Posted on 11/10/2006 5:23:07 AM PST by Valin
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 Washingtons 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 dont wield any of the power that contemporary legend attributes to us. Most of us dont 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. Lets 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, womens 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 Americas 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 dêtre 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 mothers 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 Irans 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 todays 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 hes still a Democrat. But there is no place for him in that party. Like every one of us, he is a refugee. Hes 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.
Why do we want to save them? They've got new jobs as fashion models for Vanity Fair.
They're all going to have to find Neo con-jobs.
Very easy: when Democrats are in power join them and denounce the Republicans.
They can just go away. That's an option.
Is this some article from the Onion?
I want no more from these Wilsonians, bring back the Reagan conservative movement!
No, they cannot.
What's wrong with throwing them under the bus, where they belong?
The current crop of crooks will hopefully chop the
remaining crop of crooks into bite size pieces.
Let the hearings Begin! Endless investigations leading
nowhere! Gridlock is better than either party in control.
Let the mexicans pour across the border who gives a rats ass?
What's the big deal? If we can keep abortion illegal it's worth higher taxes, outrageous spending, 30 million+ illegals being admitted, loss of search/siezure rights, giving up some of our semi auto weapons, etc.
Sheesh, some folks have their priorities out of whack.
Don't take yourselves too seriously is my advice.
I beg to differ with my esteemed fellow Freeper. The Neocons were RIGHT about a lot of things. Their policy prescriptions were mostly CORRECT. To illustrate where they are correct, either we take out the Iranian nuke facilities with conventional munitions or the Israelis do it with nuke strikes. One of those two distasteful options is going to happen; so its up to W to choose which one we'd rather see. There will be less pain if the USA takes out the Iranian facilities. W will take the heat; he's man enough to stand up for what's right even if unpopular. Future historians will praise him for saving Iran from nuclear devastation.
You're singing my song.
I'm a little vague as to exactly what a neocon is, other than that it's a Jew who has had "second thoughts," and moved from left to right politically.
But my impression is that most of them belong to that brand of conservatism that sees the job of the government as one of shaping and arranging society, which in my view is still a leftists stance. Of course they share this view with George Bush and with most of the Republican Pary, and even with a majority of freepers. That makes Bush a neocon except in religion and the "second thoughts" thing.
There are a couple neocons whom I truly admire: David Horowitz, Michael Medved and Charles Krauthammer.
Pat Buchanan 08. (that's 1808)
CLEAN HOUSE:
Out with the "neo-cons" -- bring back the REAGAN-CONS!"
Not true. Neocons are defined not by religion or race but by IDEOLOGY.
For example Michael Savage and Noam Chomsky are Jewish, would you classify them as neocons?
And would you classify Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld or Richard John Neuhaus as Jewish?
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.