Replies

As one of the often attacked "neos" I find Clyde Prestowitz's charges unpersuasive. We've done such a bad job of getting the world angry at us. As a conservative I feel its evidence we must doing something right. The world is a lot more peaceful and stable now in no small part thanks to the policies President Bush has persuaded in the wake of 9-11. I'd like to hear from the paleocons and the Left exactly what they would do or have done in the WOT and in Iraq. Basically as a hyperpower the U.S does have global interests and the means to protect and secure them. And this is not a responsibility that is going to disappear anytime soon. It is part and parcel of the obligations that come with being the greatest country in the history of mankind.

I'm still trying to understand the distinctions between "neocon", "paleocon", and whatnot. I just consider myself an old-fashioned "conservative". As for why "the world hates us", well, I think you nailed it in your statement about how the U.S. is simply the biggest and the best with large interests abroad, and the rest of the world is just wishing. The fact that they shot themselves in the foot, by and large, and that's why they're now limping along doesn't enter their mindset -- a textbook case of cognitive dissonance on their part.

As a software engineer whose platform speciality is of a largely international nature, I find myself debating the subject of American power with otherwise intelligent individuals from Britain, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France, Australia, etc., etc., and it is simply horrifying how much they have bought the BS. Brainwashed to a stunning degree. In the face of their endless attacks, calling the U.S. an "empire", I point out to them how that label, however convienent, fails the test of truth, because we do not conquer, but they have already made up their minds.

The fact that I defend America while remaining wary of the folks in our government still makes me, in their eyes, a "unthinking flag-waver". Of course, when they resort to ad hominem attacks, they have lost the argument and they know it, but their brainwashed ideaology (for lack of a better term) is amazing to behold.

Since I believe in smaller government, lower taxes and that the US armed forces are organized to defend the US and not wander around the globe looking for dragons to slay, I guess you'd consider me a paleoconservative. That being the case, I'll give you some of my thoughts on the WOT and Iraq.

IMHO there is no connection between Iraq and the WOT. In contrast to North Korea, Iraq was no threat to the US. North Korea has, and willingly sells to anyone with the price, all WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. NK also has missiles capable of reaching the US and is therefore a clear and present danger. In attacking Iraq and giving NK a pass we made two things clear: 1) if you have nuclear weapons we won't confront you and 2) we seek a greater presence in the Middle East. The result will be proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe (great for NK's business) and encouragment for those who'd seek a war against the Moslem world. The entire Middle East, absent oil, isn't worth an American sprained ankle. Since whoever controls the oil fields in the Middle East needs to sell oil to purchase food, it'll always be available. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq have again demonstrated that the US has overwhelming military power. It's also demonstrated we haven't got the ground forces necessary to deal with our current commitments. We've had to take forces from Afghanistan (a war which made and continues to make sense) to support our folly in Iraq, for example.

The lessons drawn from our efforts to be policeman to the world are weakening our defenses by shifting our ground forces to light and quickly deployable from heavy and capable of conquering any opposing force, no matter how large and capable. We've always had the ability to get to a battle quickly through depolyment of either airborne forces or, if our naval forces are offshore, the Marines. The problem is that neither of these quickly deployed forces are capable of sustained combat against large concentrations of heavy enemy forces. Since I feel the Army should rarely be employed except in cases of national survival I believe we should be emphasizing our heavy (decisive) forces, bringing them home to the US from their various overseas postings and rebuilding our naval forces to ensure we can keep any conflict as far from our shores as possible and give us the ability to move our heavy forces to any theater.

The world is full of ethnic and religious conflicts. 99.9% of them we don't understand well enough to positively influence. Our record in the conflicts in which we've chosen to involve ourselves is, at best, not encouraging. Leaving the combatants in these unhappy conflicts to themselves is the best course for the US and would reduce the desire on the combatants part to extend the conflict to the US and its legitimate interests.