Neo-cons have hijacked US foreign policy

Boston Globe | 9/10/2003 | Robert Kuttner,

[RockyMtnMan]

Necro-Con is that anything like the Necronomicon?

[OkiMusashi]

If that link is supposed to show me that you have a clue, it failed. You don't have and idea of where it origionated and who sponsored it do you?

Hey, Catfish, YOU need to listen to the guy who is the "Godfather of all Neo-Cons" and stear clear of the Jim Lobe types.

I figure Kristol should know more about it that you or anybody else. Try reading

The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47

... and then come back here and we'll discuss it .... if there is any need. :)

[Ben Ficklin]

"They(Neocons) have influence for sure"

The NeoCons influence would be of a tactical nature. Much more influential on governmental policies, and of a strategic nature, would be the Hart-Rudman Commission Report. Not only in foreign policy but the complete re-organization of the government. These are policies that will be in effect for 25-50 years, transcending presidents and politics.

This issue of pre-emption gets thrown around out of context. In reality it is step #3 in a 7 step defense cycle where each step is to prevent the subsequent step(s). They are: prevention, deterrence, pre-emption, crisis management, consequence management, attribution, and retaliation.

Which brings us back to Iraq which was/is a pre-emptive move. Nobody knows/knew for sure what weapons he had/has or to what degree they were developed. What was known was that he was willing to deseminate those weapons, far and wide, to be used against the US.

As for the cost, that is nothing compared to the potential cost of doing nothing.

[mrsmith]

"what the Doctrine of Preemption is and who its creators were. "

September 6, 1807:
"...it will be a subject for consideration whether, on satisfactory evidence that any tribe means to strike us, we shall not anticipate by giving them the first blow,"

Of course Thomas Jefferson wasn't really the first "neo-con"advocate of the Doctrine of Preemption.
Ol' Moses and his "neo-con" gang were kinda fond of it too.

"We had a communication from the President with some nominations, and one from the Representatives respecting the Algerines.
It was from Jefferson. It held out that we must either go to war with these piratical states, compound and pay them an annual stipend, and ransom our captives, or give up trade. The report seemed to breathe resentment, and abounded with martial estimates in a naval way. We have now fourteen unhappy men in captivity at Algiers. I wish we had them relieved, and the trade to the Mediterranean abandoned."
January 3, 1791
Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791

I nominate Senator MacClay for first official US paleocon, and Thomas Jefferson for first official US neocon!

[Theyknow]

Do you have any idea, on your own,where the modern Doctrine of Preemption originated? Kristol can say whatever he wants about himself, that doesn’t make it so.

You can't answer the questions that I keep asking in any way but sending a link because you just don't know. That does make formulating an opinion easier doesn’t it?

[Ukiapah Heep]

So which Americans would you send to their deaths to avoid war?

[A. Pole]

So which Americans would you send to their deaths to avoid war?

What?

[Ukiapah Heep]

You claimed in an earlier posting:

"You might find it callous but a strong big nation should be able to absorb occasional terrorist attack without giving up its freedoms or being drawn into expensive and unfocused foreign adventures. I do not think that we need Patriot act I and II or war in Iraq. I shudder to think what will follow another WTC like event."

Who would you choose to "absorb" the next terrorist attack? Who would you send to their deaths?

And why should any American protect another that wouldn't protect them?

[A. Pole]

Who would you choose to "absorb" the next terrorist attack? Who would you send to their deaths?

You set the false alternative. I will use an analogy - an big and strong nation can absorb a significant occurence of crime without loosing its liberty or turning into a police state. This does not mean that crime is OK.

[Theyknow]

Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 after being shown plans to launch a preventive war against the Soviet Union; as quoted by Jonathan Schell, in the Nation (March 3, 2003):
"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time....I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
Ike was some kind of wacko liberal by your account then?

[Theyknow]

Do you honestly think that that has anything to do with the modern doctrine? You should learn the modern context, you might be surprised.

[findingtruth]

It's all about the jooos, eh?

Good show! Good show! If you can't come up with a reasoned argument, just slap an anti-semitic charge on the other guy! That'll make him back off!

[dogbyte12]

If we insist that every american wraps their arms, legs and torso in bubble wrap before getting into a vehicle, we will save lives on the road.

We can also make all pedestrians wear reflective body suits. There will be countless lives saved.

I think A. Pole's point, is that are 3,000 lives enough to give up our liberty? What is the magic number? What if the towers didn't fall and everybody on the non hit floors got out? Just say 300 people died. Would that be worth giving up our bill of rights?

I just want a number. What number of deaths equals absolving the first 10 amendments to the constitution? I want to know what this number is, so I can leave the next time a terrorist attack kills 50 people, and they decide that the second amendment is less important than "protecting us".

About 1 in 100,000 americans died on 9/11. It was tragic, and it needed to be punished, in Afghanistan.

Let's put that number in that perspective. If a guy comes into a city of 100,000 and kills 1 person with a hand gun, because he hates the city, and the freedoms they enjoy there, does that mean the entire city should junk their constitution? Ban guns, do warrant less searches, hold people without trial? Or do you attempt to nail the guy who did it, as well as their co-conspirators. You don't turn your entire city into a police state in response.

The Osama bastards hate our freedoms, so giving up our freedoms in response to their actions has the perverse result of letting them win. I honor and mourn those who died on 9-11, but I refuse, utterly refuse, to let my freedoms be gutted in response.

We are letting emotionalism dictate our policy instead of rationality. If 500,000 people die a year from cancer, and we lose 3,000 a year to terrorism, which is a bigger problem? We don't ignore the terrorists. We stay vigilant. We attack their nests, we shouldn't though allow subpoenas given out without a judge or a grand jury authorizing, and then placing a gag order on the person picked up, with no ability to seek council. If that is the america we want, then I will want no part of it.

[mrsmith]

"on satisfactory evidence that any tribe means to strike us, we shall not anticipate by giving them the first blow"

If you don't know that that is the basis for the premptive doctrine...

As for MacClay and Jefferson on the Barbary Pirates- I think that is an obvious parallel to the neocon/paleocon positions today. The more one knows about that time the more obvious the parallel is.
The true question, as it always has been, is doing what is in our best interest- not where we do it.

[montag813]

All Neo-cons do not see it your way? Maybe some Neo-cons actually see two states as the best solution for America.

A terrorist bulkhead inside Israel is a good thing? What neocons or ANY Conservatives believe that creating a new terror state is good for America or consistent with the War on Terror and Bush Doctrine?

[Ben Ficklin]

The modern Doctrine of Preemption is found in The Roadmap for National Security, aka Hart-Rudman Commission Report of 1999.

[APRPEH]

basically, the answer to your cynical statement is: open your mind.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20030527.shtml

'Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'?
Joel Mowbray (archive)

May 27, 2003

Hitting at what may be a new low in the "neocon" code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a "news" story that practically screamed "Jew"--without saying the word at all.

In an article titled "Where do the neocons go from here?" Richard Dunham attempts to explain to a lay audience what a neocon is and where the "movement" is headed. As anyone who's participated in various political and policy struggles inside the Beltway over the past few years can attest, this is no small feat, as the word neocon has meant many things to many people at many different times. It wasn't too long ago, lest we forget, that to be a neocon meant supporting John McCain for president in 2000, which could have led a casual observer to conclude that the "neo" part meant "moderate."

But in the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use neocon as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. Mr. Dunham's Business Week piece at first only seems to be doing the former. Using neocon interchangeably with "superhawk," he further writes, "The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called extremists, warmongers, American imperialists -- and even a Zionist cabal." Eschewing the traditional news reporting practice of countering criticism with praise, Mr. Dunham allows those shockingly harsh adjectives to go unchallenged.

After laying the groundwork of neocons as superhawks, the Business Week piece informs readers that the key members of the movement who advise President Bush are "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith and Defense Policy Board member Richard N. Perle." Fair enough. All three have, at various times, been labeled neocons. But then, Mr. Dunham draws an interesting distinction. He describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as "key allies," but not as "neocons." In the remainder of the article, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol are identified as other "neocons."

What's the difference between members of a supposedly ideological movement and their allies? After all, to agree with someone's ideology--and in the case of Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, that's almost all the time in the foreign policy realm--would seem to make someone not just an ally but an actual subscriber to that ideology. Someone who supports lower taxes, smaller government and market-based solutions on the domestic front, for example, is not an ally of conservatives--he is a conservative.

So how do Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney not make the "neocon" cut in Mr. Dunham's mind, when the two Bush officials hold the very same worldview as the people labeled neocons? The only difference between the two categories is not one of ideology, but religion. Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, Mr. Perle, Mr. Adelman and Mr. Kristol--the "neocons" (or "superhawks")--are Jewish. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney--the key allies (who interestingly were given no "super" in front of their "hawk" designation)--are not. Why did Mr. Dunham not list fellow ideological travelers such as Gary Schmitt, Max Boot or even Newt Gingrich? None is Jewish.

Ironically, nowhere in the article does one find "Jew:" or "Jewish," although Mr. Dunham did manage to cite unnamed critics who have called the neocons a "Zionist cabal." But that's par for the code-word course. People who mean Jew or Jewish carefully avoid use of either word, often allowing the word "neocon" to roll off the tongue, injected with a tinge of disgust. Just as with Mr. Dunham, those who assail the "neocons" in the administration fault the supposedly all-powerful "Zionist cabal" as militarily trigger-happy idealists who will overextend American resources.

To anyone who has taken the time to fully understand the worldview of so-called "neocons" like Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, however, the word superhawk is silly. These two men in particular--regarded as visionaries by many, and who have inspired gentiles and Jews alike to follow in their ideological footsteps--believe freedom is a God-given right that cannot legitimately be denied by any government, just as our Founding Fathers believed. They don't believe in coddling dictators and they believe that the United States should engage freedom movements, not the dictatorships repressing them. What anyone, including Mr. Dunham, has failed to explain is what's so "superhawk"-ish about that.

It's possible Mr. Dunham didn't intend to portray being Jewish as a prerequisite to joining the "neocon" club, but it's difficult to fathom that that's the case. Maybe to avoid any future confusion, Mr. Dunham--and others--would be wise to simply abandon the use of "neocon" altogether.



©2003 Joel Mowbray

[montag813]

Increasingly, Iraq looks like Bush's Vietnam

After 6 months??? This punk ass has the gall to say that after 12 years of the JFK-LBJ Vietnam adventure? And you neo-haters buy this crap? We lose 50 guys in 4 months and lets all panic? Damn...we lost 3,000 people in 90 minutes on Sept. 11th. At this point in WWII we were getting our asses kicked in the pacific against a single enemy. And now Bush has to win the War on Terror in 2 years against a worldwide religious-based enemy??? You people need to get a grip before you buy this nonsense. Robert Kuttner is a class A scumbag. As are the losers he quotes in this utterly absurd article. James Rubin (Mr. Amanpour...yeah he's unbiased)? Certifiable DAVID OBEY??? He might as well quote Cynthia McKinney.

It made sense to take out Hussein, and it makes sense to remove regimes in Iran, Syria, "Palestine" and yes even Saudi Arabia. Anything that weakens the Muslim world and its terror base makes Americans safer.

And as for Rummy, how can you possibly compare his errors in underestimation with those of Eisenhower, who's blunders before the Bulge cost the lives of tens of thousands of men. And that was at the END of WWII, this is just the beginning. Rumsfeld is doing a damn good job...stand behind him, dammit! Or do you want Saudi ass-kissing Powell running the ship? Think long and hard before you make common cause with leftwing scum like Kuttner because of some vague paranoia about "Neo-Conservatives".

[Publius6961]

Psychobabble has hijacked public debate and discourse.

[Publius6961]

Anybody who needs to use the word "neocon" to sound knowledgeable can go pound sand.