Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sullivan unmasks Goldberg as a propagandist for Netanyahu’s ‘lies, bluffs and deceptions’ aimed at getting us into war
Jeffrey Goldberg is the gatekeeper of the American discourse on Israel. But somebody's getting under his skin-- Andrew Sullivan.
Iran or the settlements? These are the two competing narratives, and Sully is in the way.
As far as Israel and the lobby are concerned, this is simply the wrong time to be thinking about the settlements. They had been successfully pushed off the mainstage of American mainstream discourse along with the Palestinians-- unless you say, They're invented. There's no room for them in this election cycle. None, finito, no room whatsoever.
Iran or the settlements? These are the two competing narratives, and Sully is in the way.
As far as Israel and the lobby are concerned, this is simply the wrong time to be thinking about the settlements. They had been successfully pushed off the mainstage of American mainstream discourse along with the Palestinians-- unless you say, They're invented. There's no room for them in this election cycle. None, finito, no room whatsoever.
The NeoCon Expat Game
MJ Rosenberg writes about Iranian-American Sohrab Ahmari, who seems to be vying for a spot as the new neo-con favorite à la Ahmed Chalabi.
Ahmari, the neocons’ favorite Iranian, is very much in the mold of the neocons’ favorite Iraqi. During the run-up to the 2003 invasion Ahmed Chalabi was their darling because, as an Iraqi émigré, he was thought to have unique credibility. Neocons loved hearing an Iraqi say that invading Iraq would not only prove successful but would be welcomed by his fellow Iraqis. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a fake, whose agenda was almost entirely personal. The war he and his friends promoted was an infamous catastrophe. And, to put it mildly, the invasion he told us that Iraqis would welcome was not welcomed.
Ahmari, the neocons’ favorite Iranian, is very much in the mold of the neocons’ favorite Iraqi. During the run-up to the 2003 invasion Ahmed Chalabi was their darling because, as an Iraqi émigré, he was thought to have unique credibility. Neocons loved hearing an Iraqi say that invading Iraq would not only prove successful but would be welcomed by his fellow Iraqis. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a fake, whose agenda was almost entirely personal. The war he and his friends promoted was an infamous catastrophe. And, to put it mildly, the invasion he told us that Iraqis would welcome was not welcomed.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Neocons Do Not Speak for Iranian-Americans
Ahmari, the neocons' favorite Iranian, is very much in the mold of the neocons' favorite Iraqi. During the run-up to the 2003 invasion Ahmed Chalabi was their darling because, as an Iraqi émigré, he was thought to have unique credibility. Neocons loved hearing an Iraqi say that invading Iraq would not only prove successful but would be welcomed by his fellow Iraqis. Unfortunately, he turned out to be a fake, whose agenda was almost entirely personal. The war he and his friends promoted was an infamous catastrophe. And, to put it mildly, the invasion he told us that Iraqis would welcome was not welcomed.
One difference between Chalabi and Ahmari is that Ahmari is a prominent neoconservative, rather than someone who merely courts them. He is, in fact, a fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a neocon think tank in London.
One difference between Chalabi and Ahmari is that Ahmari is a prominent neoconservative, rather than someone who merely courts them. He is, in fact, a fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a neocon think tank in London.
Obama, the "Neocon"
On his March 23 program, Bill Moyer had a fascinating interview with Andrew Bacevich, West Point graduate, Vietnam vet and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism on how America needs to start moving beyond war:
Nine years after Baghdad erupted in "shock and awe," we're once again hearing in America the drumbeat for war in the Middle East. Now, the bull's-eye is on Iran. But what we need more than a simple change of target is a complete change in perspective, says Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran-turned-scholar who's become one of the most perceptive observers of America's changing role in the world. [..]
Nine years after Baghdad erupted in "shock and awe," we're once again hearing in America the drumbeat for war in the Middle East. Now, the bull's-eye is on Iran. But what we need more than a simple change of target is a complete change in perspective, says Andrew Bacevich, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran-turned-scholar who's become one of the most perceptive observers of America's changing role in the world. [..]
Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru … is a neocon
That President Barack Obama, ostensibly a Democrat of the liberal variety, was touting the views of a neoconservative foreign policy maven whose work has been published in The Weekly Standard, should come as a surprise to exactly no one. The overarching bipartisan consensus in Washington in favor of global intervention ensures that foreign policy disputes are limited to “debates” over means rather than ends. In short, it isn’t a question of whether we ought to have an empire, but of how to best to maintain and expand it.
Partisan differences over these matters are mainly stylistic and rhetorical, such as the phony division over “unilateralism” versus “multi-lateralism.” Not that these divisions aren’t real: they are. It’s just that, in the end, they don’t much matter, because whether there’s a liberal Democrat in the White House, or a neocon-manipulated Dauphin, the goal remains the same. That goal is global hegemony, energized by a vision of the US as the defender and best builder of an imaginary “world order.”
Partisan differences over these matters are mainly stylistic and rhetorical, such as the phony division over “unilateralism” versus “multi-lateralism.” Not that these divisions aren’t real: they are. It’s just that, in the end, they don’t much matter, because whether there’s a liberal Democrat in the White House, or a neocon-manipulated Dauphin, the goal remains the same. That goal is global hegemony, energized by a vision of the US as the defender and best builder of an imaginary “world order.”
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Total Neocon Freak Out in Progress
Today I bring you some exhibits for you to consider:
Exhibit A: Rick Santorum using foul language on a reporter. Now, you'd typically be thinking good for him, right? What did the reporter say to warrant such outrage? He merely asked Rick Santorum about his saying that Mitt Romney was the worst republican in the country and was that true? Now, granted he may have been using some hyperbole and taking what Santorum out of context, but that was not grounds for a complete freak out. You be the judge:
Exhibit A: Rick Santorum using foul language on a reporter. Now, you'd typically be thinking good for him, right? What did the reporter say to warrant such outrage? He merely asked Rick Santorum about his saying that Mitt Romney was the worst republican in the country and was that true? Now, granted he may have been using some hyperbole and taking what Santorum out of context, but that was not grounds for a complete freak out. You be the judge:
Republican Presidential Win Would Give Free Rein To Neocon Ambitions of Empire
On Sunday, Mar.18, the Episcopalian priest and Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, returned to a capacity crowd of over 500 people at First Presbyterian Church in Kalamazoo, a place that has opened its doors over the past decade to pray and observe the beginning and subsequent anniversaries of the Iraq War. The event was sponsored by the Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice.
He spoke once again about the neoconservatives and their quest for American global domination. The neocons became the dominant foreign policy faction in the Republican Party during the mid-1990s and continue to be so to this day, he said.
He spoke once again about the neoconservatives and their quest for American global domination. The neocons became the dominant foreign policy faction in the Republican Party during the mid-1990s and continue to be so to this day, he said.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The False Debate About Attacking Iran
“I don’t know any security expert who is recommending a military strike on Iran at this point,” noted Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton University professor who was a senior State Department official earlier in the Obama administration.
“Unless you’re so far over on the neocon side that you’re blind to geopolitical realities, there’s an overwhelming consensus that this is a bad idea,” said W. Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle East affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
“Unless you’re so far over on the neocon side that you’re blind to geopolitical realities, there’s an overwhelming consensus that this is a bad idea,” said W. Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle East affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Neocon mouthpiece McCain suggests US not to quit Afghan war
Neocon mouthpiece McCain wants US troops to remain in Afghanistan so they are there for the coming war with Iran as America first patriot James Morris conveyed last month on ‘Russia Today’s ‘Crosstalk’ program about Syria (see the youtube link at http://tinyurl.com/JamesMorrisonCrossTalk). And of course ‘Neocon John’ McCain mentions 9/11 as the reason for US remaining in the Afghanistan quagmire but doesn’t address the primary motive for 9/11 (and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993) which was US support for Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians as conveyed via http://tinyurl.com/911motivation & http://tinyurl.com/911motivemediabetrayal & http://tinyurl.com/motivation911 as well!
Bill Moyers and Andrew Bacevich discuss ‘neo-con armchair warriors’ and the futility of ‘endless’ war
Host Bill Moyers opened the episode reminding viewers what the Iraq War has cost us, adding “…here we are, nine years later, and once again the drumbeat sounds for war in the Middle East. This time the bull’s eye is Iran, and many of the bloodthirsty cries come from the same lusty throats that agitated a decade ago for invading Iraq. Now the neo-con armchair warriors call for hitting Iran before it builds a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel – a scenario that remains in doubt.
“Add to this potential nightmare Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still fighting more than ten years later, and where events just go from bad to worse.”
“Add to this potential nightmare Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still fighting more than ten years later, and where events just go from bad to worse.”
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Sarah Palin/Neocon Alliance
HBO’s “Game Change” is a revealing film on the rise of Sarah Palin to national prominence. It is also an indictment of her ignorance and of the Republicans’ folly in nominating her as their vice presidential candidate in 2008.
The film points out that she, in all her vacuous charm, would have been only a 72-year-old man’s heartbeat away from assuming the presidency, a potential calamity that Republican strategists around Sen. John McCain initially justified on grounds of political expediency, getting a bump in the polls.
Though that much is true, the “Game Change” story does skip over some key facts. The movie would have us believe that Palin was chosen from a narrow field of prominent Republican women more or less by chance, because she was a fresh face and a stand-out personality. According to the film’s narrative, McCain’s campaign – seeking a “game changer” – made the choice with very little involvement from the GOP presidential nominee himself.
The film points out that she, in all her vacuous charm, would have been only a 72-year-old man’s heartbeat away from assuming the presidency, a potential calamity that Republican strategists around Sen. John McCain initially justified on grounds of political expediency, getting a bump in the polls.
Though that much is true, the “Game Change” story does skip over some key facts. The movie would have us believe that Palin was chosen from a narrow field of prominent Republican women more or less by chance, because she was a fresh face and a stand-out personality. According to the film’s narrative, McCain’s campaign – seeking a “game changer” – made the choice with very little involvement from the GOP presidential nominee himself.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Militarization Of America
America is a declining empire trying to resurrect itself through military intervention and armed occupation.
The more than $1 trillion decade with Iraq has finally ended. But neocon dreams of democracy for Iraq did not pan out. Iraq has a corrupt, shaky and ineffective government. Thousands of people continue to die in sectarian violence as Iraq wallows in a bloody civil war.
The more than $1 trillion decade with Iraq has finally ended. But neocon dreams of democracy for Iraq did not pan out. Iraq has a corrupt, shaky and ineffective government. Thousands of people continue to die in sectarian violence as Iraq wallows in a bloody civil war.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Scarborough blasts neocon Senators for Afghan war
Scarborough insisted that the mission in Afghanistan was accomplished and that there were only about "40-50 members of Al-Qaeda" left in Afghanistan.
"Some of these neocon senators have more people working on staffs on Capitol Hill than there are members of Al-Qaeda in all of Afghanistan," he said. "We are betraying our troops, we are betraying their wives and husbands and children's and mothers and fathers that they left home."
"It is the law of diminishing returns we're falling off a steep cliff," he concluded. "We need to bring our troops home."
"Some of these neocon senators have more people working on staffs on Capitol Hill than there are members of Al-Qaeda in all of Afghanistan," he said. "We are betraying our troops, we are betraying their wives and husbands and children's and mothers and fathers that they left home."
"It is the law of diminishing returns we're falling off a steep cliff," he concluded. "We need to bring our troops home."
Santorum shows that good old neocon cluelessness
First off, he doesn't even know the terms of the debate. What's a "guerrilla insurgence force?" Guerrillas are insurgents by definition. That's hardly a minor point, given the ongoing debate about the wisdom of fighting counterinsurgency wars, a debate of which Rick seems blissfully unaware. For more on that, check former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang's blog here.
Second, just what is his plan for eradicating the guerrillas? I've been covering counterinsurgency wars since 1985 and I never heard of such a plan, at least not one successfully implemented by an occupying power. The Salvadorans and Guatemalans did indeed eradicate insurgencies, but they did so precisely because they were extremely brutal and had nowhere else to go.
That recent slaughter by an American GI? There were far worse slaughters that never made the news during those insurgencies.
Does Rick want to fire up the death squads? It works like a charm, but it's messy stuff.
Second, just what is his plan for eradicating the guerrillas? I've been covering counterinsurgency wars since 1985 and I never heard of such a plan, at least not one successfully implemented by an occupying power. The Salvadorans and Guatemalans did indeed eradicate insurgencies, but they did so precisely because they were extremely brutal and had nowhere else to go.
That recent slaughter by an American GI? There were far worse slaughters that never made the news during those insurgencies.
Does Rick want to fire up the death squads? It works like a charm, but it's messy stuff.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Dear Neocon
You believe you are God's gift to the United States of America. If only people "thought" more like you this nation would be in great shape. Your feeble mind parrots the words you've listened to on the radio or TV. You speak of liberty and the principals that made this country great, while supporting candidates whom will ruin those ideas. You feel "awake" and "informed" because some self proclaimed "great American" or conservative "leader" disc jockey told you it was so.
You proudly say you support the troops and even have a very nice yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car. Yey!! Your sense of patriotism is appreciated. Yet, you fail to realize that it is nothing more than a rouse. You believe that America's way of life is threatened by "scary" Arab men thousands of miles away. Formally C.I.A. assets, those groups serve no other purpose than to scare you into supporting the loss of life and limb of our brothers and sisters. You are willing to give up your freedoms for liberty. You are allowing America to become the "land of the coward home of the slave". You support billions of dollars going towards the killing of thousands of people, including our own, for the sake of an undefined victory.
You proudly say you support the troops and even have a very nice yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your car. Yey!! Your sense of patriotism is appreciated. Yet, you fail to realize that it is nothing more than a rouse. You believe that America's way of life is threatened by "scary" Arab men thousands of miles away. Formally C.I.A. assets, those groups serve no other purpose than to scare you into supporting the loss of life and limb of our brothers and sisters. You are willing to give up your freedoms for liberty. You are allowing America to become the "land of the coward home of the slave". You support billions of dollars going towards the killing of thousands of people, including our own, for the sake of an undefined victory.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Pompous neocon finds Eisenhower's conspiracy theories on military-industrial complex inconvenient to his parasitic clique's plans for global hegemony
There are rules of proper etiquette in the Washington think tank culture, the most annoying of which is to suppress all emotion for a given topic in the interest of appearing aloof and dispassionate, ever-reaching for the inner Mr. Spock in some narcissistic attempt to look more scholarly than everyone else. Apparently another “must,” particularly in the national security think tank sphere, is never to invoke President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 speech in which he ominously gives name to the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).
As the 34th President said:
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
As the 34th President said:
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Neo Con Cheerleading for War in Syria
Op-ed today (Friday) by Max Boot illustrates why the neocons are an amazing group of dangerous buffoons. Not a one of these clowns have ever served in the military and none actually understand the process of assessing risk and military planning. Boot presents his madness in the Washington Post and makes his case of why we ought to be on the ground in Syria:
Today, in the case of Syria, any military action needs to be carefully thought through, but we should not refuse to act simply because of the worst-case scenarios being raised by the Pentagon.
Today, in the case of Syria, any military action needs to be carefully thought through, but we should not refuse to act simply because of the worst-case scenarios being raised by the Pentagon.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Who Is the Most Obnoxious Neocon? I Vote Robert Kagan
Who do our readers think is the most obnoxious neocon? Kristol the Elder? Kristol the Younger? Pod the Elder? Pod the Lesser? Krauthammer? Someone in the National Review axis? Kagan? Levin? Another? (Suggest me some other names, and I’ll actually make a poll to post.)
And by obnoxious I don’t necessarily mean personally. I mean which one is the most absurdly out there and over the top with their neoconservatism. My vote goes to Robert Kagan, with Levin as a close second.
Kagan is a proud and open advocate of American Imperialism. He reminds me of an Englishman defending the British Empire talking about the white man’s burden. We simply must rule the world for the good of all. Kagan is a cartoon character who lives in a cartoon world. How does this clown have a post in a “mainstream” think thank? He shouldn’t be at the Brookings Institution. He should be at the Marvel Institution. See what I mean:
And by obnoxious I don’t necessarily mean personally. I mean which one is the most absurdly out there and over the top with their neoconservatism. My vote goes to Robert Kagan, with Levin as a close second.
Kagan is a proud and open advocate of American Imperialism. He reminds me of an Englishman defending the British Empire talking about the white man’s burden. We simply must rule the world for the good of all. Kagan is a cartoon character who lives in a cartoon world. How does this clown have a post in a “mainstream” think thank? He shouldn’t be at the Brookings Institution. He should be at the Marvel Institution. See what I mean:
Obama, Cameron End the Neocon Era
It is as easy to be distracted by the outward glamour of a prime ministerial visit to Washington as it is to fail to discern its occasional real inner substance. Both things apply in the case of David Cameron's White House talks with Barack Obama. On one level they were the very embodiment of the self-indulgent vacuity of which Simon Jenkins wrote here. On another, they marked the end of a chapter in modern history.
On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.
On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Is America the Greatest Force for Good in the World?
In a recent CNN article, veteran foreign policy commentator and Brookings senior fellow Robert Kagan argues that America has made the world freer, safer, and wealthier.
Kagan is a prominent neoconservative columnist for the Washington Post, as well as the co-founder (along with fellow neocon William Kristol) of the Foreign Policy Initiative, an adviser to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and he serves on the board of the U.S. Committee on NATO.
Kagan is a prominent neoconservative columnist for the Washington Post, as well as the co-founder (along with fellow neocon William Kristol) of the Foreign Policy Initiative, an adviser to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and he serves on the board of the U.S. Committee on NATO.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Cameron and Obama ended the neocon era. But the era of Assad goes on
It is as easy to be distracted by the outward glamour of a prime ministerial visit to Washington as it is to fail to discern its occasional real inner substance. Both things apply in the case of David Cameron's White House talks with Barack Obama. On one level they were the very embodiment of the self-indulgent vacuity of which Simon Jenkins wrote here. On another, they marked the end of a chapter in modern history.
On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.
On Wednesday in the White House they buried the neocons. Or, to put it rather more carefully, since neoconservatism has been through many contrasting incarnations and the term is widely misused, Cameron and Obama marked the imminent close of the phase of US-UK foreign policy that began after 9/11 with the coming together of American imperial power and British support for the active promotion of democracy and liberal institutions, particularly in the Muslim world.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Emerging Neocon-Christian Split Over Syria
Maybe it's in recognition of this challenge that neocons have been downplaying the role of Muslim extremists. The Weekly Standard approvingly quotes John McCain saying that Syrian rebels are "not fighting and dying because they are Muslim extremists." And, in a departure from tradition, the Standard is minimizing al-Qaeda influence in an Arab country, noting that claims of al Qaeda's presence in Syria are "without evidence."
If the neoconservatives' downplaying of the insurgency's radical element doesn't work, an alternative approach would be to try and turn lemons into lemonade: One way to keep the fractured, ragtag rebels from "dividing the spoils" might be to impose order on them--lead from the front!
If the neoconservatives' downplaying of the insurgency's radical element doesn't work, an alternative approach would be to try and turn lemons into lemonade: One way to keep the fractured, ragtag rebels from "dividing the spoils" might be to impose order on them--lead from the front!
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Beating the War Drums Again
Many have warned that striking Iran now could have a whole slew of potential effects, most of them damaging to U.S. and Israeli interests. These possible pitfalls have been described here at TNI, but to name just one, an attack would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of those in Iran who believe that acquiring nuclear weapons is a strategic necessity—thereby making a nuclear Iran more likely, not less. Yet Krauthammer says not a word about any of the many possible negative outcomes.
It’s worth remembering how disastrously wrong Krauthammer and his fellow neoconservatives were about basically everything in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Nine years, many thousands of lives and a trillion dollars later, they should reflect on that mistake rather than beat the drums for another Middle Eastern war. The rest of us should likewise be wary of howlers like this latest one from Krauthammer.
It’s worth remembering how disastrously wrong Krauthammer and his fellow neoconservatives were about basically everything in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Nine years, many thousands of lives and a trillion dollars later, they should reflect on that mistake rather than beat the drums for another Middle Eastern war. The rest of us should likewise be wary of howlers like this latest one from Krauthammer.
Obama Impreachment Scam Tied To Nethanyahu and Neocons
It is an impeachable offense, not just against Obama but against every member on Congress that calls for war against Iran. But there is a more clever spin to this, the attempt to insert Libya into the mess.
This was another set of political year emails paid for by the Likudist/Neocon/Organized Crime lobby, sent on by morons and malcontents. It tells of imaginary tales of General Dempsey, CJCOS and Defense Secretary Panetta stating that the US is under foreign control.
Now we have something worse, more underhanded, a lie intended to go viral, another case of VT catching the liars in the act. This 2007 video about the impeachment of Bush is misrepresented, edited and sent across the internet:
This was another set of political year emails paid for by the Likudist/Neocon/Organized Crime lobby, sent on by morons and malcontents. It tells of imaginary tales of General Dempsey, CJCOS and Defense Secretary Panetta stating that the US is under foreign control.
Now we have something worse, more underhanded, a lie intended to go viral, another case of VT catching the liars in the act. This 2007 video about the impeachment of Bush is misrepresented, edited and sent across the internet:
Monday, March 12, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Is the United States a ‘Neocon Nation’?
Debating the position of neoconservatism in the history of American foreign policy has, in the years following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, become a vibrant industry. Initially, an orthodox narrative emerged, which considered neoconservatism an imperialistic, militaristic and hubristic aberration in American history, which, having enjoyed a brief ‘moment’ of post-September 11 influence, was now consigned to historical irrelevance, having failed both theoretically and practically.[1] More recently, a revisionist school has surfaced which challenges these views, and places neoconservatism firmly within the traditions of American foreign policy. According to the revisionists, neoconservative foreign policy is proactive, theoretically robust, and is driven by a deep sense of moral virtue and a desire to spread universal values of liberty, freedom and democracy.[2] Crucially, as the revisionists’ arguably most prominent scholar Robert Kagan argues, the history of American foreign policy is one of consistent active liberal expansion, which is fuelled by the domestic character of the US and its foundation based on universal rights of all. Kagan concludes that in its dealings with the rest of the world, the US is an ideological, revolutionary state, viewed by others as a ‘dangerous nation’, with a ‘self-image at odds reality’.[3] Even though Americans may be reluctant to admit it, in Kagan’s view, the US is, and always has been, a ‘neocon nation’.[4]
This paper will assess this claim, by interrogating Kagan’s core argument that America’s liberal universalism drives its actions abroad. A tentative post-revisionist conclusion will be drawn, suggesting that America is a not ‘neocon nation’, but rather an idealist nation in a realist world: the US does pursue the extension of liberal capitalist democracy, but this idealistic goal must be reconciled with the realities of international politics, which compel states to primarily seek power, wealth and security in order to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system, as discussed in structural realist theories of international relations.[5] This reconciliation is necessary because of the centrality of liberalism in the formation of American politics and society, and takes place as foreign actions which are undertaken to satisfy parochial strategic interests are framed in moral terms, and particularly as part of an American mission to expand liberal democracy. This moral framing is not undertaken to provide a ‘fig-leaf’ to mislead the American people, but rather reflects the link between national identity and foreign policy. America may not like the realities of international politics, but if it must grapple with them and pursue its interests, it will do so in terms of liberty, freedom and democracy, in order to be consistent with its liberal political culture. In this sense, culture acts as a filter or ‘permissive causes’ on potential reactions to international pressures, deeming certain responses literally unthinkable for the US.[6] It is this reconciliation that explains America’s moral construction of its foreign policy, which Kagan confuses as the driving force behind it and thus his misleading label of a ‘neocon nation’. This view is consistent with the tenets of neoclassical realism: power determines state capability and its scope of interests, but ideas and state character determine how those interests are understood and pursued.[7]
This paper will assess this claim, by interrogating Kagan’s core argument that America’s liberal universalism drives its actions abroad. A tentative post-revisionist conclusion will be drawn, suggesting that America is a not ‘neocon nation’, but rather an idealist nation in a realist world: the US does pursue the extension of liberal capitalist democracy, but this idealistic goal must be reconciled with the realities of international politics, which compel states to primarily seek power, wealth and security in order to ensure their survival in an anarchic international system, as discussed in structural realist theories of international relations.[5] This reconciliation is necessary because of the centrality of liberalism in the formation of American politics and society, and takes place as foreign actions which are undertaken to satisfy parochial strategic interests are framed in moral terms, and particularly as part of an American mission to expand liberal democracy. This moral framing is not undertaken to provide a ‘fig-leaf’ to mislead the American people, but rather reflects the link between national identity and foreign policy. America may not like the realities of international politics, but if it must grapple with them and pursue its interests, it will do so in terms of liberty, freedom and democracy, in order to be consistent with its liberal political culture. In this sense, culture acts as a filter or ‘permissive causes’ on potential reactions to international pressures, deeming certain responses literally unthinkable for the US.[6] It is this reconciliation that explains America’s moral construction of its foreign policy, which Kagan confuses as the driving force behind it and thus his misleading label of a ‘neocon nation’. This view is consistent with the tenets of neoclassical realism: power determines state capability and its scope of interests, but ideas and state character determine how those interests are understood and pursued.[7]
Will Netanyahu Defy Obama on Iran?
The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer wants war with Iran – and he’s furious at President Barack Obama for making it clear to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israel attacks now, it will do so on its own.
On Friday, Krauthammer, who represents the super-hawk wing of the Post’s neocon-dominated editorial section, took special umbragewith a background quote from one of Obama’s advisers who said, “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.” Krauthammer deemed that remark “revealing and shocking.”
For Krauthammer, Obama’s only right answer to Netanyahu’s belligerent demands would have been a blank check to be paid by the American military and U.S. taxpayers. However, Krauthammer’s furious lament does reflect an important reality regarding Israel and Iran: Obama stands as the chief obstacle to another war.
On Friday, Krauthammer, who represents the super-hawk wing of the Post’s neocon-dominated editorial section, took special umbragewith a background quote from one of Obama’s advisers who said, “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.” Krauthammer deemed that remark “revealing and shocking.”
For Krauthammer, Obama’s only right answer to Netanyahu’s belligerent demands would have been a blank check to be paid by the American military and U.S. taxpayers. However, Krauthammer’s furious lament does reflect an important reality regarding Israel and Iran: Obama stands as the chief obstacle to another war.
Friday, March 09, 2012
The MEK’s Useful Idiots
The well-connected friends of the MEK include well-known neocons like John Bolton and James Woolsey. And there is also the paid supporting cast including former head of the Democratic Party Howard Dean; former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani; ex-CIA director Michael Hayden; former generals Anthony Zinni, Peter Pace, and Hugh Shelton; former congressman Lee Hamilton; ex–attorney general Michael Mukasey; former Homeland Security director Tom Ridge; former national security adviser Jim Jones; ex-senator Robert Torricelli; former FBI director Louis Freeh; and former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Current representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Brad Sherman also openly support the MEK and joined 96 other congressmen in calling for the lifting of the terrorism label.
Lee Hamilton has praised the MEK for providing useful intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, but some of the intelligence in question is believed to be fabricated by the Mossad. Hamilton subsequently admitted that he was paid a “substantial amount” to speak and conceded that he might have been fooled by the group’s democratic credentials. “You always can be misled,” he said. Ethically challenged former senator and current lobbyist Robert Torricelli is less flexible, stating that he is “personally offended” by the group being listed as terrorist, noting that it can be “used” against Iran.
Lee Hamilton has praised the MEK for providing useful intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, but some of the intelligence in question is believed to be fabricated by the Mossad. Hamilton subsequently admitted that he was paid a “substantial amount” to speak and conceded that he might have been fooled by the group’s democratic credentials. “You always can be misled,” he said. Ethically challenged former senator and current lobbyist Robert Torricelli is less flexible, stating that he is “personally offended” by the group being listed as terrorist, noting that it can be “used” against Iran.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Joe Lieberman a conservative? Looking back on an era of mass insanity
I have noted before that the entire George W. Bush era was an exercise in mass insanity among people who purport to be conservatives.
Nowhere did things get nuttier than in the case of Joe Lieberman.
Why? Solely because he supported the Trotskyite foreign policy of the so-called "neo" conservatives. I'm not kidding about the Marxist roots of the neocon belief system. If you doubt me, follow that link above.
Nowhere did things get nuttier than in the case of Joe Lieberman.
Why? Solely because he supported the Trotskyite foreign policy of the so-called "neo" conservatives. I'm not kidding about the Marxist roots of the neocon belief system. If you doubt me, follow that link above.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Next Neocon War? 'Free-Balochistan' to Split Pakistan in Two
Recently, a resolution was passed in the US Congress to divide Pakistan and carve out an 'independent Balochistan'. With this, an old neocon dream was revived. This time the so-called globalists and propagandists, masquerading as human right activists, are the cheerleaders. Against this backdrop, Colonel Ralph Peter's map of the 'New Middle East' truncating, balkanising every country - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan - was reproduced. Despite the fact that it was scorned and reviled even at the time of its earlier exhibition. It seems that the neocons and influential globalists of America desperately want to initiate World War III. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's interview, If you can't hear the drums of war, you must be deaf, with Alfred Heinz on November 27, 2011, is a clear expression of this desire. – Pakistan News
Dominant Social Theme: The Baloch tribes are badly repressed by Pakistan and need help. They should be freed from the grip of the horrid Punjabis. And by the way, the Balochs would then cooperate with the US and, like a dagger in the heart of Islam, provide the West and NATO with secure bases from which to pursue war against Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. That's not the reason to support the Balochs, however. They're repressed.
Dominant Social Theme: The Baloch tribes are badly repressed by Pakistan and need help. They should be freed from the grip of the horrid Punjabis. And by the way, the Balochs would then cooperate with the US and, like a dagger in the heart of Islam, provide the West and NATO with secure bases from which to pursue war against Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. That's not the reason to support the Balochs, however. They're repressed.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Neocon David Frum Worried
How dare Ron Paulians use their knowledge of Republican party rules and dedication and hard work to promote Ron at the Tampa convention? It is so unfair, says Frum. Why don't the Ron Paul people just roll over and play dead like they're supposed to?
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Pat Buchanan: A real conservative vs. the neocons
And while we're on the subject of the nutty "neo" conservatives Buchanan has spent the past couple decades battling, check this excellent piece in the National Interest debunking the nutty neocon notion that Ronald Reagan would have gotten us bogged down in the Mideast:
More recently, these efforts to wrap Bush’s aggressive foreign policy in a Reagan blanket have been duplicated in the rhetoric of the now-dwindling field of candidates for this year’s GOP presidential nomination. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich all identified Reagan as a model for the foreign-policy bellicosity they espoused with such zeal during the campaign.
This is all specious. The West’s Cold War victory was a triumph of foreign-policy realism, not neocon pugnacity. It came about through measured, deliberate decision making over decades. If the victory teaches us anything about American foreign policy in our time, it is that the country should not have abandoned its successful Cold War steadiness for the provocative sledgehammer approach adopted after 9/11.
More recently, these efforts to wrap Bush’s aggressive foreign policy in a Reagan blanket have been duplicated in the rhetoric of the now-dwindling field of candidates for this year’s GOP presidential nomination. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich all identified Reagan as a model for the foreign-policy bellicosity they espoused with such zeal during the campaign.
This is all specious. The West’s Cold War victory was a triumph of foreign-policy realism, not neocon pugnacity. It came about through measured, deliberate decision making over decades. If the victory teaches us anything about American foreign policy in our time, it is that the country should not have abandoned its successful Cold War steadiness for the provocative sledgehammer approach adopted after 9/11.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Just in time for Netanyahu visit, neocon ad in ‘NYT’ attacks MJ Rosenberg and CAP
Just in time for the AIPAC conference and Netanyahu's visit to Barack Obama, the New York Times today features a full page ad from neoconservatives saying that liberals must support Israel. The ad attacks two Democratic Party-linked thinktanks, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, for criticism of Israel. It names M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters and says he is a bigot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The ad has a scare image of a wolf, and features quotes from Alan Dershowitz and Spencer Ackerman (inaccurately characterizing the use of the term "Israel Firster"). It asks people to call the foundations that fund the two thinktanks-- notably the Pritzker foundation. The Pritzker family has supported Barack Obama.
Balochistan and geopolitics
Recently, a resolution was passed in the US Congress to divide Pakistan and carve out an ‘independent Balochistan’. With this, an old neocon dream was revived. This time the so-called globalists and propagandists, masquerading as human right activists, are the cheerleaders. Against this backdrop, Colonel Ralph Peter’s map of the ‘New Middle East’ truncating, balkanising every country - Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan - was reproduced. Despite the fact that it was scorned and reviled even at the time of its earlier exhibition. It seems that the neocons and influential globalists of America desperately want to initiate World War III. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s interview, If you can’t hear the drums of war, you must be deaf, with Alfred Heinz on November 27, 2011, is a clear expression of this desire. The neocon-globalist geopolitical wish list - the rationale for the so-called ‘independent Balochistan’ - is as under:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)