Scowcroft's 'Realism'

RealClearPolitics ^ | October 28, 2005 | By Charles Krauthammer

[.cnI redruM]

WASHINGTON -- Now that Cindy Sheehan turns out to be a disaster for the anti-war movement -- most Americans are not about to follow a left-wing radical who insists that we are in Iraq for reasons of theft, oppression and empire -- a new spokesman is needed. If I were in the opposition camp, I would want a deeply patriotic, highly intelligent, distinguished establishment figure. I would want Brent Scowcroft.

[.cnI redruM]

Scowcroft should be parked in a Lefty Think Tank or at Grinnell University. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.

[oh8eleven]

He reminds me of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.
As bad as Scowcraft may be, the other two are in a league of their own.

[The Right Stuff]

Great article! Thanks.

[Peach]

Instead, Ajami celebrates the coming of decency in a place where decency was outlawed 30 years ago.

It is not surprising that Scowcroft, who helped give indecency a 12-year life extension, should disdain decency's return.

Great article.

[geezerwheezer]

I've always thought of Scowcroft as being a complete fool and he has done nothing to change that perception. Why even give him press when he is so stupid and vapid?

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, I never realized Scowcroft was that much of a tool.

[p. henry]

He gets press for the same reason Gergen gets press. He is an alleged Republican who thinks and speaks like a Democrat and is therefore a useful foil against other Republicans.

[Alberta's Child]

For realists such as Scowcroft, regime change is the ultimate taboo. Too risky, too dangerous, too unpredictable.

What Krauthammer has overlooked here is that Scowcroft is making precisely the same point that George W. Bush made as a candidate in 2000 when he adamantly opposed the use of the U.S. military for futile exercises in nation-building.

. . . he came out strongly against the war and the neocon sorcerers who magically foisted it upon what must have been a hypnotized president and vice president.

See my last statement above. "Sorcerers" and "magic" may be a kind way of explaining why Bush's actions as president were a far cry of his campaign promises as a candidate.

[Just mythoughts]

Scowcroft has liberalized the word stability if he considers Saddam a source of stability.

[.cnI redruM]

Iraq's sanctions, Oil for Food Program and No Fly Zones to keep Saddam from exterminating large swaths of his own people were not what anyone could logically describe as a metastable equilibrium. We broke Iraq 10 years before GWB was elected. It was our mess, we were obligated to clean it up.

[Cincinatus]

Scowcroft is making precisely the same point that George W. Bush made as a candidate in 2000 when he adamantly opposed the use of the U.S. military for futile exercises in nation-building.

We had an intervening event between W's election and the invasion of Iraq -- 9/11. That changed the geopolitical calculus. It's a poor President indeed that cannot adapt his foreign policy to changing circumstances.

[LibLieSlayer]

I think al qaeda changed Nation Building from a "feel good" liberal daydream, into a necessity for our survival. We are in a war unlike any we have faced in our past. Afghanistan and Iraq are a turning point in our victory over Islamofacism, much as Midway was a turning point in the war in the Pacific during WWII.

LLS

[G.Mason]

"The difficulties there are indeed great. But those difficulties came about not because, as Scowcroft tells us, ``some people don't really want to be free'' and don't value freedom as we do."

I can see Brent Scowcroft, somewhere in the deep South, circa 1820's, on a cotton plantation, giving this pep talk to his slaves before sending them into the fields on a hot summer morning.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Scowcroft should be parked in a Lefty Think Tank or at Grinnell University. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale.<<<

Or a David Gergen.

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, he'd feel obligated. After all, he's doing it for their own good.

[.cnI redruM]

So you think Scumcroft is a Republican who has grown?

[Alberta's Child]

The notion that 9/11 necessitated a change in this country's approach to Iraq is so patently ridiculous that I'm surprised it is still incessantly presented as a legitimate argument here on FreeRepublic.

The "neoconservatives" who were the strongest cheerleaders for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had been appointed to the Bush administration long before 9/11, and their sole focus in that administration had always been to topple Saddam Hussein and "build a nation" in Iraq. If you do some research on folks in the U.S. Defense Department like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, etc. you'll find that the only background they had at all was their endless calls for "regime change" in Iraq for the entire decade leading up to 2001. These people weren't experts on the Cold War, China, or even al-Qaeda -- they were simply big-government globalists who always saw U.S. involvement in Iraq as a key element in their "New World Order."

An internet search on the terms "al-Qaeda" and "Richard Perle," for example, would reveal a shocking lack of any documented understanding of al-Qaeda for a guy who would become a key architect in this so-called "war on terror."

[KeyWest]

Good post. Interesting that even under Reagan there was a "realistic" approach to most foreign policy. It was the US approach and until Reagan set out to destabilize the USSR indirectly with the war in Afghanistan did we change a little. Panama and Granada were more in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine than a break with "realism".

However, as you point out, since 9/11 the US has shed the "realistic" policy in some parts of the world, but we are still in that mode in others. The State Department does not like hard work and a "realistic" Foreign Policy requires it only to keep the status quo while one that promotes the spread of democracy requires work, intelligence and perseverance, three things lacking in our State Department.

[safisoft]

I would want a deeply patriotic, highly intelligent, distinguished establishment figure. I would want Brent Scowcroft.

Want to know what Scrowcroft looks like with heels and longer hair? She works for George W. Bush, and she is every bit as bad and likely worse. Dr. Rice is the worse thing for the W.O.T. She has fostered the confusing policy of rewarding terrorists in Gaza, the West Bank, and Syria - all the while President Bush claims that we will go after those who harbor terrorists as if they are terrorist.

Mr. President, fire Condi Rice. Mahmoud Abbas is merely a terrorist who wears a suit.

[Common Tator]

Scowcroft is reacting much like any man whose life long beliefs are proving to be false. President Bush is about to prove that Arabs can handle freedom and responsibility. The president is about to prove that Arabs are not inferior beings compared to European elites. That bothers Scowcroft a lot. It attacks his fundamental self image as a superior human being.

There is a long held belief in elite establishment circles that they are superior.. and therefore Arabs, and Africans are inferior. Here in the USA the Establishment Elites have always held the belief that Africans must have special help to succeed.

It matters not if the establishment elites believe that genetics or the environment have resulted in Africans being inferior. The result is the same .. They act and react as if Africans are and were inferior to them. They have institutionalized racism based on environment rather than genetics. A belief results in behavior. The behavior depends on the belief not the reasons the belief is held. Scowcroft is in my view a typical elite racist.

It is the elitist's belief that Blacks can sit on the stage but they can never be allowed to take the podium. .. At least not take the podium without lots of help and special guidance. The Establishment also thinks that Arabs are inferior. They believe Arabs can not handle freedom or self government. Arabs must live under a totalitarian regime. The establishment elite believe that given a choice, the Arabs will choose dictatorship. They believe that the Arab mases need the Muslim religion as an opiate to survive. It is their dependence on religion that demands that their lives be ruled by totalitarian leaders.

The elites believe that Europeans need to be weened from their religions. They would prefer banning European's Religious faith while allowing the inferiors to retain theirs. That is why the elites tolerate and promote most religions other than Christianity. They believe the inferiors need religion, the European addiction to religions must be made illegal.

Thus they can support religious choice for inferiors but not for European whites. The left can campaign in Black Churches but claim the religious beliefs of President Bush prove he is inferior.

Scowcroft may have served in Republican administrations but he is as racist as the most elite Democrat. Scowcroft is a John Kerry with a slightly higher I.Q.