Reality 1, Neo-cons 0

Free Congress Foundation ^ | March 2, 2004 | William S. Lind

[Chapita]

The Marines have landed, and the situation is not well in hand, nor will it ever be. I am speaking, of course, of Haiti, that boil on the Western Hemisphere's posterior which no plaster can ever cure. In the 18th century, Haiti was so rich, thanks to the sugar trade, that it alone provided two-thirds of the value of France's overseas commerce. Today, Haiti is so poor that the average American dog probably lives better than the average Haitian.

But I forget: just ten years ago, we solved all of Haiti's problems. Applying the neo-cons' prescription for the whole world, we sent in thousands of American troops, overthrew the "undemocratic" Haitian government and installed Haiti's Mr. Chalabi, Monsieur Aristide - the same savior who just departed, with Washington's encouragement, to the universal anthem of the Third World's elite, "I'm Leavin' on a Jet Plane." For some incomprehensible reason, democracy backed by American bayonets failed to turn Haiti into Switzerland. It's probably because we forgot to teach them how to make cuckoo clocks and put holes in cheese.

Haiti is in fact a fair test of the neo-cons' thesis, a thesis we are now putting to further trials in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their core argument is that history and culture simply don't matter. Everyone in the world wants American-style "democratic capitalism," and everyone is also capable of it. To think otherwise is to commit the sin of "historicism."

The argument is absurd on the face of it. History and culture don't matter? Not only do the failed cultures and disastrous histories of most of the world argue the contrary, so does our own history and culture. Democratic capitalism first developed in one place, England, over an historical course that goes back almost a thousand years, to the Magna Carta. America was born as an independent country to guarantee the rights of Englishmen. If England had possessed the culture of, say Mongolia, can anyone with the slightest grasp on reality think we would be what we are today?

While the neo-cons' thesis says nothing about reality, it says a great deal about the neo-cons themselves. First, it tells us that they are ideologues. All ideologies posit that certain things must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That evidence is to be suppressed, along with the people who insist on pointing to it. Sadly, the neo-cons have been able to do exactly that within the Bush Administration, and the mess in Iraq is the price.

Second, it reveals the nature of the neo-con ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism (as Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology). The neo-cons in fact are Jacobins, les ultras of the French Revolution who also tried to export "human rights" (which are very different from the concrete, specific rights of Englishmen) on bayonets. Then, the effort eventually united all of Europe against France. Today, it is uniting the rest of the world against America.

Finally it reveals the neo-cons as fools, lightweights who can dismiss history and culture because they know nothing of history or culture. The first generation of neo-cons were serious intellectuals, Trotskyites but serious Trotskyites. The generation now in power in Washington is made up of poseurs who happen to have the infighting skills of the Sopranos. If you don't believe me, look at Mr. Wolfowitz's book. Or, more precisely, look for Mr. Wolfowitz's book (hint: he never wrote one).

Perhaps it was America's turn to have its foreign policy captured by a gang of ignorant and reckless adventurers. It has happened to others: Russia before the Russo-Japanese War, Japan in the 1930's. The results are seldom happy.

Before we get ourselves into any more neo-con led follies, we should apply their thesis to a simple test: send them to Haiti and see if they can make a go of it, after the U.S. Marines pull out. If they can, I'll put my money in a Haitian bank.

William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation

[rdb3]

(I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who seem to treat the term "neo-con" as an empty vessel into which they can freely pour all their perceived ideological enemies... there's a definite "I disagree with you, therefore you're a 'neo-con'" movement proliferating, and I just don't understand it.. )

You already understand it. You've basically nailed it here.

[discostu]

When their values include paying people to blow themselves up on crowded busses their values are worthless and must be irradicated.

So far your number 2 has been proven to be absolutely wrong in every possible way. Terrorists gain strength when they're target proves it doesn't have the heart to fight back. Notice how the level of their violence against us accelerated all through the Clinton administration but now they only strike against what is supposed to be their own people in Iraq, Turkey and Suadi.

Dean Rusk's "democracy" was a joke, which is exactly the problem with this article. The difference between fake elections and real elections is the difference between Haiti and Iraq.

[RussianConservative]

Ok...land marines on oil fields, surround areas and make "international" to continue sales...move to Ryhad and destroy Saudi royals...then restructure what is in need...also, Saudi not only oil in world: Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq (if pipe line explosions ever stop), Iran, Libya, Algeria, Russia, Kazakstan, Britian, Sudan, Nigeria, Mexico, Venuzvala, Norway, Romania to name but few....own US oil.

[Richard Kimball]

I don't agree with the article at all, but you are correct on Haiti's history. I don't see Haiti ever being anything other than one dictator deposing another. Haiti is basically tribal, with no political organization in the Western sense. If one guy has ten men with guns and the other side has 100 voters, the guy with the ten men with guns wins the election.

[RussianConservative]

It won't be a perpetual war, just look at how things have progessed since 9-11, Al Qaeda hasn't struck outside of it's own backyard in over a year, they started bombing in Saudi (not good for their support there). If we take away their front men we take away their ability to operate.

You ignore simple fact that one of Al Quida main goal is to over throw Saudies....second why you expect them to strike where it is hard...good general go at easiest/weakest links of defense: they strike in Turkey, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Afghanistan....in each they drain enemy resource at least some...Sun Tzai say: he who guard everything is strong no where.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Aristide had been Democratically elected. It is Frum, who has suddenly pushed himself forward as the champion of the idea of our using our military to impose Democracy on other peoples.

Okay, so the parallel you have set up is between Aristide's having been "Democratically elected", and the "Democracy" pushed by Frum.

My disagreement stems from the fact that (real) democracy is far more than just one election. So (1) military force to re-install a Democratically-elected person, and (2) military force to install democracy, are not necessarily the same thing, nor are the principles which may underlie the two.

I have no idea what David Frum thinks about Aristide by the way, nor do I care very much.

[RussianConservative]

On the other hand: a claim by China that Taiwan is a "threat" to China, and an invasion of Taiwan on that basis, would probably be dismissed by me out of hand as absurd.

But problem is this: since WW2 main view on Geopolitics is: any preemptive attack is wrong. In era before, premptive attack was norm, so friend of yesterday is enemy of today is friend of tomorrow...now with Serbia and Iraq, it is back to same.

[discostu]

Doesn't work that way. The oil fields are spread all over the country and it doesn't take but one RPG to mess one up. We simply don't have enough soldiers in our military, even if we put every single one on the job, to be able to protect all that oil. Oil we desperately need to make America work.

The Saudi royal family is huge, and not all of them support terrorists. The last thing we need to do is start some sort of Godfather vendetta fest with one of the richest families in the world.

Saudi isn't the only oil in the world, but as I said it's not just the oil they have but the influence they have in OPEC. They could get other countries to cut us off. There's not nearly enough oil being produced outside of OPEC to keep America going.

[RussianConservative]

and it does not include Sharia law. In fact, the only thing it includes that addresses Islam in any way is that it says that Iraq can't enact any laws that -violate- Islam.

Ok quick reality check: Shari is prescribe law of ISLAM, to do otherwise violates Islam, thus Shari.

[RussianConservative]

Exactly that now add Islam and whalla Arab Muslim culture.

[JimRed]

You nailed it, and, by the way, your English is a whole lot better than my Russian!

[x]

We've been involved in Haiti for about ninety years. We occupied the country from 1915 to 1934. Subsequent Presidents (FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) tried to encourage democracy there. Yet we haven't been able to make stable, representative government take root in Haiti. How long will it take in Iraq? Perhaps Iraqis will be more like Americans or Europeans who live under elected, constitutional governments and make them work than Haitians are, but it's by no means clear that things will work out that way easily or soon.

[discostu]

There's a base contradiction in your thought. If the Saudi royals are such great supporters of terrorists then why would Al Queada want to get rid of them?

They strike where they can get the most blood and cause the most fear. They apparently can no longer strike America directly, which is exactly the reason we're fighting this war. We're not gaurding everything, we're gaurding ourselves, they knocked down the best damn building we ever built and we're not going to let them do it again. But the war can't be fought here, what we've done is moved the war into the bad guys area. Now when they strike they make enemies where they used to make supporters, they lose funding. We've taken away two of their best safe havens and one of their best sources of money, and this has dramatically and obviously affected them and made America more secure.

[Qwinn]

Oh, please. Not all Muslims subscribe to Sharia Law - not even close - and -particularly- not the vast bulk of Iraqis. Many many polls in Iraq have confirmed this repeatedly. To claim such is just silly.

Claiming all Muslims are advocates of Sharia Law is like claiming all Christians are advocates of an utterly strict literalist interpretation of every line of the Bible, down to claiming that the world was created in 144 hours, no more, no less.

Qwinn

[RussianConservative]

So I guess US war on terror continue till Saudi dream of Caliph America...one gas tank at time...since you sponsor own enemy at pump...or do you think suddenly Saudi change....because you ask? You fight proxy war with Saudi sponsor Taliban, Al Quida, Niba ISaif and countless other...all because a bit of fear at some economic pain to destroy very peoples who WILL destroy you...since you prove self weaker.

[Dr. Frank fan]

But problem is this: since WW2 main view on Geopolitics is: any preemptive attack is wrong.

And what I'm explaining to you is that I do not share this view. I think some pre-emptive attacks are ok. Example: Iraq. Understand yet?

In era before, premptive attack was norm, so friend of yesterday is enemy of today is friend of tomorrow...now with Serbia and Iraq, it is back to same.

You lost me.

I opposed the US action in Serbia, for what it's worth. (I think European armies, for example Italy, should have done the job, if it needed doing.)

[mrfixit514]

the mess in Iraq

Can this idiot really believe Iraq is not better off than it was 1 year ago? Perfect? No. A Mess? Hardly.

[RussianConservative]

My english improve a bit...here on FR...I get to practise much more then normal...almost everyday...which my wife hates. :0)

[discostu]

Because we haven't tried. For most of our time there the methods we used were the same we used everywhere: put in somebody we like and defend them. We didn't care if the person was a bloodthirsty dictator so long as he was OUR bloodthirsty dictator. This was stupid and shortsighted and we've been reaping the long term benefits of that thinking since the embasy was stormed in Tehran. The new model we're trying out in Iraq and Afghanistan is completely different, it's back to the model we used after WWII in Japan and Germany which worked pretty well.

It probably won't work out easily or soon. It wasn't easy or quick in Germany or Japan, but it was worth it. Quick and easy got us into this mess, mistaking nation building for dictator propping was quick and easy, and also stupid.

[Qwinn]

"But problem is this: since WW2 main view on Geopolitics is: any preemptive attack is wrong."

No it isn't. The main view of Geopolitics has been "any preemptive attack is a-okay, unless it's the United States that does it, in which case it's horrifically wrong".

To wit - France's mostly uncontested invasion of the Ivory Coast. Russia's mostly uncontested invasion of Chechenya. China's mostly uncontested invasion of Tibet. Syria's mostly uncontested invasion of Lebanon. And on, and on, and on, and on.

Qwinn