The Central Front (Neoconservatism is America's best bet to ensure it's future safety)

Tech Central Station ^ | June 30, 2004 | Michael Brandon McClellan

[quidnunc]

Uniquely, democratic realism recognizes that in the present era of Islamic terror, security is only attainable through engagement, and that engagement will only have meaningful long term benefits if followed by committed democratic construction. In contrast, a policy of containment — one that focuses on either multilateral diplomatic discussions or a realist playing of one hostile interest against another — works to merely reinforce the status quo that breeds Jihadist killers. Only democracy and the rule of law can permanently alter the Middle East's volatile status quo, and extinguish the flames of violent radicalism in the Arab world. This is the great truth of the neo-conservative paradigm.

Large wars are often fought on many fronts, and the War on Terror is no exception. But most, if not all wars, have their central front. In the American Civil War, such was northern Virginia. While battles on the Mississippi and in Tennessee were important, the war was to be won or lost in the East. If General Lee took Philadelphia and Washington, DC, the war could end. Similarly, the Confederacy could not afford to lose Richmond, and the Army of Northern Virginia. In World War I, while fighting took place in Africa, in the Middle East, and in Eastern Europe, the war was to be won or lost on the Western Front. Paris could not fall, nor could Berlin. In World War II, the most global conventional war ever fought, Europe still remained the central front. Once Berlin fell, there was no question that the combined Allied might of the USA, the UK, and the USSR would crush the forces of Imperial Japan.

In the War on Terror, the central front is the Middle East. It is there from which the radical Jihadists derive, draw their manpower, and maintain their strongest roots. It is from the Middle East that Wahhabism is exported. It is accordingly the Middle East that must be engaged. The status quo that has allowed the Jihadists to thrive must be altered, and it must be altered in a permanent fashion.

-snip-

[epigone73]

Hear! Hear!

I've long believed that American hegemony is a necessity for us to live in peace; the Cold War merely delayed the event, and the strength we gained from it equipped us for the task ahead.

As a practical matter, history shows that nations which do not dominate or co-opt their neighbors always lose their liberty. Compare Sparta's isolation with Roman imperialism to see what I mean. sparta remained "pure" well after the people had lost their political autonomy; Rome remained Roman , and inaugurated an age of peace abroad and order and freedom at home (augustan age) which lasted for centuries.

Empire is inevitable, and I say Bring it on.

[ChinaThreat]

Halleleujah!

[Tolik]

This is the final installment of a three-part series arguing that neoconservatism best defends America.
Important article PING!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[Tolik]

You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.

and FR-discussed here:

Why Neo-Conservatism Best Defends America: Pt 2 – The Alternatives Are Dangerously Insufficient

Posted by quidnunc
On News/Activism 06/23/2004 12:07:50 AM EDT with 6 comments

Tech Central Station ^ | June 23, 2004 | Michael Brandon McClellan
Criticizing a grand strategy as ambitious as the Bush administration's is easy. Providing an alternative grand strategy that does not undermine American security is hard. In fact, no one has done so. With the June 30th transfer of sovereignty in Iraq almost upon us, and the November Presidential Election just around the corner, Americans need to analyze the Bush administration's adopted strategic framework of neo-conservatism in an appropriate context — namely what are the alternatives? If not the neo-conservative prescription of regime change followed by democratic construction, then what? After all, building democracy in the Middle East has proven to...

Why Neo-Conservatism Best Defends America (No paleocons need apply!)

Posted by quidnunc
On News/Activism 06/15/2004 11:42:46 PM EDT with 146 comments

Tech Central Station ^ | June 16, 2004 | Michael Brandon McClellan
The neo-conservative strategic paradigm has become the rhetorical punching bag of pundits across the political spectrum. Not only leftists, but isolationist-leaning conservatives and libertarians have consistently scoffed at what they view as the far-fetched arrogance of a paradigm that seeks to implement regime change and build democracy in the autocratic and religiously radical Middle East. With each setback in Iraq, they have professed their alleged vindication. With each mounting casualty toll, they have demanded an expedited withdrawal from the Bush administration. They are wrong. Criticism without advocacy of a sufficient alternative contributes nothing to US national security. Wars are not...
 

 

 

[RottiBiz]

I have found every article to which you have pinged me to be both interesting and enlightening.

Please keep pinging!

[Tolik]

Thank you very much.

[Tolik]

Moral degradation, alcohol and pornography are just a few byproducts of the free society. Societies that totally prohibit human sin don't stop just there and are not free. The problem is where to and how to stop, where is the balance and how to stay balanced. What happens usually is that pendulum swings too far. Our system is the best so far in self-regulation (while not being perfect, of course).  The sixties pushed us too far to the left. We discern now  a move to the right, back to the balance point.