Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Being someone of a liberal persuasion, it might come as a surprise that I not only sympathize with neoconservatives, I genuinely agree with much of what they have to say. Unlike traditional conservatism, neoconservative philosophy amounts to more than just Leave us alone. It inherently rejects both Fortress America isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights and propagating democracy.
What liberal could disagree with that?
Its no coincidence that the two ideologies overlap. Both are grounded in Wilsonian idealism. Moreover, neoconservatism wasnt initially the product of the right-wing intellectuals, who have since become its standard bearers. Strangely enough, the original neoconservatives were radical leftists.
To be specific, they were Trotskyites.
For those of you unfamiliar with Leon Trotsky, he was one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution. He was an idealist and a militant. Before the revolution, while he was in prison, Trotsky cultivated his famous theory of permanent revolution: a concept which would later provide the impetus for Soviet imperialism.
An independent thinker (he was originally a leader of the opposition Mensheviks), Trotsky was single handedly responsible for crafting the Red Army into a machine whose purpose was to forcibly spread his idealistic brand of Marxism across the world. Substitute Marxism with democracy and the leap from Trotskyism to neoconservatism appears remarkably diminutive.
Small as the gap may have been, neoconservatives certainly didnt make the jump to democracy overnight. It took years of audacious brutality and cynical ideological manipulation by the Stalinist Regime before they were finally disenchanted with communism.
Left in a political vacuum, they eventually gravitated towards realpolitik. This resulted in what Francis Fukuyama calls a realistic Wilsonianism. The philosophy essentially boils down to this: the United States is a benign hegemon with the unique ability to create a democratic world order that respects human dignity. Hegemonic as it may be, however, the early neoconservatives believed it was imperative for the United States to act prudently, by avoiding war when possible and cautiously exercising force when not.
As a liberal, Id say I agree with that doctrine almost in its entirety. But if thats the case, why is it that I almost always find myself at odds with the policies of the first neoconservative administration ever: the Bush Administration?
Well, the sad fact of the matter is that neoconservatism has become a grotesque caricature of its once great former self. Gone are the days of academic nuance, realpolitik and judicious analysis of international relations. All that remains is its idealism and a throwback to its morphed Trotskyite heritage: the insufferable notion that democracy in and of itself (much like Marxism) has the power to single-handedly cure all the worlds ails.
Neoconservatism for kids thats what the Bush Administration is responsible for. They have cheapened their philosophy in order to produce an easily digestible version for the masses. This is more than a little reminiscent of the reductivist logic promulgated by the hippie movement in the 60s (when neoconservatism was at its nadir). Replace All you need is love with All you need is democracy and you essentially have what can only be described as the new hippies.
The biggest difference is that, unlike the hippies, the neoconservatives are actually in control of our formal institutions of power. Moreover, they have returned to the Trotskyite militarism of their deep past. What could possibly be scarier than blind idealism coupled with an aggressively militarized foreign policy?
I share President Bushs idealism. I, too, want to see a democratized world order. In this, I believe that even the neoconservatives of today share far more than theyre willing to admit with their liberal counterparts. But the methods by which the Bush Administration is pursuing its goals are haphazard, ill-informed and overly simplistic.
What a shame it is to have another great political philosophy destroyed by yet another generation of hippies only this time in jacket and tie.
OK Mr Confused. Post a link to your source that the CIA helped the Baathists. I say it is a myth. Utter nonsense. Prove me wrong.
You are very confused if you are sincere.
LOL. That's the way I see it too.
Anything to trash Bush.
He'll be posting Sherman Skolnick next as gospel.
"It inherently rejects both Fortress America isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights and propagating democracy.
What liberal could disagree with that? "
That about says it all...LOL
Actually we did but it's a non-issue post 9/11. The US supported Saddam prior to his becoming the mass murdering dictator from hell.
The Republic Inspired by Gamâl `Abd an-Nâsir, officers from the Nineteenth Brigade known as "Free Officers", under the leadership of Brigadier `Abd al-Karîm Qâsim (known as "az-Za`îm", 'the leader') and Colonel `Abd as-Salâm `Arif overthrew the Hâshimite monarchy on 14 July 1958. King Faysâl II and `Abd al-Ilâh were executed in the gardens of ar-Rihâb Palace. Their bodies (and those of many others in the royal family) were displayed in public. Nûrî as-Sa`îd evaded capture for one day, but after attempting to escape disguised as a veiled woman, he was caught and shot.
The new government proclaimed Iraq to be a republic and rejected the idea of a union with Jordan. Iraq's activity in the Baghdâd Pact ceased.
When Qâsim distanced himself from `Abd an-Nâsir, he faced growing opposition from pro-Egypt officers in the Iraqi army. `Arif, who wanted closer cooperation with Egypt, was stripped of his responsibilities and after a convenient trial thrown in prison.
When the garrison in Mosul rebelled against Qâsim's policies, he allowed the Kurdish leader Barzânî to return from exile in the Soviet Union to help suppress the pro-Nâsir rebels.
In 1961, Kuwait gained independence from Britain and Iraq claimed sovereignty over Kuwait. Britain reacted strongly to Iraq's claim and sent troops to Kuwait to deter Iraq. Qâsim was forced to back down and in October 1963, Iraq recognised the sovereignty of Kuwait.
A period of considerable instability followed. Qâsim was assassinated in February 1963, when the Ba`th Party took power under the leadership of General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr (prime minister) and Colonel `Abd as-Salâm `Arif (president). Nine months later `Abd as-Salam Muhammad `Arif led a successful coup against the Ba`th government. On 13 April 1966, President `Abd as-Salâm `Arif died in a helicopter crash and was succeeded by his brother, General `Abd ar-Rahman `Arif. Following the Six Day War of 1967, the Ba`th Party felt strong enough to retake power (17 July 1968). Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr became president and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).
Barzânî and the Kurds who had begun a rebellion in 1961 were still causing problems in 1969. The secretary-general of the Ba`th party Saddâm Husayn was given responsibility to find a solution. It was clear that it was impossible to defeat the Kurds by military means and in 1970 a political agreement was reached between the rebels and the Iraqi government.
Iraq's economy recovered sharply after the 1968 revolution. The Arif brothers had spent close to 90% of the national budget on the army but the Ba`th government gave priority to agriculture and industry. The British Iraq Petroleum Company monopoly was broken when a new contract was signed with ERAP, a major French oil company. Later the IPC was nationalised. As a result of these policies Iraq experienced fast economic growth.
During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build an harbour in the Shatt al-`Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears. The border disputes between Iraq and Iran were temporarily resolved with the signing of the Algiers Accord on 6 March 1975.
Saddâm Husayn talking with Ahmad Hasan al-BakrIn 1972 an Iraqi delegation visited Moscow. The same year diplomatic relations with the US were restored. Relations with Jordan and Syria were good. Iraqi troops were stationed in both countries. During the 1973 October War, Iraqi divisions engaged Israeli forces.
In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a high point in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country and the fast growing economy brought prosperity and stability. Many Arabs outside Iraq considered it an example. However, the following decades would not be so good
Actually, no I didn't. Scanned the article for the info between the CIA and the Baathists. Between typing here and rewriting my wife's resume, I went skimping.
Bravo. Well said. Idealism kills. "W" stands for Wilson.
Let's stop the neos before they destroy the Republican party. Let's stop the nonsense in "Iraq", where we're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I suggest you change your name to Neo-Isolationst since their is nothing at all pragmatic about you. Too bad for you your run away and hide Dogma died on 9-11.
Proud Paleocon dittos!
Okay.We just do not agree on this topic and I will leave it at that.
Oooh, another leftist troll chimes in.
zot
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.