Skip to comments.Gingrich: I'm Rethinking My Neoconservative Views
Posted on 08/05/2013 3:32:51 AM PDT by TexGrill
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says he's reconsidering his neoconservative views regarding the benefits gained from U.S. military interventions as a way to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Gingrich believes the methods he has long been a supporter of have backfired and require re-evaluation, the Washington Times reports.
I am a neoconservative, Gingrich told the Times. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded.
Gingrich, who backed the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, said he has become increasingly skeptical about the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where religion and culture clash with Western values.
It may be that our capacity to export democracy is a lot more limited than we thought, Gingrich said.
Gingrich said that while he has expressed his doubts concerning the ability of the U.S. for nation building before, he has only recently reached conclusions about their failures in light of the experiences of the past decade.
My worry about all this is not new, Gingrich said.
But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.
Gingrich recommended Republicans put more weight on the anti-interventionist ideas offered by the libertarian-minded Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a tea party favorite and foreign policy skeptic.
I think it would be healthy to go back and war-game what alternative strategies would have been better, and I like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul because they are talking about this, Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Someone who is always rethinking their views is not ready for a WH run ... that is my opinion
When you fight a war you destroy the enemy and his property until he no longer can fight.
You do not go into his country and try to convince him that your political ideas for his country are right.
“Someone who is always rethinking their views is not ready for a WH run ... that is my opinion”
Someone who never rethinks their views is a Luddite. Judge each situation individually as it arises, is my opinion. Sometimes we should intervene, sometimes we shouldn’t. The Arab Spring has been a disaster.
Its a start but mideast policy is far from the only neocon failures. Global warming and immigration are two big ones.
Would you elect someone who changes their opinions every few months?
Sounds like you’re saying Karl Rove is right and Newt Gingrich is wrong on the grounds that Rove doesn’t change his mind about scheming to sabotage the GOP.
did Newt ever release his co-authored Global Warming book?
I always thought there was something a bit simplistic about the neo-con interventionist schtick and remember being somewhat perplexed and irritated by the glib assurances and confidence of its supporters.
I also admit to being uneasy and unsure about the interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, thinking that we were biting off way more than we could chew and not seeing any way we could “win” in the long term because those places are simply not manageable in the sense that Western nations are.
I kept quiet (for the most part) because I told myself that the President and his advisors had access to far more information than I did, and if they felt these were necessary steps, I should settle down and let them get on with the job.
Now, with the clarity that hindsight brings, I think I was pretty much spot on, that my doubts about the Neocon platform have pretty much proven true, and that an isolationist, or at least minimal interventionist foreign policy would have served our interests much better.
Cold comfort now, but better late then never, I guess.
True, but Japan and Germany show that after you defeat an enemy, if you make a serious effort to introduce new structures, they can take hold. The key is serious, and you cannot permit Islamofascism in any form any more than you could permit bush idioms or nazism.
....and give your enemy free stuff.
Translated, this means amnesty won’t be a reality soon enough for him to ride the Hispanic wave he’s been plotting and scheming to conquer. Callista and he would look so good in the White House. /s
If you do the job right there aren’t enough Islamofascists left to cause you worry for a thousand years.
You will have to explain that one to me a lot better, I don’t get your point.
This is a man who is always trying to gage the direction of the parade and then acts like he organized it.
I say stop sending $$$ to all Islamic countries, withdraw from Afghanistan and let all those bastards remain in medieval times and keep fighting amongst themselves......
Let me guess....
might as well have been written by AL Gore?
“I can respect an arrogant politician who occassionally admits he’s wrong....”
I agree and I’ve rethought my views regarding intervention in the Muslim countries. Let them settle their own disagreements. If Shia wants to murder Sunni and Sunni wants to murder Shia, so be it. The US should not be sending its youth and treasure to stand between the sides or to even pick sides.
If they want to create a hell-on-earth in which THEY can live, let THEM have at it. Let’s not support or oppose such idiocy. Let’s not accept the resultant waves of “political” refugees as immigrants—any of them who are dissatisfied can struggle to reform or change their country/society from within THEIR own countries.
If their lives become hellish enough, who knows, they might actually move toward modernizing their thinking.
My issue with neocons would be that they have a simplistic view of foreign policy. Bow down to democracy and human rights or we will destroy you. They don’t even realize that some countries would prefer a non-Democratic government to rule over them. Not only that, neo-cons complain if a country freely elects a government that opposes democracy and human rights. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Newt rethinks anything that he presumes will give him another shot at running for President, including wives, religion, and anything else.
ANY conservative with half a brain knew that our ongoing follies abroad, lacking any real achievable mission or conditions for victory, were in need of “rethinking” but we did it anyway.
Newt is adept at running to the front of a parade and pretending he is leading it. I doubt he’ll rethink that.
Karl Rove is scheming to sabotage the GOP, and he won’t change his mind on that matter. Gingrich has come to an awareness that neo-conservativism might not so brilliant after all. What person is worse?
As would I, but in this instance Newt is wearing politician plaid as he speaks. He says he's thinking about his position after twelve years, doesn't actually do a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Remember he's a skilled orator and historian that chooses his words carefully. This is putting his wet finger up to test the direction of the political winds
Newt, get back to us when you've made your final considered position. Right now you sound like and unemployed couch potato telling his mom that he's thinking about getting a job.
Agree with you 100% on that one.
Since the definition of NEOconservative is one who was previously a liberal, or is still a liberal on domestic issues, isn’t Gingrich misusing the term?
Doesn’t he mean he’s reconsidering his aggressive interventionist international views?
How does Newt get to the point of such muddled thinking, or is he just playing to the MSM, for whom “neocon” is just a meaningless insult?
But my willingness to reach a conclusion is new.
Translation: The money I got from Romney ran out so I need a new shtick.
Newt can be your stereotypical politician, but it’s refreshing that a person with his numerous flawed traits can say, “wait a minute perhaps I’m wrong.” Can you expect Obama to do the same?
I know he’s still pretty tight with Terry Maple. That’s one reason he’s still turning up at zoos.
However I’m not totally opposed to Maple’s desire for more natural zoos as long as I don’t have to pay for them.
I'm very happy he's coming around to see it this way.
Enough of this intervention and attempts at nation building.
The Marxist's policies are complete failures.
Stand with Israel, period.
I don't understand why a conservative candidate for President doesn't rephrase our foreign policy just that simply.
You poke us (the U.S.) in the eye, we smash your face. You take a swing at us, we vaporize your capital city. You act injuriously or recklessly, we leave your country a smoldering ruin.
No nation-building, no hand-holding, no welcome wagon. We come not in mercy but with a sword.
I support that view too. Isn’t it a contradiction to tell a foreign country that you must enforce human rights and if not we will take away you’re right to live.
WTH does Obama have to do with this thread? Can we expect another non sequiter response from you?
good day to you.
It’s a moral comparison. Some people are criticizing Gingrich for changing his mind as some sort of character flaw. I say otherwise and point out that Obama is unwilling to change his mind, which is a bigger problem.
He can his mind all he wants but his inability to hold logical and consistent beliefs does not make him presidential material.
Yah but but Newt has had almost twelve years of observing the deteriorating events that prove his political neo-con posturing is just damn wrong.
Twelve years, that’s first grade through twelfth, even Jenteal has learned something in that time. Well except for reading cursive.
Mr. Gingrich forgets the initial reasons for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For those in Rio Linde, the reasons were for Iraq was Gulf War cease fire violations and Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden. These were valid reasons for war. Initially, neither was for “nation building”.
If Congress had declared war, there would have been a specific goal to attain, after which additional Congressional approval would have been required for further military action, such as “nation building”. But modern politicians in Congress have spinelessly chosen to bypass the wisdom of the Founding Fathers so as to avoid responsibility. They have passed military action authorizations rather than declarations of war that essentially surrender the power to use the military to the POTUS.
Japan and Germany had established cultures, institutions, histories and governmental bodies, along with productive citizens.
They were hijacked by evil. They are examples of a defeated enemy becoming trusted allies because they could be such examples.
There is nothing like this in Iraq, Afghanistan. Those follies were never designed to succeed.
Exactly. It’s just as much a mistake to make a fetish of democracy as it is to proclaim the “divine right of kings”. Despite our fondness for representative government, it is obviously prone to abuses and requires a citizenry that is both educated and responsible. Absent that? The results are seldom what was expected.
I used to like Gingrich, I never liked Rove.
Which is worse? Damned if I know, but Gingrich is having trouble staying relevant, not sure if he wants to help America or just stay relevant for his own gain.
I have never understood the neo-conservative crap, I am neo-nothing, just a Conservative.
Newt was never in charge, during those 12 years.
I’m glad he’s changed his mind and made the determination that the US is not successful when it comes to exporting democracy in those Islamic nations.
Perhaps military power wielded as a policy tool in the hands of liberal incompetent “leadership” like the Clintons (either or both) and obama (susan rice??? john kerry??ygbsm) is worse that isolationism
that is the real error
Datz re-tartet. Datz jus re-tartet..
Read it again. He didn’t say he changed his mind, said he was thinking about changing it.
There is nothing wrong with the Speaker.
Why don’t Romney and Rove and their antiwoman,
BACKSTABBING team, rethink their hatred of conservatives
Why not? Because Romney and Rove work for Soros and Obama.
You saw it in 2008, and 2009, and 2010, and every year
Yes, I’ll give him props for changing his mind on this.
While I support alliances and swift retaliatory measures against those who do us harm, we cannot keep trying to bring democracy to countries where it is not in their interest or our own.
Who are we to export democracy anyway? Look at how corrupt our system has become. Fourth branch bureaucracy and fifth branch media. Robert Mugabe’s method isn’t the only way to hijack the democratic process.
In addition, this attitude enables cultural malcontents to become cultural imperialists and begin forcing sick agendas onto countries with a far firmer grasp on morality than us.
“I kept quiet (for the most part) because I told myself that the President and his advisors had access to far more information than I did, and if they felt these were necessary steps, I should settle down and let them get on with the job.”
I used to trust that people in power in the corporations I worked for had better information and that’s why they did the things they did. Then, Honeywell bought Wang computers, paying 90% of what someone else had paid for the much larger conglomeration. This, to get mainframe office automation. Us engineers were appalled. PC’s were on the way in and it was obvious mainframe word processing was a still-born. Two years later Honeywell took the largest write-down in business history and my faith in leadership has never been the same. Since then I’ve watched leader after leader charge into the abyss of bankruptcy with all the glee of a winning general. Of course, none of them personally suffered as they drifted in a stately manner to earth on their golden parachutes. The rest of us, on the other hand, suffered mightily. Now I do all my own thinking and I’m generally right. You and I were right about Iraq and the war. On the other hand, all wars have traditionally been sold to the public on truth, justice and the American way. Going over there to kick some ass so they respect us and leave us alone is not a salable regimen. But “giving” freedom and democracy to Islamists is like giving a deck of cards and a Bridge rulebook to a bull.
I agree. You ain't gonna make these Arabs like us. Bomb them, get out and if needed go back in. Too many of our boys have come home permanently disfigured or dead for this nation building crap.
Theoretically, the purpose of nation-building was to create a world that was safer for the US. Having stable, more human-rights friendly countries was seen as creating stability throughout the world and promoting US interests.
The problem is that we long ago dropped US interests from the list of important things and furthermore we didn’t go far enough even when we were in a position to change a country’s culture. Look at Iraq: we could have at least given them the ideal of a secular state but instead we let them enshrine Islam in their constitution, thereby paving the way for chaos as the different Islamic factions fought over who got to be in charge. The same is true of Afghanistan, where we achieved the same result by basically abandoning the people who supported things like free speech, freedom for women, etc. because they might be perceived as conflicting with Islam. The US military really wasn’t allowed to go ahead with the mission of imposing order and we ended by creating an even more dangerous situation.
Nation building is one of those things that you either have to do all the way - or not at all. And US interests have to be primary. In any case, our military is now so weakened that we don’t even have the capacity to do it anymore, so it’s a moot point.
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.