Neoconservative Clout Seen in U.S. Iraq Policy

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | 4/5/2003 | Bruce Murphy

[LiberalBuster]

The buzz in Washington and beyond has been that President Bush's attack on Iraq came straight from the playbook of the neoconservatives, a group of mostly Republican strategists, many of whom have gotten funding from Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation. The neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in favoring a more activist role for government and a more aggressive foreign policy.

Led by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the neoconservatives have offered a sweeping new vision for U.S. foreign policy: to restructure the Middle East and supplant dictators around the world, using pre-emptive attacks when necessary against any countries seen as potential threats. Traditional conservatives, such as Heritage Foundation fellow John C. Hulsman, suggest that this will lead to "endless war," while Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has charged that "announcing a global crusade on behalf of democracy is arrogant."

Whether Bush ends up sticking with the neoconservative playbook remains to be seen, but a wide range of observers suggest it is ...

[spokeshave]

War is politics by other means.

Seems they should also apply this in the Senate

[AC86UT89]

Jessica Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has charged that "announcing a global crusade on behalf of democracy is arrogant."

No, denying the benefits of democracy to others while enjoying them yourself is arrogant. So Americans and Europeans deserve democracy but people in the Middle East don't? Typical liberal hypocrite snob!

[eaglebeak]

It's not up to the US to determine which countries are democracies. The US should continue to lead by example and inspiration, not by force.

These "neoconservatives" are neither new--since they are basically imperialists--nor conservative. They are dangerous.

http://www.newamericancentury.org

[gcruse]

I might be less uncomfortable with the notion of overthrowing other governments to install democracy were it not for the religious evangelists champing at the bits to install their particular religion in the country as part of the process.

[u-89]

Heritage Foundation fellow John C. Hulsman......

Hulsman summarizes the neoconservative view this way: "We should acknowledge we have an empire. We have power and we should do good with it."

In essence, the neoconservatives argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept,

[This is the case leftist internationalists like Strobe Talbert (Clinton administration) have made for years.u-89]

given the overwhelming power of America, and the U.S. should do all it can to impose democracy on countries. Some have called this approach democratic imperialism. It echoes the do-gooder impulses of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who formulated the League of Nations as a solution to war, then paradoxically blends it with American military might. Hulsman dubbed it "Wilsonianism on steroids."

The mission of democratizing the world may have no end, Hulsman says, because "there are always barbarians to convert."

[u-89]

It is not that we "deserve" democracy and others don't to qoute you. The point is we developed ours and now seek to impose it on others(the enitre arab world) with force of arms or threat of force.

[genefromjersey]

Today's Political Correctness Lesson: Neo-Conservative - a term once used to describe people who saw the folly of certain Liberal practices ; but which has been expanded to include anyone who holds " middle-of-the-road" political/social views.

[jackbob]

...argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept

You may remember Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security advisor. Six years before taking that job, he said pretty much the same thing in his book "Between Two Ages." He stated that "...national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept," and referred to it as the ". . . fiction of (national) sovereignty." He also said "...Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man s universal vision." The media painted him as a hawk against the Soviets.

If the Communist Manifesto is any measure, we pretty much live in a Marxist ("progressive") society now. It doesn't matter what we call it. Titles have little substance.

I wonder what's on the horizon.