Posted on 09/04/2014 4:12:55 PM PDT by Noremac
>Hawks...or Vultures?
I just read a piece posted on Drudge, from the Washington Post, in which the writers, Sebastian Payne and Robert Costa, take note of what they observe as a shift in the GOP, away from the trend of non-interventionism, back towards 'hawkism', i.e, the NeoCon perspective and focus. I don't doubt the numbers, I only question the perhaps over broad application of the context of this shift.
The writers make particular note of Rand Paul, Libertarian leaning Senator from Kentucky and potential contestant in the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination race:
“Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leader of the GOP’s anti-interventionist wing who is seen as a top-tier contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, has joined in the calls for a more hawkish approach.” This development is not unexpected. Rand Paul has been shifting towards the GOP establishment for several months, and is employing the risky strategy of appeasing so many elements that he winds up with little more than luke warm appeal to any of them.
As the Associated Press sees the matter:
The broader debate pits those who favor the GOP's traditional muscular foreign policy — a group that includes Perry and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — and those, like Paul and Cruz, who prefer a smaller international footprint. The so-called isolationist approach plays well with grassroots activists and a war-weary public, but worries many Republican officials and donors who prefer an aggressive American role in world affairs.
I like what Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist has to say in response:
Preferring a smaller international military footprint is hardly isolationism. It could simply indicate support for good old-fashioned statesmanship, propriety, conservatism, or even just an acknowledgment of limited human and financial resources. Certainly there are people whose idea of national defense is so limited that it might be called isolationism — and Paul is certainly closer to these people than Dick Cheney is.
But people who believe in robust trade between nations, healthy use of diplomacy — but also not bombing most of the countries that have serious problems — these aren’t isolationists! And Rand Paul and others whose view of limited government extends to our foreign military entanglements are not accurately termed isolationists. Costa and Payne, cite a Pew Research Center poll released last week, in which 46 percent of Republicans said the United States does “too little” to help solve global problems — a 28-point increase from the previous poll, last November. The percentage of Republicans who believe the U.S. does “too much” abroad has dropped from 52 percent to 37 percent.
I don't question the general accuracy of that poll. But if some interpret it as a general shift in public view towards another raft of military opportunism or a wide scale reset on the 'Global War on Terror', they are reading too much into the poll. Rand Paul's actual statement on the Islamic State crisis was this:
“If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.” Even as a limited government critic of the American foreign policy of the past two administrations, I recognize that we have played a role in spawning the Islamic State and correspondingly, we have an obligation to neutralize it.
Had we never played “Chessboard Foreign Policy” in the Middle East, beginning with Osama Bin Laden in the 1980's and the agitation of sectarian conflicts since then, I might take the position that we should let the situation play out. The slaughter of innocents in Syria and Iraq, is heartbreaking, but the U.S. government ignores suffering committed by terrorists and tyrants on a daily basis elsewhere in the world.
However, it is the very fact that we co-wrote the script (in partnership with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar) of what is playing out in Iraq and Syria, that binds to us a moral imperative in destroying the Frankenstein of ISIS / ISIL.
And again, Rand Paul's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal sums it up the same way as I do, albeit more diplomatically:
"The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again." The WaPo writers bring up William Kristol:
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading pro-interventionist voice on the right, said Republicans are moving back to their “inner hawkishness.” He said that some in the party had been “a little intimidated for a while . . . by the so-called libertarian moment” but that GOP candidates are now showing a greater willingness to extend their foreign policy statements beyond mere attacks on Obama.
“What heartens me is that [candidates] are going beyond that criticism and talking about the need for a different approach, about how we can’t freak out when someone mentions potentially putting boots on the ground,” Kristol said. William Kristol is a tool who is comfortably in the sheets with the globalist warfare state, where deficit spending or the Constitution or the body count of dead American military troops is no object. Kristol is John McCain's conjoined ideological twin on the joys of military opportunism. The only slight cosmetic difference between them is that Kristol, though he is lavishly generous with the lives of other family's sons and daughters, never saw an hour's worth of military duty himself - a distinction he shares with the de facto President of Bush's two terms in office, Dick Cheney.
Mr. Kristol, we should “freak out when someone mentions potentially putting boots on the ground”! Our track record of doing so over the past 63 or so years, has yielded the outcome of (needlessly) prolonged conflicts, Trillions of dollars of additional debt, flipping one tyrannical regime for another, and in many cases, innocents left vulnerable to the murderous thugs we've fortified rather than diminished. And not to be forgotten, the deaths of our only true hero class, without any vindication of the cause they fought for.
If there is war profiteering to be exploited and the power of central bankers to be enhanced, Kristol and his ilk are all in. Words cannot describe my contempt for these syndicate mouthpieces.
NEOKHANNN!!!
I know, it is the jooooooooooooos.
+1
The difference here is between interventionism as a broad policy and interventionism in the specific case of ISIS. The latter does not really imply the former. The most confirmed pacifists may be moved to intervene in certain specific cases, but that does not mean they approve of intervention as a broad policy. It's a complicated world out there and throwing terms around like "neocon" to cover all cases really sheds more heat than light.
Islamic state just represents a target rich environment.
Bombs away!
Wait to these savages start beheading liberals in NYC and DC. We’ll really see who the “neocons” are!
The writer uses that term exactly once.
I don't know about his creepy reference to "central bankers," but sometimes it seems like it's the hawks themselves who throw around the word "neo-con" by accusing others of using it promiscuously.
Sure, we all know robust diplomacy will take care of ISIS and Russia, and that all the worlds problems are caused by US meddling, and if we just treat everyone nicely, they'll leave us alone.
Almost all the failures of the past 63 years in terms of war fighting were due to timidity on our part coupled with a substantial number of traitors in the press and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself).
The first Gulf War was a good example of a successful operation:
i) clear, if limited, objectives that were militarily achievable;
ii)good diplomacy;
iii)keeping the media on a tight leash and boxed up in Riyadh.
Bush junior screwed up by severely underestimating what the war on terror really would require and severely underestimating how hard the fight would be in Iraq after the initial victory.
Most importantly, he had a chance to strike while the iron was hot regarding public opinion after 9/11 when the military could have easily been beefed up to what was really required and then dicked around, allowing the usual traitors here to seize the political initiative.
The biggest fantasy element in libertarian thinking is that most people and most political regimes are just rational economic actors: they're not. Aggression in foreign affairs is driven primarily by domestic politics in the regimes that are aggressive, because most people throughout most of human history have considered national glory or honor to be far more worthy of killing and dying for than economic benefits.
Libertarians and paleocons just can't seem to understand that.
Is there any more imbecilic, hoary cliche than this one?
Ping
People like this won’t be satisfied until muslims
are cutting the heads off people down the block,
then they’ll wonder where the police are.
Obamas foreign policy is the libertarian foreign policy.
Obama: The Day I’m Inaugurated the Muslim World Will Look at America Differently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
matter of fact, yes. The “Global War On Terror”. That one became such a sick joke, the Pentagon replaced it with “Overseas Contingencies Operations”.
Boo,yah, Neo Con!
I understand your point and concur for the most part. I randomly check in on (pardon the expression) NeoCons at frequent intervals, and the problem is they never waiver in their perspective. The U.S. Military, to them is like the proverbial guy with a hammer, to whom everything on the world’s stage looks like a nail. These three guys I profiled, epitomize that, but I could be here all night citing other examples of the same syndrome.
I thought I made it clear that I support the effort to deal with the Islamic State even though I regret that it has become necessary because of the willful misconduct of this and the past two Presidencies. So let’s go kick some Islamic State butt, but for Allah’s sake, let’s use overwhelming force and not shit around there for another 10 years with nothing to show but more dead and crippled Americans. I don’t trust this President to do what I just described, but what other option do we have. Certainly we can’t do nothing.
I think we’re on the same page. What would you prefer I call NeoCons? Is there another name for them? And let’s not be cute and pretend that such a thing as a globalist warfare state agenda doesn’t exist. Because then we’re operating on the ‘accidental’ theory of foreign policy of the last 63 years. It just doesn’t wash, on close examination.
first of all, let me correct you on a couple of things. I didn’t once mention the Jews in my commentary, nor did I allude to them, nor did I intend such an allusion. I support the State of Israel. You violated the ‘assume’ rule. I don’t subscribe to the Jewish conspiracy theory of history. Kristol happens to be a Jew, but the other two aren’t. Where did you come up with that? Forget it, I don’t want to know.
Second, I’m not a Libertarian. They have a handful of policy positions I don’t endorse. I am a Constitutionalist. As for the foreign policy this country has practiced for the past 63 years, you are laughably naive. The odds that we could screw up every risky move on the Global Chessboard foreign policy game we’ve been playing are outside of the solar system of reality.
That you buy the “oops, my bad” narrative of our failed military opportunism, our fomenting of sectarian violence and our failure to secure our borders, while amassing trillions in debt, reflects poorly on your reasoning ability.
However, I think you and I simply disagree about many of the facts.
i) For example, we haven't fomented sectarian violence: the violence or threat of it was already there in many parts of the ME for centuries, long before the US even existed, so I don't know what you mean.
ii) We haven't screwed up every risky move: we won the Cold War, right? So we actually won the biggest chess game, although now we seem to have squandered our victory by taking an extended detour from reality.
iii)Yes, I buy the "oops, my bad" narrative because it also corresponds with reality: there is no guarantee that every military operation will go forward based on a correct assessment of the threat, the enemy's order of battle, or his strategy. Regarding Iraq, it cannot be emphasized enough that whatever screw-ups occurred after the initial invasion, Bush & Petraeus effectively scooped victory from the jaws of defeat. By the time Bush left office, Iraq was more stable and more free (despite the glaring faults of the Iraqi regime) in January 2009 than it had ever been at any time in centuries. All of that was thrown away by Obama's desire to satisfy his lunatic, America-hating base no matter the cost to the US or Iraq.
iv) We got sucked into the ME originally precisely because of free trade-- the Saudis, the Gulf States, and Iran wanted to deal with US oil companies because the British were robbing them blind. Those who repeatedly assert that we were "supporting bin Laden" in the Afghan war are engaging in a rhetorical sleight of hand-- it was never our intent to support lunatic Islamism per se, merely to support groups fighting a common adversary. And al Qaeda could have been dealt with easily long before 9/11, but because Clinton refused to do so and stove-piped intelligence information ("to protect civil liberties"), we got whacked.
v) I see that you (and others with whom I have sparred on these issues) keep bringing up the southern border. First, our foreign engagements do not preclude securing the border-- we have more than enough personnel to do so-- what we have is a political elite hell bent on changing US demographics to benefit themselves politically and economically, no matter what the law. This lawless elite, not our foreign wars, is the real threat to our Constitution. Second, the deliberate neglect and even sabotage of our foreign alliances and our interests abroad is a piece with Obama's open borders policy-- both are aimed at the damaging the United States as much as possible while providing the conditions of defeat and economic dislocation that will allow the Democrats to establish at a national level the kind of corrupt one-party state to be found in Cook County Illinois.
vi) Meanwhile the real threat to our civil liberties-- the growth of the partisan, all-powerful administrative state-- moves forward with almost unstoppable force, neither major party nor the Federal courts have respect for Federalism or limited government, mainly because their constituents have no desire for limited government.
What's the solution to all of this? I don't know any longer-- I used to think that enough people would wake up, but with the media controlled by Democratic Party partisans, most people are making decisions based on hopelessly incomplete and skewed information. Frankly, I don't see how there can be a return to Constitutional government without violence or the threat of civil war here.
Similarly, his open borders policy mimics the libertarian line on free movement of labor, although most libertarians seem incapable of seeing the elephant in the room: that unlimited Latin American immigration will enable the creation of a faux populist Chavez-like dictatorship in the US by the Democrat party.
a few things I definitely agree with you on, and on the rest, I submit the following for consideration:
- jihadists,together with the Wahhabist and Salafist ideology didn’t spring forth in bloom spontaneously with OSL’s emergence. You were astute in this point. But, this fact actually makes our sponsorship of him (OSL) all the more damning. Our CIA proxy wars involving jihadist elements have in fact, if not “fomented” sectarian violence, have thrown kerosene on an already hot fire. To what ends? More conflict and more need for U.S. intervention?
- their is a substantial body of opinion within the legitimate U.S. and British (MI6) intelligence circles of former operatives and managers, that the Cold War amounted to nothing much more than a silly cat and mouse game, having little to no impact on the trends of the day. Pretty much only government apologists on either the Soviet or American side characterize a ‘winner’ or loser of the Cold War.
The Soviet system had an expiration date stamped on it and we knew, and they knew where the line between Cold War and hot war was and what the consequences could be - with the possible exception of the mutual stunt involved in the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. I tend to think the missile buildup was what kept both sides ‘honest’. I don’t think the “Chess game” has served the American people, Europe or emerging nations well. It has served certain interests well, no doubt.
- you bring up something very insightful on item iv). The British. The Brits, for the most part - with their machinations on the world stage at the height and even the decline period of their empire, taught the U.S. everything we know about intrigue. There’s an expression that goes, “Do you know why the Sun never sets on the British Empire?” The response is, “because you never want to confront them in the dark”.
We thought that adopting their behavior would facilitate a transitional handover from the decline of Britain and the ascendance of our empire - and to an extent, it did - until it didn’t. That is one area where it could be said that America and Britain ‘lost’ the Cold War. The Soviet Union destroyed the remainder of Britain’s empire and delivered ours stillborn.
We are the pre-eminent ‘Superpower’ for now, but the consensus among historians is that “Imperial overreach / overstretch” is what put the final nails in the coffin of the Romans. They couldn’t afford to financially maintain the Empire and the trade they originally controlled and managed, found a way to operate outside of their sphere of influence, eroding their revenue bases. Can anyone claim that’s not happening to us now? China maintains a commanding advantage in the balance of trade and holds an uncomfortably large sum of our national debt.
Two events form the shape of a Damocles Sword. The day in which China decides to de-leverage our debt they hold and the day when the ‘BRICS’ alliance deploys a substitute to the dollar as a world currency reserve. I don’t know when this is going to occur, but the days of monetizing debt will be over. This strongly recommends our government downsizing and tackling our debt program. But we still want to act like a spendthrift with an American Express card with no limit in our role as global patrol officer. It’s unsustainable. If you don’t agree then tell me where the money is coming from to maintain it.
Am I saying, withdraw entirely to a fortress posture? No. But we’ve made (virtually) helpless children out of our allies. Europe needs to be weaned from our tit after 70 years. It’s ridiculous. Even Japan, with all their economic malaise, recognizes that the U.S. can’t protect them forever and they are gradually assembling a military force - ostensibly for defensive purposes, but a little extra as a deterrent to aggression.
On v), vi) and your conclusion, we have a synoptic view entirely.
Regards,
RC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.