Posted on 12/21/2003 6:09:08 PM PST by blam
US neo-conservatives jubilant over WMD agreement
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
22 December 2003
After months on the defensive because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the neo-conservative hawks responsible for the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive warfare were quietly jubilant over the weekend following Libya's climb down over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and other significant gestures by Iran and Syria.
The Libyan leadership's decision to abandon its weapons programme was a vindication, they said, of the long-standing argument that invading Iraq would give other countries an unambiguous signal of what they could expect if they pursued positions of defiance towards the United States.
The assertion of US military might, Pentagon advisor and noted hawk Kenneth Adelman told The Washington Post, "scares the bejesus out of rogue dictators" - and the breakthrough with Libya proved it.
It has been a morale-boosting few days for the neo-cons. The capture of Saddam Hussein last weekend was followed first by an Iranian agreement to allow surprise United Nations inspections of its nuclear facilities, then by an announcement by Syria that it had seized $23.5m (£13m) apparently intended for al-Qa'ida and that, in turn, by Muammar Gaddafi's undertaking to dismantle Libya's biological and chemical weapons programmes under international supervision.
"It's always been at the heart of the Bush Doctrine that a more robust policy would permit us to elicit greater cooperation from adversaries than we'd had in the past when we acquiesced," said Richard Perle, another noted hawk, also in an interview with The Washington Post. "With the capture of Saddam, the sense that momentum may be with us is very important."
There may be plenty of room to disagree with the hawks' arguments, not least because of their inconsistent attitude towards United Nations weapons inspectors (rubbished on the eve of the Iraq war, now central to the successful oversight of the Libyan and Iranian deals). There is the question of who should take credit for what, since the Iranians appear to have been talking to the Europeans - hardly neo-con favourites - rather than the Americans. And it is unclear, too, how the US tough line might reap similar dividends with North Korea, the pariah state closest to the actual production of nuclear weapons.
In domestic political terms, the hawks have moved into the ascendant, at least for the moment, and pushed their critics and adversaries back onto the defensive. President Bush made the clear link between the flexing of US military muscle in Iraq and the latest diplomatic windfalls when he said on Friday: "These actions by the United States and our allies have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction."
The field of would-be Democratic challengers said little or nothing about the Libyan breakthrough over the weekend, in stark contrast to the aftermath of the Saddam capture, when Howard Dean, the front-runner, said he did not think the arrest had any beneficial knock-on effects for US security, and his adversaries scrambled for positions somewhere between his and the Bush administration's.
The raw assertion of American power has always been key to the neo-cons' calculations on Iraq, much more than the given justifications for war regarding WMD or the need to rid the world of a brutal dictator. They, together with key political figures including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, put it at the forefront of a new global security structure they began formulating after the first Gulf War in 1991. It was central to the so-called Project for the New American Century, the blueprint for the Iraq invasion written in 1997.
Mr Perle said yesterday: "It's nice to have a good week every once in a while."
shouldn't EVERYONE BE HAPPY?? Are the DUer's upset by the agreement??
It's a slur, and is apposite to "Paleo-con" which typifies someone who would never have gone to Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere else.
They'd sit here and let us be killed.
It also is a contrast to a liberal, who talks, and talks, and talks, and talks, while people who only understand violence make fools of us.
So, I'm a neo-con, and damn proud of it!
In these times it is better to be a hawk than it is to be a sheep.
I didn't know that. I've always sensed that there was a meaning that I wasn't getting.
I get it. Bush is a pupet for the neo-cons? The more they try to make Bush look bad, the more they look like complete and utter traitors. It's going to be a good election in 2004...
"--As neo-con godfather, Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". True to that description, neo-conservatives generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many neo-cons, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organizational skills and ideological zeal.--"
and
--"This is a way for people to sneer at the motives of a Krauthammer or Podhoretz, even though they're nothing more than conservatives like any Christian, Muslim or agnostic in the movement. They call Christian conservatives "the religious right," and they call Jewish conservatives "neo-conservatives." Think of it that way, and recognize it for the insult it is. I'd also recommend to you a two-part call from a conservative, Miriam, who happens to be Jewish, in the audio link below. You can also listen to Mark, who says he's a conservative who opposed the war. He tried to use an Algore analogy to questioning the religion of Bush's advisors.----"
Perhaps we all base our judgments on what is conservative based on what we ourselves think is most important. Hence a so-called 'paleocon' wants to see women and children machine-gunned at the border because they hate the idea of a brown-skinned person committing a misdemeanor with impunity, but I would call them 'knuckle-dragging neanderthals', not 'conservatives' since the inestimable value of human life is the basis of our rights and system of self-governance. Hence a self-avowed libertarian calls himself 'conservative' because he wants to legalize recreational poisons and lauds the 'right' to be irresponsible, to commit sodomy and own or make pornography, but I would call them 'moral-liberals' rather than 'conservatives' since conservatives are big on personal responsibility and upholding moral truths which reinforce the family structure, which in turn is the foundation of our society.
In turn, they would claim that human life has no value, that there are no moral truths, that irresponsibility is something to be praised, and that the family unit is the bane of society, or that society is the bane of the individual, which alone should be all-important, at least in their minds.
Any hawk who would use the US military simply to defeat the enemy and get out is no neocon.
Let us rejoice.
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.