Mommy, there's a neocon under my bed!
Posted on 08/28/2003 7:35:28 AM PDT by u-89
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
- "Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
- Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance.
- neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image
- many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
- Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts
- Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their own words. A collection of quotes by neoconservatives.
- "Change - above all violent change - is the essence of human history." - Michael Ledeen
- "American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles." - William Kristol
- "Republicans are good at wielding power, but they're not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they're not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I'm in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party." - Robert Kagan
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.
- "..in the early part of the 20th century when it was clear that the British empire was not going to be as strong and the Unisted States was growing. And you had people like Teddy Roosevelt and others beginning to think ... "What if America is going to become an imperial nation? What does that look like?"
-If you went back a hundred years or so, Wilsonianism was carried out by people like missionaries who thought that the way to make America safe was to make the rest of the world believe the way we do ........The neocons of today have sort of revived this older Wilsonian tradition
Q: What do you see as the neocons' biggest obstacles in the future?
A: They have the problem that all Wilsonians have. Wilsonians always want more foreign policy, in a way. If you think about democratizing the Middle East ... that's an incredibly tall order. That could take us a very long time. And it's not completely sure that everybody in the US is going to want to make those sacrifices ... especially if it involves troops, maybe not just in Iraq, but in other places ... some of whom will be getting shot at from time to time.
• Walter Russell Mead is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Monitor asked award-winning author, US military historian, and self-described neocon Max Boot to discuss the extent of neocon power.
Max Boot: "I think neocons combine the best of the two dominant strains of US foreign policy thinking: Wilsonian idealism and Kissingerian realpolitik. They have Wilson's devotion to promoting democracy while at the same time recognizing ” as Wilson did not – that this often requires force"
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Start at the end with Max Boot (with whom I am utterly unfamiliar), the "self-described neo-conservative." His heroes: Wilson and Kissinger. Wilson????? Wilson was a schizophrenic politico with support from Klansmen like McAdoo on the one hand and grand visions of the League of Nations on the other. Wilson was an internationalist and no sort of conservative. Kissinger, Mr. Detente???? Mr. SALT???? I don't think so. Not a conservative but another internationalist. I will tell you out of the gate that if the ONLY alternatives were internationalism, more properly speaking "globaloney" and isolationism, then isolationism is number 1 with a bullet (you should pardon the expression) on this week's top 40. Fortunately, isolationism is a very distant second when outpaced by interventionism (on US terms when we feel like it for reasonable causes).
To Walter Russell Mead of the, ahem, Council on Foreign Relations, and no mere member but a frequent spokesthing, this conservative and most whom he knows would undress at high noon in the public square (offending public taste as well as public morals) before aiming for democracy in the Middle East. A conservative must be at least a skeptic on globaloney agendae and probably its outright enemy in 90%+ of cases. Given the wild popularity of the looney tunes led by Muhammed el Rootie Kazootie and his legion of child butchers by homicide bombings of school buses, I am not eager for Middle Eastern "democracy" any time soon. I miss the Shah of Iran. He was a far better model.
Michael Ledeen can call himself whatever he wants to call himself. He shifts around so much that he probably doesn't know what he is. In any event his quote is his opinion on what history has been and not what he thinks it SHOULD have been.
Donald Kagan will probably take Robert Kagan to the woodshed if he reads that nonsense about "liberal internationalism" much less the support for Lieberman/McCain.
As to other points, benevolent hegemon, perhaps. Empire???? No! Favor forcing regime changes? You bet! Remaking East Kaboomistan in the American image??? No! Rebuiilding East Kaboomistan with American money???? Absolutely not!
Conservatives and neocons favor a robust American military AND the willingness, yea, the eagerness to use America's unrivalled military strength reactively but preferably pre-emptively in interventions where desireable. Paleos do not. Paleos and conservatives do NOT favor nation-building, nor the abuse of the military and its personnel as social workers in Haiti or Kosovo or anywhere. Neoconservatives may favor nation-building. The old folks did work for LBJ and the Great Society in the pre-communist, pre-pervert Democrat Party and it would be in line with LBJism as reflected in his goofier Vietnam speeches. None of these groups favor empire.
Aggression and NOT appeasement and NOT containment (other than temporary while busy elsewhere) are indeed the conservative policy toward states and movements hostile to US interests and have been since Pearl Harbor and ever will be. High tech weaponry, reconfiguration for rapid deployment, greater flexibility, preventive strikes: Absolutely. Not limited to the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, either.
Mommy, there's a neocon under my bed!
You think that's bad?? I took the quiz and all of the sudden this popped up:
The "neo-con" explanation started with crypto-anti-semitism selective identification with certain supposed Jews in the administration. This was generated by La Rouche and perhaps a Buchanan piece or two. Confronted with non-Jews like Cheney and Rice, and unable to sustain a totally paranoid racist discourse holding that Ledeen, et al. is pulling Cheney's strings (though some Arabs and English can maintain this fiction), some libs adopted the "neo-con" rubric, but expanded it to Cheney, etc. Perhaps the commonest characteristic of this identification/definition project is the avoidance of asking any of these people if they are "neo-cons", let alone analyzing their views in context of Wahhabism, Caliphatism, ME politics, Kashmir, etc.
The historical parallel of the retinue of ideas they define is not only Wilson, but other self-identified non-conservatives such as JFK and LBJ. Also, the views of the defined "neo-cons" is not different than modern libs who want to "change" the world, they just don't like the tactics, and protraying America as a beneficient or even neutral actor interferes with their meticulous grooming of their anti-american historical narrative, a project which is threatened by reality and pesky foreign actors who aren't saying what they wish they would say.
That's interesting.
Alex 'royal pinhead' Jones is BIG on toutiong this angle these days ...
And the difference is?
Favor forcing regime changes? You bet! Remaking East Kaboomistan in the American image??? No! Rebuiilding East Kaboomistan with American money???? Absolutely not!
"Regime change" may or may not work, but your recipe looks like a prescription for disaster. The country that invades "East Kaboomistan" and conquers it and doesn't contribute to the rebuilding will naturally be hated, and the mess that it's helped to create will simply breed further terrorism.
Kristol, Boot and Kagan clearly wouldn't be taken seriously if they simply said "nuke'em till they glow," nor could they put in a good word for isolationism and expect to win support for their cause in establishment circles. And there are limits as to how far they can go in preaching pure self-interest unmixed with altruistic rhetoric. Their statements which you criticized have to be understood in this light. Even if they wanted the US to act like an predictable "mad dog," they couldn't say so publicly. Interventions can be so risky and the results so uncertain, that they need to be given a "Wilsonian" veneer of human rights and democracy to win support.
As for Ledeen, what grounds do you have for charging him with inconsistency? He may be embarassing or extreme, but his views have been fairly constant over the years.
I like how that sounds.
I got punched in the eye at a concert in high school once. Can I be a paleo?
There, there, dear, it'll be okay. It won't be long before someone comes along and says neo-con = JOOOS. That'll get you out of that funk.
What if I agree with him on everything and with the paleos like you on next to nothing?
Mad? We're winning. Everything. The GOP holds the White House, Senate, Congress and majority of state governorships. I'm as happy as can be, and things will only get better after next November. Meanwhile Pat and his paleos fade further and further into oblivion and Isolationist-Bunkerland.
Sorry chief but I disagree with neocons and it for the policy alone. If you go back and check any of my posts on the subject you'll find a substantive listing of policies critiques. I am not alone in philosophically opposing neoconservatism. Some conservatives see noting conservative about the neo version.
> I laugh at the earnest writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US.
The neoconservatives use the term quite a bit and glowingly I might add. Please do a search on FR for empire, imperialism, colonialism, etc. and then try it again on google. You might try with the National Review column by the editor Rich Lowery called The Colonial Consensus. Here's a little taste of neocon use of the term for starters -
"Max Boot, the features editor of The Wall Street Journal, has written a cogent and measured essay in the Oct. 15 issue of The Weekly Standard explaining that our problems abroad don't stem from too much American "imperialism," but too little. "
and another Boot -
Another name for ''`hard' Wilsonianism,'' he [Max Boot] points out, is liberal imperialism. After all, Wilson, who took over Veracruz, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, was one of our most imperial presidents. Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
>As for neocons, there is nothing "neo" about it. If you believe in the founding principles of the republic, and you are prepared to defend them, you are not "neo" anything.
I refer you to Irving Kristol as he defines neoconservatism in last week's Weekly Standard. It was posted on FR here and here You will find that he says neocons are all for the welfare state, they think activists presidents and centralized government is great, traditional conservative theorists are bunk. He also thinks strict national defense is for puny nations but great nations like the US are ideologically driven like the USSR and should spread their vision throughout the world. In summation what he believes in does not square well with anything the founding fathers held dear. I provided links, go see it in black and white for yourself.
>The US doesn't have an empire, and is not going to have an empire.
OK, lets call it neo-empire or neo- imperialism.
rdb3: I like how that sounds.
-------------------------------------------
Really? So you find the slaughter of tens of millions of people appealing do you? Not to mention poisoning the enviroment and global fallout which will float our way. Would you be volunteering to go in and drill for the oil in the glowing radioactive areas?
He got all giddy that the neo-con term came up again gave him a moment of relevancy. Did nothing to identify any of those identified as "neo-cons" today as actual "neo-cons."
Boot is an ideological chimp, and thinks he's flippant with words. All the other so-called "neo-cons" idenitifed I've seen are pretty much limited to issues about our self-sworn enemies, the Islamists, and how to deal with them.
Attacking Afghanistan, controlled by Al Qaeda, and finishing the 12 year war with Saddam does not make an "empire," whatever the modifier attached to it. In fact, the globalist economic agendas of the Republicrats is to work to lessen American economic power for the gains of multi-national companies.
Isolationalism is a valid position, I just don't see us as an "empire" in any meaningful sense. Some play with the word "hegemon", maybe that's better.
Since option one is a recipe for more wars not less and of course since war is the health of the state don't plan on having a smaller government or your taxes lowered. Are there other options? Yes very workable ones that would leave us peaceful and prosperous but they aren't too popular these days - peaceful trade with all, no entangling alliances and not striding the world seeking monsters to destroy. More war equals peace is rather Orwellian but then it fits with the zeitgeist.
I find your whiny tone amusing. Take it easy. All I said was that I liked how it sounded. You put everything else there. So that's your problem, not mine.
I didn't know I was picking an argument with you, but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement. If your policy dispute is with Kristol and Boot, then the term may have some validity. But I normally see it used to apply to anyone who favors the war against the Talibs and the Baathists, and who sympathise more with the Israelis than the Palestinians. If that is your position, then defend it and we will enjoy the exchange.
If I happen to agree with Boot or Kristol on some items, I probably also agree with you on some others. Labelling me a "u89er" would do little to advance an argument, nor does labelling me a neo, or a parrothead, or anything else.
Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
I repeat what I said earlier. I laugh at writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US. They use a term they half understand to describe something they don't at all understand. That includes Boot, and Buchanan, and every leftist writer I ever read.
I refer you to Irving Kristol... he says neocons are all for the welfare state
Again, if your target is Kristol, your comments and your use of the term "neo" is apt. But the term is normally used in shotgun fashion against everyone who favors confronting our enemies on their own turf, rather than on ours. If they wear an "R" next to their name, they probably do not favor the welfare state, so the term would be misapplied. Its only purpose, then, in this case would be to shut down discussion.
I recognize that there could be a legitimate utilitarian argument concerning whether or how or where we confront our enemies, and I would still recognize you as a fellow Republican, or a fellow conservative if you disagreed with me on those terms. You at least agree on the founding principles of the republic, and most probably agree that they are worth defending, differing with us on the how and where. I respect that position even if I disagree with it.
For the folks on the left, they don't even accept the founding principles, and they do not agree to defend them anywhere, not in Central Asia, not at the borders, not anywhere.
He also thinks... great nations like the US are ideologically driven... and should spread their vision throughout the world.
The US is ideologically driven. It is not an ethnic nation in the sense that France or Germany is, it is ideology that binds us. The fact that half the country no longer believes in the founding principles does not alter that fact, that it is the values closely held by the other half that hold us together. And as for whether or not we "should", the fact remains that we "do" spread our vision thoughout the world. Whether we should do so by design is fodder for discussion, but the fact is that we do, just by breathing, just by existing, just because that is the way we are. You are a revolutionary on the world stage without planning to be, without wanting to be, because your, our, values put the lie to the values that undergird most of the rest of the world. That makes us a magnet for trouble. Some of us err on the side of bold, some of us err on the side of prudence. Post 9/11, I vote for "bold".
CSM's September expose: Dance Fever Blistering Denny Terrio or Adrian Zmed? Who put the meat into Motion?
Coming in October - "Club Bludgeoning" Could that be Dr. Ruth Westheimer being the stone cold diva shakin her moneymaker on the floor for the East Village hepcats rattling like a blender full of croquet balls on "puree"?
Coming in November - Three's Company's Untold Story: Grab the children and run: Randy insatiable nymphomaniac Mrs. Roper lives upstairs and Pig humping horny lizard Larry lives next door. Somthin's gotta give. Towels. Lots of towels.
December - Supersize my Diet Coke and No Ketchup on the Cheesburger Kiddie Meal for my Young Lady friend CSM follows Scott Ritter and his companion on a luncheon date at the Fairfax Burger King Restaurant.
This Neocon stuff is so damn boring.
Here’s a United States Marine, Roger McGrath, writing in Chronicles magazine (best American monthly by far) about war:
And who is to do it? Certainly not the neoconservatives. They use such terms as moral clarity and the need to project our power — but it is to be done with someone else’s body. A conversation I had with a budding neocon reveals their version of moral clarity. Who was included when he said ‘we’. He looked at me as if I were a bit dense and said, ‘We, the United States.’ ‘Does that mean you?’ I asked. ‘No,’ he replied, ‘the guys in the army.’
McGrath goes on to ask the neocon whether our boys should be put in harm’s way for interests that have nothing to do with the defence of the United States. ‘Are you willing to do what you call the right thing with your own body?’ asks the Marine. ‘Those guys are volunteers — they chose to do it. I’m just finishing my degree and have a good job lined up.’
Need I say more? The neocon is not a soldier and does not plan to become one. Soldiering is for others. In a republic, it is the job of citizens. In an empire, it is imperial forces who do the fighting. Another Marine, Major-General Smedley Butler, twice decorated with the Medal of Honour, making him one of only two Marines in history to win the greatest battlefield decoration twice, had this to say about war: ‘War is just a racket...I believe in adequate defence of our coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes here, then we’ll fight. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. I would only fight for the defence of our homes and for the Bill of Rights.’
....(I can still remember the stink of dead human flesh) — and the Yom Kippur war, I decided war was not such a good thing after all. All Quiet on the Western Front attests to a common humanity transcending nation, race, and religion. Erich Maria Remarque became a pacifist because he had fought the war in the trenches. The neocons never have and do not plan to, and do not deserve the right to send anyone to die except themselves.
---------------------------------------
Those of us who oppose nation building, policing and peace keeping, intervention and meddling see the world differently than many of those who support these things. That is why we think the military should be used only for strictly defined self defense. How many in our armed forces volunteered to spread our values around the world? I'll wager they signed up to defend The United States. As Taki said the "big thinkers" don't have plans for themselves beyond lucrative jobs - usually in government, think tanks or as pundits - and stock holdings in defense contractors. We conservatives don't think highly of communists and socialists but at least people like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade put their own lives on the line to fight for a cause in which they believed. How many of the cheerleaders for global hegemony disrupted their lives, their careers, their families lives to enlist in the army for the duration it will take to create the Pax Americana they envision?
I don't look at debate as an argument. I was simply trying to respond to what I interpreted as a differing view on the subjects at hand.
> but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement.
I submit the charges of anti-semitism against critics of neoconservatism are used for precisely the reasons you stated above. Please see the contents of my selected neocon quotes in the main post and several of the following "rebuttals."
As far as labeling someone or ones neocon it seems to be a logical necessity as we humans need to label things in order to communicate. How can we discuss a certain vision of the world if the adherents deny they exist, as has been the attempt of serveral "neocon" columns"? Just because neoconservatives do not share a monolithic and uniform view of every issue does not mean there is no such thing as a group or school of thought. Since no two people agree on every topic naturally there will be variations of neoconservative thought just like every other group. Generalizations simply are conducive to communication. I have experienced neocons arguing trivialities simply because they do not wish to have the main topic examined i.e. the ramifications of their foreign policy and to a lesser extend their domestic policies.
As far as empire is concerned there is the historical definition which you use and therefore reject the current usage. Then there is the new and revised version which is what we now have. It is not simply the opponents of current policies that use the term empire. The proponents have written fairly extensively trying to whitewash and polish the term so it can become respectable and embraced.
Lastly there is a difference between the US being founded by a certain ideology, living by it and being an example to others and exporting that ideology through military conquest. Kristol and his fellow travelers (first generation neocons) were communists of the Trotskyite order in their youth. They opposed Stalin because Stalin (in the 20s and 30s) set about to consolidate power in the USSR and build up the nation. The Trotskyites wanted a world socialist revolution to be waged. They were dreamers and Stalin was a realist. It is obvious from their writings that Kristol and Co. may have shifted their earlier communist views (though they still believe in quasi- socialism) but they have not lost the world revolutionary zeal of their youth. Using their own statements to understand them the rest of us can then see a a wrong headedness in and danger to the implimentation of their vision. National Defense is used as their justification and most conservatives reflexively leap on board. Who could be against National Defense? Well some see their plans as dangerous, risky, perhaps even suicidal. It is our patriotic defense of the nation that brings us to oppose neocons.
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.