Empire Builders. Neoconservatives and Their Blueprint for US Power (Neocon 101)

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | 27.08.03 | staff, various interviews

[sittnick]

I took that goofy quiz, as well. Many of the "answers" combined statements that do not necessarily go together. For instance, part of #4 reads:

The people of Iran must set their own course for freedom. Meanwhile, the US must turn to its EU partners to push for stricter inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

What the heck does the EU have to do with Iran setting their own course for freedom? You may as well say, "The U.S. must find its own way out of deficits, and the WTO should push for tougher regulations to control wages."

I deny that President Reagan would fit the mold of neo-conservative. At most, as a former Democrat he might be a 'tweener. Reagan's interventions, especially the ones he stuck to, had to do with the Soviet Empire. Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghan & Solidarity support, etc. He wisely pulled out of Lebanon when it was clear that our presence was not helping America, or Lebanon for that matter. There was that bombing run of Libya, but that was a low risk one shot retaliation.

George Bush the Elder seems to fit the neo-con foreign policy description more, and not because of Iraq. Honest men can disagree regarding the threat that Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia and the U.S. at the time. I am thinking more about Panama. That incursion was pretty rude, and seemed to be done only because we could. I would be more supportive of these things if we would issue an honest declaration of war, instead of declarations of "military actions" (Orwellian Newspeak), and to restore the name of the War Department (Department of Defense, at least sometimes, is more Newspeak). I am not sure what the difference is bewteen a Global hegemon and Empire. I perceive as much as George Wallace did between Dems and Reps.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Wonder why there wasn't a category for neoconrinofreetraitorzogminion? I feel cheated.

[JohnGalt]

Paleo's are not defacto isiolationist, as paleo's resist ideology, they simply read the words of the current foreign policy makers and consider them not only lacking but the entire Cabal, complete phonies who probably got picked in private elementary school.


Think David Frum ever got into a scrap after a couple of beers at the local watering hole? I don't.

[x]

As to other points, benevolent hegemon, perhaps. Empire???? No!

And the difference is?

Favor forcing regime changes? You bet! Remaking East Kaboomistan in the American image??? No! Rebuiilding East Kaboomistan with American money???? Absolutely not!

"Regime change" may or may not work, but your recipe looks like a prescription for disaster. The country that invades "East Kaboomistan" and conquers it and doesn't contribute to the rebuilding will naturally be hated, and the mess that it's helped to create will simply breed further terrorism.

Kristol, Boot and Kagan clearly wouldn't be taken seriously if they simply said "nuke'em till they glow," nor could they put in a good word for isolationism and expect to win support for their cause in establishment circles. And there are limits as to how far they can go in preaching pure self-interest unmixed with altruistic rhetoric. Their statements which you criticized have to be understood in this light. Even if they wanted the US to act like an predictable "mad dog," they couldn't say so publicly. Interventions can be so risky and the results so uncertain, that they need to be given a "Wilsonian" veneer of human rights and democracy to win support.

As for Ledeen, what grounds do you have for charging him with inconsistency? He may be embarassing or extreme, but his views have been fairly constant over the years.

[rdb3]

"nuke'em till they glow,"

I like how that sounds.

[marron]

I agree with you precisely, the use of the temr "neocon" is simply an attempt to pigeon-hole us so that they don't have to address the issues.

I laugh at the earnest writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US. They use a word they only half understand to describe something they don't understand at all, but imagine somehow that they sound sophisticated doing it. Considering their target audience, it probably works.

As for neocons, there is nothing "neo" about it. If you believe in the founding principles of the republic, and you are prepared to defend them, you are not "neo" anything. The arguments among us tend then to be rather utilitarian, as some of us contend that in a given instance it is better to stear clear of a particular conflict, while others of us prefer to strike at a time and place of our choosing rather than wait. Thats it. Thats the big difference.

Of course, when the stakes are as high as they are, that difference can loom large, but it is nothing like the difference between us and those who don't believe in the founding principles at all and are not prepared to defend them anywhere anytime. They are left looking pretty useless in the aftermath of yet another terrorist strike, and their only recourse is to hope to drive a wedge between the true-believers who are prepared to fight today, and the true-believers who want to hold their fire a little longer.

As for the whole nation-building issue, no one on our side of the line wants to be the world's social worker. But while some of us want to steer very clear of getting caught up in the internecine quarrels of another state, the others want to be very sure we don't leave another Afghanistan in our wake. The worst thing in the world is to leave a vacuum. Not rebuilding Germany after 1945 would have guaranteed another NAZI regime and another war. Was Truman a neocon, or was rebuilding Europe an act of self-defense? Was not engaging Afghanistan more insistently than we did during the nineties an act of prudence, or did it guarantee that we would have to be back a decade hence? In the latter case, I recognize that there was actually little we could do after the Soviets pulled out in the face of the warlords, but the fact of the vacuum and its consequences leads many of us to the judgement that we dare not let it happen again.

Thats not empire, anymore than is Germany a part of the US empire today. The US doesn't have an empire, and is not going to have an empire. The existence of Pepsi cans in Andean villages is not evidence of an empire. It is evidence of the kind of voluntary exchanges that are what we are all about. An interwoven network of voluntary exchanges is not empire no matter how many times you say it.

[Texas_Dawg]

Think David Frum ever got into a scrap after a couple of beers at the local watering hole? I don't.

I got punched in the eye at a concert in high school once. Can I be a paleo?

[JohnGalt]

With that alone, you're already thrice the conservative Frum is, that is in less of course you have expatriated like he did from you home country.

[Catspaw]

Wonder why there wasn't a category for neoconrinofreetraitorzogminion? I feel cheated.

There, there, dear, it'll be okay. It won't be long before someone comes along and says neo-con = JOOOS. That'll get you out of that funk.

[BlackElk]

That is a definite yes, at least as his view is reported in the article.

[Texas_Dawg]

With that alone, you're already thrice the conservative Frum is, that is in less of course you have expatriated like he did from you home country.

What if I agree with him on everything and with the paleos like you on next to nothing?

[JohnGalt]

Being a conservative is more than just ideology, that is what the drives the neocons so mad.

[Texas_Dawg]

Being a conservative is more than just ideology, that is what the drives the neocons so mad.

Mad? We're winning. Everything. The GOP holds the White House, Senate, Congress and majority of state governorships. I'm as happy as can be, and things will only get better after next November. Meanwhile Pat and his paleos fade further and further into oblivion and Isolationist-Bunkerland.

[u-89]

>use of the term "neocon" is simply an attempt to pigeon-hole us so that they don't have to address the issues.

Sorry chief but I disagree with neocons and it for the policy alone. If you go back and check any of my posts on the subject you'll find a substantive listing of policies critiques. I am not alone in philosophically opposing neoconservatism. Some conservatives see noting conservative about the neo version.

> I laugh at the earnest writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US.

The neoconservatives use the term quite a bit and glowingly I might add. Please do a search on FR for empire, imperialism, colonialism, etc. and then try it again on google. You might try with the National Review column by the editor Rich Lowery called The Colonial Consensus. Here's a little taste of neocon use of the term for starters -

"Max Boot, the features editor of The Wall Street Journal, has written a cogent and measured essay in the Oct. 15 issue of The Weekly Standard explaining that our problems abroad don't stem from too much American "imperialism," but too little. "

and another Boot -

Another name for ''`hard' Wilsonianism,'' he [Max Boot] points out, is liberal imperialism. After all, Wilson, who took over Veracruz, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, was one of our most imperial presidents. Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''

>As for neocons, there is nothing "neo" about it. If you believe in the founding principles of the republic, and you are prepared to defend them, you are not "neo" anything.

I refer you to Irving Kristol as he defines neoconservatism in last week's Weekly Standard. It was posted on FR here and here You will find that he says neocons are all for the welfare state, they think activists presidents and centralized government is great, traditional conservative theorists are bunk. He also thinks strict national defense is for puny nations but great nations like the US are ideologically driven like the USSR and should spread their vision throughout the world. In summation what he believes in does not square well with anything the founding fathers held dear. I provided links, go see it in black and white for yourself.

>The US doesn't have an empire, and is not going to have an empire.

OK, lets call it neo-empire or neo- imperialism.

[u-89]

I've been quite busy here at the office for the last few days so I will get back to you hit and miss. In fact I'm on the phone now as I type. Regarding Max Boot - please see my post #34 for two of his better quotes. Also right after Afghanistan conflict Boot lamented in the WSJ OP ED page that we've become too accustom to low casualty high tech wars. Basically he was sorry more Americans didn't get killed - really - he thought only high casualties would wake America up to the seriousness of the war on terrorism. Pretty sick puppy but he's a celebrity in neocon circles.

[goldstategop]

I'm really flattered. My golly we take our American values around the globe and we're shocked the rest of the world hates us. Like I give a damn. Our country's mission is to make sure another 9-11 is kept well and far away from our shores. If that means being a "benevolent hegemon," so be it. No one else is certainly capable of keeping the peace, making short work of our enemies, and keeping America secure for generations to come. America as always is still truly, "the last, best hope of mankind."

[u-89]

"nuke'em till they glow,"

rdb3: I like how that sounds.

-------------------------------------------

Really? So you find the slaughter of tens of millions of people appealing do you? Not to mention poisoning the enviroment and global fallout which will float our way. Would you be volunteering to go in and drill for the oil in the glowing radioactive areas?

[Shermy]

I refer you to Irving Kristol as he defines neoconservatism in last week's Weekly Standard.

He got all giddy that the neo-con term came up again gave him a moment of relevancy. Did nothing to identify any of those identified as "neo-cons" today as actual "neo-cons."

Boot is an ideological chimp, and thinks he's flippant with words. All the other so-called "neo-cons" idenitifed I've seen are pretty much limited to issues about our self-sworn enemies, the Islamists, and how to deal with them.

Attacking Afghanistan, controlled by Al Qaeda, and finishing the 12 year war with Saddam does not make an "empire," whatever the modifier attached to it. In fact, the globalist economic agendas of the Republicrats is to work to lessen American economic power for the gains of multi-national companies.

Isolationalism is a valid position, I just don't see us as an "empire" in any meaningful sense. Some play with the word "hegemon", maybe that's better.

[u-89]

You seem to think that we are in a two option only scenario - either cower at the hands of terrorists or subjugate the whole world. Perhaps having armies stationed the world over, projecting force, smashing nations then rebuilding them, bribing other nations, financially aiding even more, peace keeping missions, nation building, etc. will keep America secure for generations. Then again it could bring blow back and overstretch - there is 5000 years of historic precedence for the latter, none for option one.

Since option one is a recipe for more wars not less and of course since war is the health of the state don't plan on having a smaller government or your taxes lowered. Are there other options? Yes very workable ones that would leave us peaceful and prosperous but they aren't too popular these days - peaceful trade with all, no entangling alliances and not striding the world seeking monsters to destroy. More war equals peace is rather Orwellian but then it fits with the zeitgeist.

[rdb3]

Really? So you find the slaughter of tens of millions of people appealing do you? Not to mention poisoning the enviroment and global fallout which will float our way. Would you be volunteering to go in and drill for the oil in the glowing radioactive areas?

I find your whiny tone amusing. Take it easy. All I said was that I liked how it sounded. You put everything else there. So that's your problem, not mine.