This review of Richard Perle’s latest book was actually quite thought provoking (though at times as over-the-top as it claims its targetsare ), written as it was by Patrick J. Buchanan.
I thought it might provide a interesting segue into a discussion of American foriegn policy that’s focused more on wonkishness on the right than the standard right v. left. I’m interested as to what people think debates like this reveal about the direction of modern conservatism in the realm of foriegn policy.
Kind of interesting, no? For me, this is like watching a car wreck involving two people you don’t like very much. Horrific, but hard to feel that much sympathy.
Liberal and conservative are on a contium and the pendulum of public opinion and policy swings back and forth. That we are in the middle of a movement toward the conservative end is not surprising, but I think that disagreements like the one evidenced by Buchanan’s article point out that pendulum will always come back the other way. These things draw the momentum from the pendulum.
That said, the gloves are off it appears and as much as I’ve always felt that Buchanan was a wing nut, he’s downright reasonable compared to the neocons. Or at least he is in the article. Conservatism is one thing, but this rabid desire to wage war on any country reluctant to swallow American values wholesale is insane. The neocons have overplayed their hand a bit and though their influence is still strong, its waning.
Note that isolationism vs. interventionism is a debate which the left could easily have all on its own, also.
Such a debate would not revolve around whether it was in one’s own national interests to intervene or stay away, but whether intervention might relieve suffering.
For example, I am strongly for intervention (military if necessary) in several African states in order to establish safe havens and demilitarised zones, protect civilian populations from the worst excesses of civil and tribal war, and even forcefully broker a peace and subsequent small-arms amnesty (with the addendum that such action be supported by UN consensus). Many left-leaning bretheren might regard such as “making things worse due to perceived hegemonic imperialism” and argue an isolationist approach.
This Perle psychopath sees, not suffering, but enemies the world over. For one so paranoid to be in such a position of power is scarier than all the Islamic fundamentalism in the world.
That is exactly what I’m worried about if Bush is reelected. He had to play it somewhat safe with Iraq, but now he knows how easy people are convinced for something so serious. He just has to toss around “terrorists” some more and he could send us right into Syria, Iran, etc.
I think we’ll avoid N. Korea because they aren’t an Islamic regime (and fear of nukes). Bush seems to be on a Crusade against the Islamic regimes in the world much more so than any others. Perhaps an influence from Israel or something.
I don’t wanna be on either coast of this country in the next four years if Bush is re-elected and I will most likely move Mid-West if it happens.