I propably should not pretend to speak for neocons, but I’d like to add that there is good evidence that the Sauds are in fact reforming their system. Isn’t there an election of a local mayor scheduled soon who is not going to be a member of the royal family? The point I’m trying to make is that I really do not see any evidence that the neocons are as trigger happy as their detractors would like to believe. There are many regimes which need to change but which we are not eager to attack militarily.
I’m assuming you mean the Saudi one?
You said:
I took that to mean that the opposition of some NATO nations was a barrier to “consensus.” I repeat that “consensus” is uselessly vague. Is it a majority of NATO, a majority of the UN, an explicit UNSC resolution, a minimum of 50 nations, most of the G-8 … what? What level of international support would be sufficient? And please don’t say “our traditional allies” unless you name them.
Define “benevolence.” Given that nearly everyone agrees Iraq will be better off without SH, it seems rather benevolent to me. But the relevant question here is who decides what is and is not benevolent?
Again … who or what is the “consensus?” And when you say “at the direction” … does this mean that the UNSC (or NATO, or whatever you want) orders US troops into combat? What, specifically, do you propose?
We’ve kept this quite civil. Let’s not change that.
It’s not about “knowing what is best for everyone else.” The question is about who is responsible for making the decisions.
The conservatives (neo and otherwise) have a clear answer: Nations act in their own interests. As a practical matter, they will may choose to function alongside or within larger bodies to advance their interests; certainly the smaller and less powerful nations will want to do this. But at the end of the day, soveriegn nations will do what they want to do. “Right” or fair or not, this is The Way It Is, and it’s not gonna change, and we’re going to have to work within that reality.
The transnationalists do not accept that and instead want national interests subverted to a other structures: the EU, the UN, or some as yet undefined body, or at the very least a binding international system of law. I find this wildly naive, but at least its a definable idea.
You seem to reject both of these, but you have not offered an alternative. You’re in the oval office and W is asking when he’ll know he’s achieved “consensus.” What do you tell him?
Yes, of some sort. Not an amenable dictator; one of the cheif breaks with Cold war thinking is the idea that all dictatorships by definition are contrary to the US’s interest. The only reason to allow them to remain is sheer pragmatism, and their removal is desired if and when feasible.
I think they can see the writing on the wall. It may have even been read to them, slowly and out loud.
But they have serious problems in the culture, really all stemming from nomadic tribesmen suddenly becoming the richest people in the world through no effort of their own. (It’s much like if you suddenly gave me 10 million dollars for no reason: in three years I’d have no freinds, weigh 400 pounds, smell bad and have a complete set of personality disorders. And be broke.) I’m inclined to think that at some point that place is going to collapse into civil war.
Okay, the neocons don’t want to get rid of govt. Do they want to keep everything else, but get rid of social programs, or reduce them to a shadow of their former selves?
So, what’s up with the neocons in the Bush Two adminstration? Why are they willing to cater to, and advance the agenda of, the religious right?
The reference you quoted was intended to be directed to the tall kid with the gun, which I hoped would have come through in the context. It was not directed at you.
Agreed. And I don’t have the answer, or certainly not just one. I’d be willing to accept the resolutions of the UNSC. Or the support of NATO. Or some other substitute that represents something approaching an international consensus. For reasons I have already expressed, I don’t support the idea that the US gets to decide for the world.
Yes, I meant the Saudi one, and I note that you did.
I’d agree that everything you wrote in that paragraph is a truism. But neo-cons address this with a further step: to use US military dominance to influence the world through fear and intimidation. I prefer using ideas and rational argument to arrive at a general consensus among free nations, and using the combined military to enforce the rule of law.
pervert, achieving world peace is a noble goal. Using US military preeminence to help secure our defense is rational. The neo-con plan fails where it wants to use “American peace” as the standard. The implication is that “peace” is what the US says it is - whatever is in her best interests without regard to the rest of the world. Without an international mandate, legitimacy, or consensus, using military force to accomplish that objective just sounds nuts to me.
The neo-cons aren’t suggesting we act as a global cop, but like a global vigilante. Add to that the way the war in Iraq was sold to the world, and the dangers should be obvious. It doesn’t promote democracy or American ideals. It’s certainly not condusive to building strong alliances either. The philosphy is fatally flawed.
Ok, but what exactly does it mean when you say peace without regard to the rest of the world? I do not remember where in the documents you cited the neocons suggested any particular charicteristic of peace which was at odds with the simple lack of international violence. What exactly are you afraid that the neocons are trying to impose on the rest of the world?
Well, this certainly sound inflamatory and I agree that such a thing would be very bad. But where is this spelled out in the document you proposed? I saw a lot about unilateral military action, but it was always in the context of peace keeping. Where did they propose that bad guys which much of the world agreed were not really bad guys would be targets of unilateral American military action? I am interpreting your vigilante characterization this way.
I agree that there were profound problems with the way that the Iraq war was sold. But this is the primary problem with the modern doctirne of pre emptive war. The concept itself is not the problem. The issue is how such actions are sold. As I said, the formation of viable international consensus will be necessary for every phase of the war on terror, and indeed this next round of globalization.
I’m still somewhat at a loss as to what exactly you are afraid the neocons are going to try and do.
There is no single opinion on this. Some are social/fiscal conservatives, some are not. They generally don’t care about things like Abortion, Prayer in schools, etc. It is a school of foreign-policy thought.
But that still doesn’t constitute anything like a criteria: thirty-some nations actively aided the Iraq effort, including majorities of NATO and the EU, plus Japan and South Korea. The number in Afghanistan wasn’t much higher. To be honest, I suspect the difference is “France and Germany;” if it’s not, what is it?
This is where you’re conjuring bogeymen. There is no belief or implication of using force against democracies. It is ONLY directed against regimes of marginal or no legitimacy who are violating human rights and/or endangering others. Period. This is not about using aircraft carriers to get a better trade deal out of New Zealand.
No one is disputing that negotiations are always the first option. That is an obvious truism. This entire discussion starts with the question of what happens when negotions fail and a global bad actor says “Fuck you, I’ll practice genocide all I want and develop nukes, too, and you can’t stop me.” If he has one buddy on the UNSC, there’s no resolution, and sooner or later you gotta make a choice.
I’m not crazy about the US taking it upon themselves to stop him. But when the choice is between a criminal getting away with murder or else being stopped by a “vigilante,” I know which I’ll take. YMMV.
Like furt said, you’re not going to get one answer, but the general answer will probably be that we should provide welfare and assistance programs for those who need them, while making sure as few people need them as possible. So, those people who can work, should be encouraged to work. How this can be done is up to debate of course, whether it’s providing low interest educational loans so people can go to college or trade school, or giving tax breaks to firms that employ former welfare recipients, or whatever.
Could I have some specifics on what neocons in the administration are advancing what parts of the agenda of the religious right?
It means that it doesn’t matter whether the rest of world has peace, or freedom, or liberty. As long as the US does, then its OK. For example, take a young Christian girl in Saudi Arabia. It doesn’t seem to matter to the neo-cons that she cannot freely practice her religion. It doesn’t matter that she can’t vote, participate in government, or exercise her (inalienable?) right to free speech. It doesn’t matter that the US military could overwhelm the Saudi forces in a matter of hours. What matters is that her government feeds the US military machine oil. Her plight doesn’t mean zip to a neo-con.
What am I afraid of? Absolute power corrupting absolutely. Unchecked or balanced military or policing authority. International abuse of civil rights - by the American military. And who is going to stop them?
To accept this philosophy as prudent, you must have complete faith and trust in the neo-cons. Pardon me, but I don’t. And they sure make strange bedfellows with conservatives, who generally don’t trust centralized (federal) power.
Go back to furt’s post #119. Sure, they don’t spell out the downsides of their plan (and you shouldn’t expect them to). Unilateral military action is dangerous simply because it is unilateral - with no checks and balances. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is all in how it is sold, and it can be sold however the powers that be decide it should. No one complains when vigilantes take out the child raping axe murder. The problem is when they pre-emptively take out the person they think will become the child raping axe murder, without any basis in the rule of law, without any due process.
I don’t know. And I have already tried to describe the concepts of what I find deplorable about the neo-con philosophy, and some of the concepts that I would find more agreeable. But your continuing to try to turn the burden to me to provide such a plan isn’t fair. It’s the neo-con who want to change the status quo (or perhaps have). While I’m not satisfied with the way international disputes were handled prior to 9-11, I’m alot more comfortable with it. It should not be incumbent upon me to provide some other plan. My argument is simply that the proposed solution is no better than what was in existence.
As is indicated by Dafur, it must take more then genocide in the neo-con philosophy. It also has to be in the American interest. And if it is that big of a deal, it shouldn’t be so hard to gain a consensus of free nations, now should it?
Damn right, MMV (my mileage varies). With this statement, we must agree to disagree. Pardon me for believing in the value of due process.
No, I think you are misreading them on this point. The plight of the Saudi girl was unassailable during the cold war because the cold war was a higher priority. Afterwards we thought we had a “peace dividend” and did not want any foriegn intervensions. This is the period during which the neocons did not have much pull, if you will. Since 9-11, they have been given much more latitude because more and more Americans have come to realize that we simply cannot wall ourselves (and a few chosen allies) within some wall and expect to be safe. We will not be safe, frankly, until that Saudi girl is able to practice her religion in whatever way she chooses. That they do not want immediate military intervention in Saudi Arabia does not mean that they do not support change there. It simply means that they recognize that other means should be tried first.
I thought you were opposed to unilateral intervention? I think you are equating support for some unilateral interventions as support for all of them. This is far from the case.
Again, unless you can show where they support action in some country which cannot be justified in terms of simple world security.
The American people, if no one else. I’m afraid the abuses you list here are far from about to happen. I agree that the principles espoused by the neocons can be disturbing from a certain perspective. But let’s not fly off the handle and accuse them of unreasonable abuses for which we have no evidence.
Not at all. I don’t have to have complete trust in them because they are not proposing anything beyond ensuring global security.
I agree with this. However, because something is dangerous does not mean it should be universally forbidden. If you have some proposal for what could replace limited unilateral action around the world I’d like to hear it. If you have some idea of how we can build a world police force which is truly built by the world I’d be more than happy to support it. But without such a proposal, your left saying that America should not intervene when it sees clear violations of international peace because we do not have an international mechanism to govern such actions. You would have us withdraw all of our troops which were not explicitely supported by the nation where they are stationed or by the majority of the world. Except that the majority of the world has no mechanism for determining such a thing. The United Nations could become such a mechanism eventually, but it is not one now, and shows very little signs of moving in that direction.
No, the status quo has moved on without us. The cold war is over. Mechanisms for preventing WWIII are simply not adequate for providing world peace.
These same people, who at one time, 70% to 80% of which believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had some responsibility for 9-11?
And by following the neo-con philosophy, they never will.
As opposed to the people in the rest of the world, some of whome assumed the jews did it? Yes.
Again, this is unadulterated fear mongering.
Listen, I am at heart more libertarian than this thread may have led you to believe. I am willing to believe that reducing the amount of American military actions around the world would be a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that since the end of the cold war we have been involved in over 120 actions around the world. The vast majority of them in parts of the world which are significantly disconected from the world economy. So, you either have to support pulling all of our troops back home (or at least to Europe and Japan) thus allowing this protion of the world to rot in its insecurity, or you have to propose some mehtod of deciding when to act and when not to. 9-11 proved (to me at least) that allowing the disconected world to rot is not an option. They will not go quietly into that dark place, and some of them will take us with them. So, we have to decide how and when to act.
In some far future, there may be an international body more capable of dealing with the international security situation than the UN. Perhaps some body which reviews actions instead of disallowing them until proven necessary. I don’t know. In the mean time, do you honestly expect the United States to sit by and allow international consensus (a term which is far from well defined, and may not even have been aparent before the invasion) to dictate when and where we can defend ourselves? Or, do you propose that we withdraw into our own borders and only act to defen those? I’m sorry, but I cannot see how your objections, especially cloaked in the rhetoric their are, can mean anything else.
Utterly and completely 100% wrong; what you outline is a more-or-less traditionalist/conservative policy and it is EXACTLY what the neocons reject. The whole premise of the neocons is that repression anywhere is contrary to American interests. If you do nothing else, read these and tell me how in blue blazes they mesh with what you outlined above:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/hist/rice161002.htm
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/hist/rice260603.htm
Which was when nations would give lip service to things like the UN, especially when it came to constraining other nations, but when push came to shove, China would attack the UN itself in Korea, France and the UK would attack Egypt, Egypt and Syria would attack Israel, the Soviets would attack Afghanistan, the Argentines would attack the UK, the US would attack Grenada, France would attack Greenpeace, and in each and every case the UN, good intentions or not, could do nothing. There was not and never has been anything like due process. There was simply realpolitik among nation-states who recognized transnational institutions and “international law” only when the cost/benefit ratio leaned in their favor.
Wishing for a better world, for “due process” is fine and good. But without an actual system by which such process can be made legitimate by the consent of the people, accepted by the powers-that-be (national governements), and have a means of enforcement that will be universally supported and recognized … well you can hope in one hand and shit in the other.
The world sucks, but vague wishes for it to be better won’t make it so. Hardheaded pragmatism can.
Rwanda.
I repeat, I’m not supporting an isolationist agenda - I’m all for using the US military force as necessary to secure the peace in the world. I agree that the question is how and when - not if. I’ve tried to describe the essential elements that I find missing in the neo-con philosophy.
Defend ourselves? No, and I think I have been clear that we need no approval to defend ourselves. But we can help shape that far future by LEADING (not dictating to) the world to develop a better system. Whether by overhauling the UN, or scrapping it alogether, I have no opinion. By adopting the neo-con playbook, we are not going to help move the world in that direction.
Well, I’ve tried my best, but I tire, and I would only be repeating myself.
Wow, furt, in your first external quote, I think you are suggesting I’m a realist, and in the second, an idealist. Not sure what to make of that.
Anyway, let’s take a look…
So we no longer tolerate oppression in the Middle East? News to me, and millions of Saudis. In terms of a higher standard of reform and democracy, which country comes closer, Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Perhaps. But making this statement with regards to Iraq has yet to be seen. Granted, Afghanistan is no longer a terrorism training camp, most of the country is ruled much like it was prior to the Taliban - by local warlords. It may become stronger and more stable, but that’s not obvious. What’s our current commitment to see it bloom?
I believe that statement to be correct. I just don’t think we are helping.
Strawman. Find anyone with any (US) influence that supports that statement. The rest of the paragraph adds straw to the pile.
I don’t believe this is a neo-con sentiment. Reading this Condi speech, I can fully accept the foriegn policy described (hey, pervert, read this!). But I can’t reconcile that with the neo-con outlook to foriegn policy. Any coincidence that the date is shortly after the Jay Bookman column I linked earlier?
So you are telling me that neo-cons are warm and fuzzy internationalists? How could I (and Jay Bookman) get them so wrong? I must’ve missed the parts where the neo-cons emphasised international cooperation in the first two pages of this thread.
Yep. And OJ is free. Even our legal system isn’t perfect, but I like it better than the alternative.
Well, each case you listed. You don’t acknowledge any successes?
That’s a fair criticism. I just don’t see the neo-con route as an improvement.
Or it can get us all killed. A little leadership in establising a system such as you describe (legitimate, consent of the people, accepted, means of enforcement, support and recognition) would be more rational.
Disaster. I’m ashamed of the UN’s failure to intercede, and for Clinton’s failure to lead the world to act. By recent events, it doesn’t appear anything has changed.
I’m not intending to classify you at all; I put them out there to show you what the admin is saying. Categorize yourself as you wish.
“Short-term” v. “Long-term.” Do you have a specific recommendation how we create immediate regime change in SA without throwing the world economy for a loop by disrupting the oil supply? Nearly every neocon I’ve read who is not in office (and thus obliged to be diplomatic) agrees that SA needs to be reformed. Everyone also says that about North Korea. Different solutions and different timetables for different problems.
Well, yes. As I suggested in the other thread I linked to, I have my doubts about the neocon plan. I’m interested in any realistic alternatives offered. I haven’t heard any.
Do you want me to look up figures on how much we’re spending to reconstruct Afghanistan? We’re under no obligation to do so; we have chosen to do it.
What to you mean by influence? Few in the current admin, obviously, or at least not publicly. And few will say it so bluntly; but this is exactly the traditional Kissingerian Cold War “I don’t care if he’s a son of a bitch as long as he’s our son of a bitch” philosophy. If you think Pat Buchanan and Brent Scowcroft are the only ones who still believe this, you’re kidding yourself.
Yeah, I’m sure they shape their whole policy in response to the dominating media presence of Jay Bookman.
That* is * the neo-con policy. As former liberals, they believe strongly that peace and freedom everywhere are in everyone’s interest, including our own. Where they have become conservative is in concluding that that peace and freedom are not going to come either from the UN or “The international Community.” What Rice left out of that sentance is the part of neocon philosophy that gets everyone upset. If I may edit her:
“The United States will, with our international partners (if they are willing, and by ourselves if they won’t), fight poverty, disease, and oppression because it is the right thing – and the smart thing – to do.”
It’s why $15B for AIDS and a big increase in foreign aid are an overall part of the policy.
Not being familiar with Bookman, I won’t speak to him, and you can speak for yourself.
But certainly some people are incapable of grasping both halves of “with others where possible, by ourselves if we must.” Others, frankly, are blinded by personal animus to Bush from thinking clearly about whet their policy would be. And some, if they could deal with it as an actaul philosphical issue, would find that they agree with the policy, and only disagree with Bush’s application of it vis-a-vis Iraq. (You are aware that not all neo-cons fully supported that action, right?)
Our legal system features police officers empowered to use deadly force if need be to enforce the laws. How well would our system work if there were no police, only citizen’s arrests?
I can’t think of many. The defense of South Korean was largely a US affair under a UN flag; i.e. the rest of the world could have done nothing on its own. Same with the 1991 Gulf War. There have been some peacekeeping operations that happened after hostilities started, but I can’t think of a situation where the UN qua UN stopped a war or genocide while in progress. I can think of others where individual nations did: (cf. Cambodia). I certainly can’t think of I time when the UN effectively constrained a Great Power.
And when someone can provide a plan, I for one am all ears. But seeing as how people have been wishing for a one-world government that could end all wars for a couple of centuries now, I think we’d better have a pretty good plan for in the meantime.
No, it hasn’t. But the point is that Clinton could have done it, and Bush (theoretically at least, as a practical matter we may not have the avilible troops) could do it now. The EU or some of the other great powers could do it, but choose not to. What’s the lesson here?
But there is not a fundemental difference in this speech and the neocon papers we were looking at before. The only difference between this speech and Mr. Bookman’s article is one of a dropped context, as I said. Mr. Bookman (I am judging from the single article linked to earlier) simply ignores the context of international politics when neocons suggest that some actions might need to be taken unilaterally. He makes the assumption that neocons want to take all actions unilaterally. And further he makes the assumption that they want to take military actions where no military action is needed.
Yes, I’m afraid you did. The paper we looked at earlier was written exclusively in the context of war or military action. That is it did not address the idea of international politics. It assumed, if you will, a scenario wherein some case for military intervention could be made but the rest of the world still refused to endorse a US military action. It then went on to suggest that intervening for the purposes of promoting world peace is, in fact, in the best interest of the US almost as much as defending our own soil from direct attack. In no way did it imagine scenarios where America would intervene militarily to impose christianity or coca cola on some small country.
I should say again, that I am not a neocon. I am willing to accept a certain amount of skepticism against their ideas. Also, I agree that many of their ideas have been sold rather badly. I think this is due to the fact that they are such a small minority they have become used to preaching to the choir.
Thanks for the link to the Condoleezza Rice speech. I am impressed by her every time I hear her speek.
This is not true. Let’s take two examples: how many $Billions did he offer Turkey, and he went to the UN for the sake of Tony Blair.
Is there anybody that doesn’t believe that peace and freedom everywhere are in everyone’s interest? Is that really a liberal position?
It occurs to me that my understanding of what makes a neo-con is very different than what either you or pervert claim it is. My comments about not representing a “neo-con sentiment” was directed to the entire speech, not the one quote. You can insert all the “if they are willing, and by ourselves if they won’t,” but nothing in that speech even suggests it. And that is very different from the writings of PNAC, or the speeches by Wolfowitz, or Perle, or the other neo-cons (I still don’t think Condi qualifies).
And yes, I think that speech was specifically written to deflect criticism that was coming toward the administration in light of the negative press the neo-cons were receiving at the time.
To sum up, if you are claiming that the neo-cons want to extend their hand to all countries of the world, build international coalitions wherever possible in order to establish peace and freedom everywhere, and only support using US military action to protect US interests and our allies, then yes, I can fully endorse them. They wouldn’t be niche, or fringe, but right in the mainstream.
But I’ve read enough of PNAC, Perle, and Wolfowitz that I’m not swayed by your assertions. I don’t see how anyone could read Rebuilding Americas Defenses and Condi’s speech and conclude, “there is not a fundamental difference” between the two. I’m dumbfounded.
A concept Condi trashes in the first two paragraphs of her speech (credit to furt for the original link).
FWIW, I just ran across this encyclopedic description of neoconservatism. And I note that while it mentions many names associated with neoconservatism, Dr. Rice isn’t referenced.
Allow me esplain.
Now, imagine I took the bolded section and wrote a paper on it. I might call the paper “Rebuilding America’s Defences”. I might talk alot about expanding the “American Peace” and I might not mention any sort of international coalition building at all. I might, in fact make the paper specific to the argument about how much to spend on the military in the post cold war era and it might be exclusively about the military and its uses.
The point I am making is that Rebuilding America’s Defences does not say (unless I missed it) that America will go it alone in the world of expanding security. It does not say that we will build a type of security that the rest of the world finds odious or objectionable. It certainly does not say that we will become some sort of loose cannon firing at friends and foes alike. It simply says that given the fact that “Security must rest also on military strength”, a certain type of military must be built.
I’m willing to be wrong. I freely admit that you seem to have read more neocon literature than I have. But I think you are too quick to judge the desire to build a strong military in a negative light. If you can suggest a paragraph or two which indicates any of the improper things I mentioned above I’d go read it. If you could point out a more specific problem with the philosophy than “I don’t like it” and point to where it is spelled out I’d read that. Otherwise, I’d ask, respectfully, that you re examine your premises. They seem to be misleading you.
YES!
For decades, Cold War realpolitik was all about making sure other nations were loyal to us, and turning a blind eye to what they did internally. An obvious example was our support of the Shah of Iran, and after he was replaced by the Ayatollahs, our support of SH in Iraq because he went to war with Iran. Before this war numerous voices suggested we should just engineer a coup and replace SH with a freindly dictator. See also our history in most of Central and South America.
Then find the quotes by them saying what you want them to say; not some reporter interpreting them, but primary sources suggesting that we need to make peaceful democratric nations bow to our will, or that we’re not even going to try to be diplomatic.
Are you asserting that the current admin policy is not essentially neoconservative? Are you saying is not with admin policy but with what the academics write? Is Condi (and the president!) out of the loop? What are you driving at?