myth that it has some sort of legal controlling authority over nations. Of course, most of the times where the UN has been effective, it’s been because it was acting in agreement or cooperation with the US.

Than provide one. I don’t say that smugly, I mean it. As I said, we’re sitting on the island and one kid’s bigger than all the rest. What do you propose?

118

Missed this:

I’m 99% sure they’d say SA is, for now, a necessary evil (as is Pakistan) and they’d be happy to see the Sauds out (or massively reformed) as soon as practicable.

One of the long-term advantages of Iraq is that once they are at full oil production, it will loosen the grip the Saudis currently have on our short and curlies.

Jeez I’m longwinded.

119

I was pretty much with you right up until this. Since you seem to be willing to represent the neo-con philosophy, why don’t you take a crack at my unanswered question?

Horseshit. You introduced NATO to contrast with Iraq. The point that you seem to be missing is that there was a general consensus of support, domestically and internationally, with our action in Afghanistan. The same cannot be said for Iraq.

Simply that the kid act with benevolence. Use his power to keep the peace, at the direction of the general consensus. Don’t smuggly suggest that you don’t care what others think, that you know what is best for everyone else, and that the beatings will continue til the morale improves.

[On preview]

And what would they like to see replace the Royal Family? A representative democracy?

120

Well, I’m not so sure. I understand the temptation to be skeptical. I am trying to be in my own way as well. I tend to favor in my heart the libertarian foriegn policy proposals. I simply see them as inconsistant with the world we live in.

Ok, but how do you square this acknowledgment with this:

I appreciate your searching for World Peace and American Peace in the documents you cited. But could you define the difference? Are you suggesting that American interests are somehow at odds with world peace? That the phrase American Peace is somehow fundementally different from the goals you agree are noble.

Let me be clear on this. I understand the hesitancy and distrust that much of the world has with the idea of American unilateral military action. But the context I was speaking of was the context of the current world security situatiion. Specifically, the doctrine of unilateral action does not mean that America will be attacking France or that we will be gearing up to wage war against China. Unless I am much mistaken, it means simply that very bad actors in parts of the world which are notoriously disconected from the rest of the world can no longer look to the cold war for protection against American military intervention. It does not mean that America will suddenly take on all of the problems of the world either. It means quite simply that we are more willing now to take on some of them. And most especially the problems which relate to security.

You have to read the documents you cited in a slightly different light than you are, I think. They are refering to military options. They are refering to the good that can be achieved through the availability of military options. I don’t think they are saying anything like might makes right. Let me bring out the quote you already mentioned.

Note that they did not say core mission for all of American foriegn policy. They are simply saying that in order to expand on the current peaceful situation “Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.” Again, I’m not sure which American interests you see as opposed to those of the rest of the world.

I agree that Bush did not give much credence to the principls we are talking about before 9-11. I did not either, frankly. I also agree that many others did. However, 9-11 changed his mind. You characterize this as “bought into it hook, line, and sinker”. I’m not sure that is true. The fact of the matter is that we (the whole world) learned that we cannot simply wall off those parts of the world which do not choose or are not able to participate in the world community. We must find a way to bring them all along with us into the 22nd century. For the vast majority of them this will simply mean providing aid and a little comfort. But this will also mean providing security from others. And this security will take the form of American military actions.

As it turns out we have been fulfilling this role for some time now. America was involved in many more military adventures in the nineties than the 80s by about 2 to 1. I voted for Bush the first time because he said he would end this sort of policy. My thinking was fundemntally flawed on that issue. I may vote for him this time in part because I am afraid that Kerry will take us back to that cold war mentality wherein we seek UN approval for every military action we take. I am not very concerned that America is about to launch several pre emptive strikes on nations with the goal of christianizing them, or democratizing them, or even of freeing them.

America still sees most of our military activity as limited to legitimate security scenarios. I really don’t see anything in the neocon literature you’ve cited that contradicts this. Perhaps I am the one reading it with off color glasses. I’m more than willing to be proven wrong on this count. All you would have to do was demonstrate that American peace was in some way fundemntally opposed or at odds with world peace.

Lastly, I appreciate very much your patience with me on this issue. I am somewhat newly converted to the idea that America should act as a global cop. I still find it hard to say that. :wink: