Can the Neocons Get Their Groove Back?

Washington Post ^ | 19 November 2006 | Joshua Muravchik

[shrinkermd]

"...So, is neoconservatism dead?

Far from it. Neoconservative ideas have been vindicated again and again on a string of major issues, including the Cold War, Bosnia and NATO expansion.

It is the war in Iraq that has made "neocon" a dirty word, either because Bush's team woefully mismanaged the war or because the war (which neocons supported) was misconceived. But even if the invasion of Iraq proves to have been a mistake, that would not mean that the neoconservative belief in democracy as an antidote to troubles in the Middle East is wrong, nor would it confirm that neoconservatism's combination of strength with idealism is misguided.

Neoconservatism isn't dead; it can be renovated and returned to prominence, because, even today, it remains unrivaled as a guiding principle for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond.

[A. Pole]

Neoconservative ideas have been vindicated again and again on a string of major issues, including the Cold War, Bosnia and NATO expansion

Especially in Kosovo. Is it a joke?

[A. Pole]

Pope Condemns Neoliberalism

Christian social doctrine bump

[curiosity]

Neoconservative ideas have been vindicated again and again on a string of major issues, including the Cold War, Bosnia and NATO expansion.

That's a knee-slapper if I ever saw one! I couldn't stop laughing for at least 10 minutes after I read it.

The neocons are in such a state of denial it's beyond funny.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

-- RONALD REAGAN, 1975

[Revolting cat!]

Multi-party political system is the only answer. Make the stupid voters choose a party with clearly defined ideas. Don't make them register as members of one or another party at government expense. If they want to join a party they can, and they can pay their dues, and vote their intra party elections, at party expense. The RATS won this time, remember, by outconservativing the Pubbies, Unfreakingbelieveable, freakingmeaningless.

[curiosity]

Until someone comes up with better ideas than these, the neocon strategy of trying to transform the Middle East, however blemished, remains without alternative.

It's called realism.

[Enterprise]

This time the voters clearly chose "down."

They chose - poorly.

[curiosity]

What they advocate is actually what was American foreign policy approach since Teddy Roosevelt.

BS. They advocate the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, which were ignored by pretty much every president since, with the exception of Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Many of them suckered by the largesse promised to them by unworthies, and to be levied from their own pocketbooks.

[lucysmom]

If I understand the basic principle of "neo" conservative,these people seem to be more globally oriented then grand dad's version of conservatives.

The global orientation thing they picked up from Trotsky.

[RobbyS]

The neocoms are trying to dump the blame on the Bush administration, but they seem unable to grasp what the role of religion is in this matter. They think of it, at most, a kind of ideology. But no ideology has such a deep grip on the population as Islam. As the pope tells us, this is not something that yields to the positivism that dominates neocom thought. These Jews should open their Scriptures and read about the career of David.

[ggekko60506]

"BS. They advocate the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, which were ignored by pretty much every president since, with the exception of Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr."

Neo-Conservatives were the intellectual bulwark that won the Cold War. To lump Neo-Conservatives together with Neo-Wilsoniians is inaccurate. It is trendy now to blame Neo-Conservatives for the Iraq War but it is wrong.

It was Neo-Conervative intellectuals that stood toe to toe with Ronald Reagan in smashing the arguments of the defeatist, appeasement-oriented Left that led to a principled but tough-minded foreign policy characteristic of the Cold War. These individuals had seen Communists close up and they were the first ones to identify the chief moral evil in the world at that time: Collectivism.

The true Neo-Wisonian /Multi-Lateralist in the Bush Cabinet was Colin Powell. Colin Powell was the one who insisted on getting UN approval for the Iraq War on positing WMDs as the sole casus beli for the war. This was a stupid and tragic mistake that prefigured many of the problems we are having now in Iraq.

The key hawks in the Bush Cabinet(Cheney,Wolfiwitz,Rumsfeld) wanted an immediate prosecution of the war based on Iraq's repeated violations of the UN resolution 1441. This should have been the true casus beli of the War.

The hawks also favored a different occupation strategy which looked for a more relaxed move toward democratization. If this course of action had been followed the War would have been looked upon as a success now.

Sadly GWB placed his trust in Colin Powell and the Doves in the State Department.

[curiosity]

Neo-Conservatives were the intellectual bulwark that won the Cold War. To lump Neo-Conservatives together with Neo-Wilsoniians is inaccurate.

Oh, how so? Don't neo-cons want to spread democracy around the world?

It is trendy now to blame Neo-Conservatives for the Iraq War but it is wrong.

Why? They were its principle cheerleaders. Sure, they don't deserve all the blame, but the war followed neo-con logic to a tee.

It was Neo-Conervative intellectuals that stood toe to toe with Ronald Reagan in smashing the arguments of the defeatist, appeasement-oriented Left that led to a principled but tough-minded foreign policy characteristic of the Cold War.

Oh, so now you're trying to give the neocons all the credit for Reagan's cold war policy? That's a laugh. Was Schultz a neocon? Was Baker a neocon? Yes, the nocons had their influence, but to give them complete credit is complete nonsense.

These individuals had seen Communists close up and they were the first ones to identify the chief moral evil in the world at that time: Collectivism.

LOL. We're talking about neocons here, not objectivists. Go read William Kristol's "National Greatness Conservatism" speach. You can't get much more collectivist than that.

The true Neo-Wisonian /Multi-Lateralist in the Bush Cabinet was Colin Powell. Colin Powell was the one who insisted on getting UN approval for the Iraq War on positing WMDs as the sole casus beli for the war. This was a stupid and tragic mistake that prefigured many of the problems we are having now in Iraq.

You've got a point. Neocons are more unilatiralist than orthodox Wilsonians. They share Wilson's vision of spreading democracy and self-determination around the world, but they are willing to do it alone if need be. Powel is more of an orthodox Wilsonian in this regard. Unfortunately, as far as I could tell, there weren't any realists in the Cabinet at the time.

The key hawks in the Bush Cabinet(Cheney,Wolfiwitz,Rumsfeld) wanted an immediate prosecution of the war based on Iraq's repeated violations of the UN resolution 1441. This should have been the true casus beli of the War.

Sigh. Yes, unfortunately, in the Bush administration the only two voices were the neocon hawks and multi-lateralist doves. Drowned out were the realists. They're making a comeback now, though, it seems.

The hawks also favored a different occupation strategy which looked for a more relaxed move toward democratization. If this course of action had been followed the War would have been looked upon as a success now.

Sorry, but that's not true at all. Democratization was the neocons main goal there.

Sadly GWB placed his trust in Colin Powell and the Doves in the State Department.

It's was not a Hawk vs. Dove issue. It was unilatieral Wilsonians vs. multilateral Wilsonians. The realists were kept out, to our country's great deteriment.

[ggekko60506]

Please don't deify the "Realists". The list of blunders belonging to the Realist's balance sheet is too long to catalog in this forum but here are some of the more egregious examples as pointed out recently by Brent Stephens of the WSJ:

*Kosovo:
Lawrence "of Serbia" Eagleburger supported
Milsoevic to the point of slavishness under
Bush I. This support lead to much greater
violence later in the Balkans and turned
what should have been a minor crisis into a
regional conflagration.

*The Ukraine:
George H. W. Bush's "Chicken Kiev" speech
urged to Ukranians not to seek independence
from the Soviet yoke for the sake of
"stability". Those crazy Ukranians would
rather be free than "stable", however.

*Gulf War I:
George H. W. Bush, at the behest of the
"Realists", first encouraged the Kurds
and Shias to revolt against Saddam and
then did nothing to help them as they were
slaughtered. This policy was both morally
repugnant and inimical to US interests
in the region.

Given that track record, give me the Neo-Cons.


"Oh, how so? Don't neo-cons want to spread democracy around the world?"

The foregoing is caricature of the Neo-Conservative thought. Using the Walter Russell Meade categories of tendencies in Foereign Policy casts of mind I would characterize the Neo-Cons as Pro-Democracy, Neo-Jacksonians although trafficking in these labels paints with a broad brush and avoids addressing the issues at hand.

"Oh, so now you're trying to give the neocons all the credit for Reagan's cold war policy?"

I give them substantial credit as I also credit the Pope and other intellectuals. It was the Neo-Cons, however, that actually went from the Think Tanks and Universities into Government at crucial times during the Cold War where they provided vital intellectual substance to policies related to Foreign Relations (Jeane Kirpatrick), Arms Control (Albert Wohlsetter) and Defense Policy (Capsar Weinberger) that translated Ronald Reagan's moral vision into action plans and policies. I can think of no other group that contributed as much in the creation of these policies.

What is being lost in this pin the tail to the donkey game is the soundness of the Iraq war rationale. To analyze that it is first necessary to look at the conditions that prevailed in Iraq prior to the onset of the War.

What "Realists" and other Monday Morning Quarterbacks refuse to acknowledge is that the containment policy that was in place since 1991 was no longer working and something had to be done. Cost of maintaining no-fly zones was also becoming an onerous burden.

Saddam's regime presented a clear and present danger to US interests in the region and a preemptive war would be far less costly in blood an treasure than after he had completely rearmed his regime through his abuse of the Oil-for-Food program.

Neo-Cons can be held responsible for developing the preemption template in the wake of 9/11. I believe it was right then and I believe it is right now.

The same arguments the he Realists are putting forward now for the Iraq War were put forward by British Realists in 1938 in arguing against forcible interdiction against Germany because of their repeated violation of the Versailles Treaty.

We can only speculate how things would have evolved absent our intervention in Iraq. I expect that what would have happened is that we would be confronting a fully rearmed Iraq busily arming the terror networks with bio-weapons and other nasty goodies.

Any coherent critique of the Neo-Con preemption template needs to answer that question.

[shrinkermd]

Hey, that is a great post.

[A. Pole]

Neo-Conservatives were the intellectual bulwark that won the Cold War. [...] It is trendy now to blame Neo-Conservatives for the Iraq War but it is wrong.

"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan"

[A. Pole]

Kosovo: Lawrence "of Serbia" Eagleburger supported Milsoevic to the point of slavishness under Bush I. This support lead to much greater violence later in the Balkans and turned what should have been a minor crisis into a regional conflagration.

Not true. If the realist compromise line were followed the Lisbon agreement would not be sabotaged and the three greatest atrocities (massacre/destruction of Serbian Krajina, NATO attack on peaceful Serbia and pogroms of Serbs/Gypsies in Kosovo) would be avoided.

"There has been a good deal of speculation about why the United States chose to intervene in Bosnia and why it influenced Izetbegovic to renounce the Lisbon Agreement. One explanation is that the United States wished to demonstrate to the Muslim world that it could support Muslim causes. After the Gulf War, it is suggested, the USA was anxious to find a Muslim position with which it could ally itself."
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/western/bosnia.htm

[Obie Wan]

"BTW, without the help of the "entangled" French army, George Washington and this conservative country may never have won the Revolution."

I know this was posted yesterday,wasn't around to reply,the rest of the French helping George Washington story goes like this,Louis XVI bankrupted his country in large part due to his involvement in the American Revolution and then lost his head! I have no problem with removing dangerous dictators,however I'm hoping we don't have to try rebuilding every country they were in charge of into our version of America because I'm betting we'll join Louis XVI trying !!!

[ex-snook]

Bump back.

The neocons have a future. They are jumping off the sinking boat they built and swimming fast toward the new power source - the Democrats. Ya see they were locked into the Democrats until Republicans became new top kick then they masqueraded as Republicans.

Now they will become neolibs. The conservative shtick no more.

[A. Pole]

The neocons have a future. They are jumping off the sinking boat they built and swimming fast toward the new power source - the Democrats.

Why not.