Skip to comments.
Neo-cons have hijacked US foreign policy
Boston Globe
| 9/10/2003
| Robert Kuttner,
Posted on 09/14/2003 12:26:20 PM PDT by ex-snook
![The Boston Globe The Boston Globe](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/from_provider_globe.gif) ROBERT KUTTNER
Neo-cons have hijacked US foreign policy
By Robert Kuttner, 9/10/2003 THE COUNCIL on Foreign Relations is the epicenter of the American Establishment. Its top three officers are Republicans -- Peter G. Peterson (chair), the former commerce secretary under Nixon, leading investment banker, and opponent of social outlay who must chair half the boards in America; Carla Hills (vice-chair), a corporate power-lawyer who was US trade ambassador for Bush I; and Richard Haass (president), who recently stepped down as one of President Bush's sub-Cabinet appointees at the State Department. The council is best known for its journal, Foreign Affairs, ordinarily a fairly cautious and moderate publication. So it was startling to pick up the September-October issue and read article after article expressing well-documented alarm at the hijacking of American foreign policy. This is not how the council ordinarily speaks. The must-read piece is "Stumbling into War" by former Assistant Secretary of State James P. Rubin. It documents that Bush's feint to the United Nations was a charade; that even as the administration was going through the motions of diplomacy, war had been already decided upon. More important, Rubin documents that another path to ousting Saddam Hussein was possible, had the administration been more patient. Other nations, even France, were in fact prepared to use force against Saddam, but insisted on letting the inspections process work first. Rubin demonstrates that every major European nation "would have been prepared to support or at least sanction force against Iraq if it had not fully disarmed by [fall 2003.]" The administration repeatedly rebuffed British entreaties to pursue this other course, which would have preserved a much broader coalition and shared responsibility for reconstruction. So America's lonely quagmire in Iraq was entirely gratuitous. But it's still a well-kept secret that the vast foreign policy mainstream -- Republican and Democratic ex-public officials, former ambassadors, military and intelligence people, academic experts -- consider Bush's whole approach a disaster. In fairness, it isn't really Bush's approach. Foreign policy is not something Bush closely follows. Mainly, he fell in with the wrong crowd. A determined band of neo-conservatives far outside the foreign policy mainstream persuaded the president that invading Iraq would demonstrate American power to tens of millions shocked and awed Arabs. Instead, it has demonstrated the limits of American power (but limitless arrogance), and stimulated a new round of fundamentalism, nationalism, and terrorism. The neo-cons also contended that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad." In other words, get rid of Saddam and the Mideast balance of power would shift; Israel's enemies would be softened up for a peace settlement on Israel's terms. But much of the violence between Israel and Palestine is home grown, and any durable settlement must also be home grown. The sacking of Iraq has only made both Israel's Ariel Sharon and the Palestinians more intransigent. The same neo-cons persuaded Bush that nation-building and collaboration with bodies like the UN were for sissies. But now, Bush has blundered into nation-building in the worst possible circumstances, in which Americans are viewed as inept invaders rather than liberators. And he is begging for aid from the UN and the very nations he scorned. Does Bush know that he's been had? Increasingly, Iraq looks like Bush's Vietnam -- a long-term occupation of unfriendly territory in which Americans are targets; an adventure based on misperceptions and misrepresentations, where the benefits fail to justify the costs. US Representative David Obey, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, recently sent the president a letter which is worth quoting. "First," Obey wrote, in eloquent understatement, "I recommend that you allow the secretary and deputy secretary of defense to return to the private sector. "Second, I recommend that the responsibilities for developing and implementing foreign policy that have traditionally resided in the Department of State be fully restored to that department." Obey goes on to recommend that the military be restored to its proper role of military planning and that government-wide coordination of intelligence be resumed. All of this is by way of pointing out that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, with little knowledge of the region, arrogated to themselves diplomatic, intelligence, and operational functions, and made a mess of them all. Now Bush is trying to reverse course without admitting it. Nothing would make that prudent reversal clearer than firing this duo, who have ill served their president and country.As the Foreign Affairs issue makes clear, there's a large, competent, and mainstream body of foreign policy experts ready to step in. Then, the American people can decide whether to fire Bush. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of the American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: bush; foreignpolicy; iraq; neocon; neocons; un; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
Seems Bush got neo-conned into world military domination. After our success in Afghan, our 'power' performance in Iraq has not been rewarded. Peace is now more remote than ever, either in the Arab world, Israel-Palestine, or the Orient.
Time to declare victory, come home to fortress America, forget world military domination, turn rehab over to the UN, and let Israel loose to do whatever, and let the world solve their own ageless problems.
1
posted on
09/14/2003 12:26:21 PM PDT
by
ex-snook
To: ex-snook
Once the American people find out how much it's going to cost over there in Iraq, I seriously doubt that they'll be eager to enter into another military adventure anytime soon.
2
posted on
09/14/2003 12:35:15 PM PDT
by
zacyak
To: ex-snook
Robert Kuttner is top honcho at the mad-dog-leftist
The American Prospect.It is most instructive to see a self-styled conservative like you making common cause with the loony left.
Perhaps the paleo-cons really aren't quite so conservative after all.
3
posted on
09/14/2003 12:39:48 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: ex-snook
CFR are definitely not neo-cons.
Nor are the foreign policy elite and Foggy head Foggy bottom dwellers.
4
posted on
09/14/2003 12:46:59 PM PDT
by
tallhappy
To: quidnunc
You think spending several hundred billion on re-building Iraq is good conservative policy? The isolationism of the paleo-cons is looking better all the time.
5
posted on
09/14/2003 12:48:15 PM PDT
by
zacyak
To: quidnunc
It is most instructive to see a self-styled conservative like you making common cause with the loony left. Are you shocked by their common cause? I'm not.
Perhaps the paleo-cons really aren't quite so conservative after all.
They're not. When did they start? 1986 or so, right?
![](http://home.swbell.net/rdbrown3/3__hr_rdb3.jpg)
6
posted on
09/14/2003 12:49:01 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(Which is more powerful: The story or the warrior?)
To: ex-snook
Yep, it was a big neo-con job. When the war started I didnt believe it, I had read about it but thought it was an exaggeration by the antiwar whackos. Even as recently as two weeks ago I didnt buy it, but now it is starting to be the only answer that makes sense.
Not everything in the article is true, but the fact that the neo-cons control(ed) policy looks like it may be the case. IMO they thought Iran would be just like Kuwait, and if it had been everything would be fine still and questions about the reasons for war wouldnt be asked today. But it wasnt, and now it is time to reflect.
7
posted on
09/14/2003 12:50:36 PM PDT
by
Theyknow
To: ex-snook
The neo-cons also contended that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad." In other words, get rid of Saddam and the Mideast balance of power would shift; Israel's enemies would be softened up for a peace settlement on Israel's terms. Neo-cons see Damascus and Teheran as the next stops on their "road map". But they underestimate the human and financial resources needed for such trip.
8
posted on
09/14/2003 12:54:23 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: zacyak
zacyak wrote:
You think spending several hundred billion on re-building Iraq is good conservative policy?And how much do you reckon 9/11 cost us?
How many more 9/11s are you willing to have the US absorb?
Stop talking nonsense.
9
posted on
09/14/2003 12:56:43 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: quidnunc
I think for the next 10 years, it makes sense to merge the State department into the DoD, and rename it the Department of War. At least it will keep State from actively undermining our missions abroad. As one writer aptly put it, "Over the past 30 years, State ceased to be a representative for Americans abroad, but rather the representative for foreign governments in the US."
10
posted on
09/14/2003 12:59:49 PM PDT
by
July 4th
To: ex-snook
Let's look at this whole situation in about 6 more months. The Neo-Cons may have this one pegged. I'll withhold judgement until I get a look at the Iraqi Constitution after the Iraqi people ratify it.
Then we can decide on whether to hang Rummy or build him a monument.
11
posted on
09/14/2003 1:00:16 PM PDT
by
OkiMusashi
(Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
To: quidnunc
Whats Iraq got to do with 911?
12
posted on
09/14/2003 1:00:51 PM PDT
by
zacyak
To: quidnunc
When Bush ran for office did you support him because you believed he would lead the military into action all over the world? Or did you support him because you thought he would avoid meddling in world affairs? Did you think he would ask the nation to create an enormous deficit so we could rebuild foreign nations?
Please dont say we are there because of 9/11 or because Saddam gassed his own people. Saddam used the gas on his own people in the 1980s and we rewarded him for that with an extra billion in agricultural assistance. Whatever evidence there is linking Saddam to 9/11 is weak at very best and unsupported at very least.
It is time to start talking about what neoconservativism is and whether this new foreign policy initiative is one which we can support. Pretending that it isnt an issue is foolishness plain and simple.
13
posted on
09/14/2003 1:03:58 PM PDT
by
Theyknow
To: quidnunc
Which administration was James Rubin a part of, again?
France was never going to approve of using force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Rubin evidently thinks Chirac was acting in good faith, rather than to protect France's $50 billion worth of contracts with the Saddam regime, and to do whatever he could to undercut the American role in world affairs.
The same people who attack Bush for acting too quickly in March would be attacking him if he had waited till the fall, because now the Presidential election campaign is starting...they would be claiming he was launching the war to ensure his re-election.
To: July 4th
It's better to close the State Dept. down completely and to fire everyone of it's staff. We won't need to worry about them, the Saudis will hire them as consultants.
The rest of the posts on this board come from people who clearly learned nothing from 9-11. The Islamofascists are coming for us. As soon as they can, they will kill us all. Better to attack and destroy them first. But then, it's clear that paleocon's would rather see America destroyed if they don't get their way.
15
posted on
09/14/2003 1:09:33 PM PDT
by
LenS
To: ex-snook
OMG, the Americans are actually shooting back! The horror of it all! Jimmy Carter, Tom Daschele and all the 'real conservatives' spamming FR are deeply saddened!
16
posted on
09/14/2003 1:13:18 PM PDT
by
.cnI redruM
(Faster, Better, Cheaper. 2 out of 3 is the best you'll get!)
To: Verginius Rufus
The same people who attack Bush for acting too quickly in March would be attacking him if he had waited till the fall, because now the Presidential election campaign is starting...they would be claiming he was launching the war to ensure his re-election."
Why do you think we are in Iraq? IMO you are absolutely correct about France, but that isnt the issue, the issue is why we went to war in the first place and being honest about the neoconservative movement. There is a real division here, a difference in philosophy. Lets talk about it.
Are there any neocons out there?
17
posted on
09/14/2003 1:13:48 PM PDT
by
Theyknow
To: Verginius Rufus
James P. Rubin was nominated by President Clinton to be Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs on May 23, 1997 and confirmed by the full Senate on July 31, 1997. On August 4, 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright swore Mr. Rubin in as Assistant Secretary and appointed him to be the Department's Chief Spokesman.
In this capacity, Mr. Rubin directed the development and execution of Department-wide public information policies and oversees public outreach efforts to the American people on foreign policy issues. He served as principal adviser to the Secretary, other officials of the Department, and other Government agencies on all aspects of the Department's responsibilities in the conduct of public affairs. He exercised primary authority in the Department for the coordination and release of proposed public statements; and he maintained liaison with the Executive Office of the President and other government agencies.
Prior to his Presidential appointment as Assistant Secretary, Mr. Rubin served as a Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State. From August to November 1996, Mr. Rubin was Director of Foreign Policy and Spokesman for the Clinton/Gore '96 Campaign. From May 1993 until his arrival at the Clinton/Gore Campaign, Mr. Rubin served as Senior Adviser and Spokesman for U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Madeleine K. Albright. He assisted Ambassador Albright in formulating and articulating U.S. policy pursued at the United Nations. He also advised the Ambassador on national security related to her role as a member of President Clinton's Cabinet and the National Security Council.
Before joining Ambassador Albright's staff, Mr. Rubin served as a Professional Staff Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Senior Foreign Policy Adviser to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE). While working in the Senate, he advised Senator Biden and other Committee members on U.S. policy toward Europe and the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, China, and on global arms proliferation issues.
From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Rubin was the Research Director for the non-profit Arms Control Association in Washington, D.C. In that capacity, he often served as a consultant to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on nuclear arms control issues.
Mr. Rubin was born in New York City, New York in 1960. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Columbia University in 1982 and a Master in International Affairs degree in 1984. In 1998, Mr. Rubin was the recipient of Columbia College's John Jay Award for Distinguished Professional Achievement.
OK, this dude doesn't like what's going on. Fine. That is predictable .... but that doesn't make him honest or right and I don't intend to buy anything he says based upon his credentials. Somebody better than Rubin needs to make the arguement.
... and don't EVEN start quoting Albright LOL
18
posted on
09/14/2003 1:18:43 PM PDT
by
OkiMusashi
(Beware the fury of a patient man. --- John Dryden)
To: Theyknow
What is a neocon?
19
posted on
09/14/2003 1:19:13 PM PDT
by
MEG33
To: LenS
The rest of the posts on this board come from people who clearly learned nothing from 9-11. The Islamofascists are coming for usI'll ask you the same thing I asked quidnunc, what does Iraq have to do with the Islamofascists? Saddams's Baathist Party was secular and he suppressed Islamic extremists. He certainly was no friend of bin Ladens.
20
posted on
09/14/2003 1:20:02 PM PDT
by
zacyak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-147 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson