Operation Comeback. How to Save the Neocons

TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives FROM: Joshua Muravchik RE: How to Save the Neocons

We neoconservatives have been through a startling few years. Who could have imagined six years ago that wild stories about our influence over U.S. foreign policy would reach the far corners of the globe? The loose group of us who felt impelled by the antics of the 1960s to migrate from the political left to right must have numbered fewer than 100. And we were proven losers at Washington’s power game: The left had driven us from the Democratic Party, stolen the “liberal” label, and successfully affixed to us the name “neoconservative.” In reality, of course, we don’t wield any of the power that contemporary legend attributes to us. Most of us don’t rise at the crack of dawn to report to powerful jobs in government. But it is true that our ideas have influenced the policies of President George W. Bush, as they did those of President Ronald Reagan. That does feel good. Our intellectual contributions helped to defeat communism in the last century and, God willing, they will help to defeat jihadism in this one. It also feels good to see that a number of young people and older converts are swelling our ranks.

The price of this success is that we are subjected to relentless obloquy. “Neocon” is now widely synonymous with “ultraconservative” or, for some, “dirty Jew.” A young Egyptian once said to me, “‘Neoconservative’ sounds to our ears like ‘terrorist’ sounds to yours.” I am shocked to hear that some among us, wearying of these attacks, are sidling away from the neocon label. Where is the joie de combat? The essential tenets of neoconservatism--belief that world peace is indivisible, that ideas are powerful, that freedom and democracy are universally valid, and that evil exists and must be confronted--are as valid today as when we first began. That is why we must continue to fight. But we need to sharpen our game. Here are some thoughts on how to do it:

Learn from Our Mistakes. We are guilty of poorly explaining neoconservatism. How, for example, did the canard spread that the roots of neoconservative foreign policy can be traced back to Leo Strauss and Leon Trotsky? The first of these false connections was cooked up by Lyndon LaRouche, the same convicted scam artist who spends his days alerting humanity to the Zionist-Henry Kissinger-Queen Elizabeth conspiracy. The second probably originated with insufficiently reconstructed Stalinists. To say that our core beliefs remain true is not to counsel self-satisfaction. We got lucky with Reagan. He took the path we wanted, and the policies succeeded brilliantly. He left office highly popular. Bush is a different story. He, too, took the path we wanted, but the policies are achieving uncertain success. His popularity has plummeted. It would be pigheaded not to reflect and rethink.

But we ought to do this without backbiting or abandoning Bush. All policies are perfect on paper, none in execution. All politicians are, well, politicians. Bush has embraced so much of what we believe that it would be silly to begrudge his deviations. He has recognized the terrorist campaign against the United States that had mushroomed over 30 years for what it is--a war that must be fought with the same determination, sacrifice, and perseverance that we demonstrated during the Cold War. And he has perceived that the only way to win this war in the end is to transform the political culture of the Middle East from one of absolutism and violence to one of tolerance and compromise.

The administration made its share of mistakes, and so did we. We were glib about how Iraqis would greet liberation. Did we fail to appreciate sufficiently the depth of Arab bitterness over colonial memories? Did we underestimate the human and societal damage wreaked by decades of totalitarian rule in Iraq? Could things have unfolded differently had our occupation force been large enough to provide security?

One area of neoconservative thought that needs urgent reconsideration is the revolution in military strategy that our neocon hero, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has championed. This love affair with technology has left our armed forces short on troops and resources, just as our execrable intelligence in Iraq seems traceable, at least in part, to the reliance on machines rather than humans. Our forte is political ideas, not physics or mechanics. We may have seized on a technological fix to spare ourselves the hard slog of fighting for higher defense budgets. Let’s now take up the burden of campaigning for a military force that is large enough and sufficiently well provisioned--however “redundant”--to assure that we will never again get stretched so thin. Let the wonder weapons be the icing on the cake.

Deploy More Than the Military. Recent elections in the Palestinian territories and Egypt have brought disconcerting results that suggest democratizing the Middle East may be more difficult than we imagined. That parties unappealing to us have done well should not in itself be a surprise. (After all, it happens in France no matter who wins.) But there is plenty of reason to wonder whether Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, once empowered by democracy, will simply turn around and crush it.

We need to give more thought to how we aid Middle Eastern moderates. They are woefully unequipped to compete with Islamists. When the U.S. government tries to help them, they stand accused of being American stooges. We can do more through private-sector groups, such as Freedom House, and partially private ones, like the National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliates. They could use appreciably more resources to train journalists, independent broadcasters, women’s advocates, human rights investigators, watchdog groups, and for civic education for various audiences, including imams. In relatively open countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and many of the Gulf states, funding from the Middle East Partnership Initiative should make it possible for a range of American nongovernmental organizations to maintain a presence on the ground. And we should develop and fund training programs back at home that allow Middle Eastern democrats to come to the United States--free of charge--to hone their electoral, organizational, and public relations skills. James Carville and Karl Rove should be the titular heads of this program.

Fix the Public Diplomacy Mess. The Bush administration deserves criticism for its failure to repair America’s public diplomacy apparatus. No group other than neocons is likely to figure out how to do that. We are, after all, a movement whose raison d’être was combating anti-Americanism in the United States. Who better, then, to combat it abroad?

The silver lining in the cloud of anti-Americanism is that every stuffy orthodoxy inspires some bright, independent-minded people to rebel. Like many of you, I receive a steady stream of messages from behind enemy lines, so to speak--from France, Germany, Arab countries, and even the BBC--saying, “The people all around me hate America, but I love America.” These people, strengthened and inspired, are our best defense against anti-Americanism. We need representatives on the ground in every country whose mission is to find and develop such friends, to let them know we appreciate them, to put them in contact with others of like mind, and to arm them with information and talking points.

Today, no one in the U.S. Foreign Service is trained for this mission. The best model for such a program are the “Lovestonites” of the 1940s and 1950s, who, often employed as attachés in U.S. embassies, waged ideological warfare against communism in Europe and Russia. They learned their political skills back in the United States fighting commies in the labor unions. There is no way to reproduce the ideological mother’s milk on which Jay Lovestone nourished his acolytes, but we need to invent a synthetic formula. Some Foreign Service officers should be offered specialized training in the war of ideas, and a bunch of us neocons ought to volunteer to help teach it. There should be at least one graduate assigned to every major U.S. overseas post.

Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran.

The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be deafening, and it will have many echoes at home. It will be an injection of steroids for organizations such as MoveOn.org. We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes. In particular, we need to help people envision what the world would look like with a nuclear-armed Iran. Apart from the dangers of a direct attack on Israel or a suitcase bomb in Washington, it would mean the end of the global nonproliferation regime and the beginning of Iranian dominance in the Middle East.

This defense should be global in scope. There is a crying need in today’s ideological wars for something akin to the Congress for Cultural Freedom of the Cold War, a global circle of intellectuals and public figures who share a devotion to democracy. The leaders of this movement might include Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, and Anwar Ibrahim.

Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008. Twice in the last quarter-century we had the good fortune to see presidents elected who were sympathetic to our understanding of the world. In 2008, we will have a lot on the line. The policies that we have championed will remain unfinished. The war on terror will still have a long way to go. The Democrats have already shown that they are incurably addicted to appeasement, while the “realists” among the GOP are hoping to undo the legacy of George W. Bush. Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani both look like the kind of leaders who could prosecute the war on terror vigorously and with the kind of innovative thought that realists hate and our country needs. As for vice presidential candidates, how about Condoleezza Rice or even Joe Lieberman? Lieberman says he’s still a Democrat. But there is no place for him in that party. Like every one of us, he is a refugee. He’s already endured the rigors of running for the White House. In 2008, he deserves another chance--this time with a worthier running mate than Al Gore.

This bunch might try and search out some credibility for themselves. I am quite tired of their whining and I will not forget Kristol and McCain's campaign before the election of 2004 of attempting to oust Rummy.

Further alllll this about how wonderful Lieberman is borders on complete deception. Lieberman was the vice presidential candidate whose attempt to win was an attempt to refuse to count military votes. AND Lieberman was one of those 19 NAY voters for the House Border Security bill the night before Conservatives were Foleyized the next day. Somehow Lieberman is allowed the widest of berths in what national security of this nation actually means.

Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008. . . . Sen. John McCain and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani both look like the kind of leaders who could prosecute the war on terror vigorously and with the kind of innovative thought that realists hate and our country needs. As for vice presidential candidates, how about Condoleezza Rice or even Joe Lieberman? . . . In 2008, he deserves another chance--this time with a worthier running mate than Al Gore.

This is all you need to know about the Neocons, and their spurious claim to be conservative: They want to install the anti-gun, pro-baby killing, tax-and-spend senior Senator from Connecticut, with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 17, as Vice President, next to Condi Rice, McCain or Guiliani. Anyone with an ounce of conservative sense should feel their skin crawling right now.

With a rating only marginally better than Diane Feinstein (ACU rating of 11), Lieberman is way, way more liberal than detestable RINOs Lincoln Chafee (ACU rating of 37), Arlen Specter (ACU rating of 45) and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords (ACU rating of 24).

Let's put aside disagreements over whether the Iraqi War was wisdom or folly: If you want Joe Lieberman as Vice President, you may be a lot of things, but one thing's for certain: You are NOT a conservative.

Something I've noticed over the years here, so many (fine) freepers seem to think that if you don't agree 200% with what I do, you completely wrong on everthing. Sources on "don't care about domestic economic freedom"?

Their actions speak for them. Big government conservatism. The Medicare drug benefit. Rapidly increasing domestic spending.

They aren't wrong on everything. They favor tax cuts.

So they were wrong on how we should've responded after 9-11? How were they wrong?

They were doing well until they invaded Iraq. In terms of direct damage to terrorists that wasn't going to provide enough bang for the buck even if it had worked out as they had hoped. I never believed the Democracy Domino Theory, and I'm skeptical about the kind of political parties that will probably win in open elections in that part of the world.

The alternative? A containment strategy.

The comment is not directed at you, but at people who invent labels for people that they do not like or understand--I still am not sure about the necessity of inventing the word Neocon--either you are conservative or not. I do agree, with others, that it seems to be a code word for Jews (because most Jews used to be Liberal, and are becoming more conservative.) That offends me (not your comments.)

I do agree, with others, that it seems to be a code word for Jews (because most Jews used to be Liberal, and are becoming more conservative.) That offends me (not your comments.)

Inventing a new word, just to protect your sensitivity is pointless. Why? Because the new name in addition to creating a lot of confusion it will be susceptible to the same attack.

We better stick to the already established words and protect their proper meaning. "Neocon", "nonconservative" will have to stay.

OK, I was wondering, thanks.

I believe it possible, from reading an essay once by Midge Dektor, that the neocons may have invented the term for themselves, or at least adopted it.

I do think that the word "conservative" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I suppose the this week's debacle at the polls is a good enough illustration of that.

Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008.

LOL.

Further proof -- if ever any was really needed -- that "neo-conservatives" are conservative at all.

The Bush administration made a colossal blunder by allowing any of these @ssholes into his administration in the first place. The GOP got away with it in 2002 and 2004, but they paid for it in spades in 2006.

They were doing well until they invaded Iraq.

Do you understand why we went into Iraq? And the timeline we are looking at? Because in reading your reply, I don't think you do. You'll recall that right after 9-11 the usual suspects started screaming "Root Causes..Root Causes..we must address the root causes". Well that's what we are doing addressing (one of) the root causes...lack of freedom. And yes it's already paying benefits, if in no other ways than Lybia giving up their nuke program, Syria leaving Lebanon, a debate being held in the Arab world over just is happening. Syria understands how important Iraq is, Iran understand just how important Iraq is, OBL unerstands just how important Iraq is, the question is why don't you (no flame intended)

The alternative? A containment strategy.

You do of course know that when we invaded Saddam was 6 months away from getting rid of the sanctions. as for containment...three words Oil For Food.

Were mistakes made..sure. Name me one war where mistakes were not made.
tha battle for Iraq is not a movie where the jhero saves the day in 2 1/2 hours and rides off into the sunset. This is real life, and big time historic stuff.
Think Cold war and it's 1953, that's the timeline we are looking at.

I'm a neo-con. There's no shortage of practical ideas there. There's the intellectual firepower in the conservative movement.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

If you want Joe Lieberman as Vice President, you may be a lot of things, but one thing's for certain: You are NOT a conservative.

Big bump. These people should be ejected from Republican councils and their writings disregarded. They're treacherous, have no loyalty, won't run and can't win office. But they act like they're the Second Coming and demand their policies be implemented.

They're far more useful to the Dims than to us. These liberal mandarins are bad for the GOP.

My kind of cynicism! I just can't help it, I look around and ask why can't these people open their frigg'n eyes - look what we have become. We are, and have been for some time, in deep 'do do'. We dicker around wondering if the world is upset with us; we don't fight wars to win; we won't even protect our boarders (if the truth were known we probably, at any given time, don't have a clue who is in the country); we teach our kids to be sooooo tolerant of the non achievers, in fact it would be better to be more like them; WalMart is currently under the gun for taking disciplinary action against workers who don't show up on time, wow! we can't have that; What have we become? more to the point, "where the hell are we going"?

Were mistakes made..sure. Name me one war where mistakes were not made.

Yes, but one mistake was HUGE. Dissolving of Iraqi army and ruling party. It should have been reformed and purged instead. The analogy would be if USA dissolved German and Japanese police, and administration after WWII and tried to create it from the scratch by young soldiers who do not know German or Japanese and by trigger happy contractors.

The key illusion was that Iraq is a blank page on which the perfect new society can be painted according to the millenarian Puritan dream. This supposed blankness was a projection of ignorance.

There's the intellectual firepower in the conservative movement.

Not every fire is good. It might just an inflammation of the brain.

Long exposure to the Trotsky ideology followed by Ayn Rand infection might do it to you.

OF THE PHRENITIS OR INFLAMMATION OF THE BRAIN.

THIS is sometimes a primary disease, but oftener only a symptom of some other malady; as the inflammatory, eruptive, or spotted fever, &c. It is very common however as a primary disease in warm climates, and is most incident to persons about the prime or vigour of life. The passionate, the studious, and those whose nervous system is irritable in a high degree, are most liable to it.

CAUSES. - This disease is often occasioned by night-watching, especially when joined with hard study: It may likewise proceed from hard drinking, anger, grief, or anxiety. It is often occasioned by the stoppage of usual evacuations; as the bleeding piles in men, the customary discharges of women, &c. Such as imprudently expose themselves to the heat of the sun, especially by sleeping without doors in a hot season with their heads uncovered, are often suddenly seized with an inflammation of the brain, so as to awake quite delirious. When repellents are imprudently used in an erysipelas, an inflammation of the brain is sometimes the consequence. It may likewise be occasioned by external injuries, as blows or bruises upon the head, &c.

[...]

but one mistake was HUGE. Dissolving of Iraqi army and ruling party

As far as I can tell, by the time we got to Baghdad there was no Iraqi army to keep. They just went home, except for those that became the "insurgency".

The key illusion was that Iraq is a blank page on which the perfect new society

Now there you could make an argument, that we were operating from ignorance.

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.