In Defense of Neo-Con Bashing
Greg Djerejian offers up something of a mea culpa and something of a defense against Jeff Weintraub’s charge of “rather tiresome ritual ‘neocon’-bashing which is becoming too much of a reflex in some quarters.”
It’s actually true that neocon bashing is a bit on the tiresome side. That said, I think it really has to be understood as a vital social necessity. Adherents of a deranged and sociopoathic “neocon” conception of America’s role in the world continue to be tremendously influential in our society. They have columns at The Washington Post and dominate the foreign policy coverage on Fox News. They have The Weekly Standard and Commentary and a healthy slice of The New Republic. And most important, as best as anyone can tell their ideas remain utterly dominant in the Republican Party. Their intra-party critics like Colin Powell, rather than winning intra-party arguments seem to be simply drifting out of the GOP coalition.
This is a dangerous situation. In the United States, the opposition party is always one ill-timed recession or political scandal from taking power. So a set of ideas that dominates one such party is something you need to keep a watchful eye on, no matter how marginalized that party may seem at any particular moment.
84 Responses to “In Defense of Neo-Con Bashing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It’s simple enough: neocons don’t even need to shut the fuck up. They just need to become as irrelevant as crazy-talking panhandlers on the street.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
This is the foreign policy version of ‘It’s worse to be called a racist than be a victim of racism’. People don’t bash neocons because it’s fun to needle Richard Perle. People are trying to kill neocon ideas because they are dangerous and if you don’t kill the neocon ideas, NEOCON IDEAS WILL KILL MORE PEOPLE. There’s nothing gratuitous in the least in calling Joe Lieberman a giant fucking joke of a wanker. It’s essential dialogue if you want peace and security in the world.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“neocon” conception of America’s role in the world
Which differs exactly how from Obama’s, the Democrats’, Clinton’s, and the vast majority of Americans who supported the invasion of a country that posed no risk?
Neither party is proposing to do away with the US’ military bases around the world, cutting agricultural subsidies, or giving a voice to poor countries in the UNSC, World Bank or IMF.
Furthermore, Obama has stated quite clearly and idiotically that the US should remain the “leader” of the world which is neocon-speak for military and financial supremacy.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
No one who still supports the appalling assault on the Iraqi people should be given a platform from which to disseminate their hate filled propaganda. These evil fuckers cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. At no price to themselves. That they are not shunned in public and in private is a disgrace to our national discourse. Bill Kristol should find it impossible to be seated at a McDonald’s.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
This neocon bashing how you call it reminds of Nazi bashing in post war Germany, kind of a half denial reflex. Condem the evil but deny one had anything to do with it. The torture started before Bush was reelected, the majority to support the Irak war was huge, including the Democrat side.
Didnt hear much about the foreing trade deficit finance regulation …. either from anyone. Besides,what are those “neocons” exactly? I find that name calling already complicated enough in Europe ( ironically here one usually refers to all evil from the right as “neoliberal” isnt it fun, but similar unclear). At least the wikipedia entry only pinpoints them to the bad idear to invade countries, not at all to many other bad idears like torture, anti government/anti regulation ideology
July 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Maybe the neocon bashing could be channelled into an annual “running of the neocons” through DC?
July 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
At least the wikipedia entry only pinpoints them to the bad idear to invade countries, not at all to many other bad idears like torture, anti government/anti regulation ideology
Neoconservatives aren’t necessarily neoliberals. Neoconservatism is only a foreign policy doctrine as neoliberalism is only an economic doctrine.
It really doesn’t matter because neoconservativism has become synonymous with “bad person” (they are bad people or at least dangerous people).
July 5th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Bettercommentonothercountries policylessanoying:
This neocon bashing … reminds of Nazi bashing…
For good reason: aside from positions on the concept of Israel, the differences between the two appear to be slight, ergo the well-deserved (in both cases) “bashing.”
July 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Bashing neocon positions is not terribly effective as long as you are effectively banned from explaining why neocons think the way they do.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Shut up, Steve Sailer.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
It’s funny, the vigorous scrutiny and distrust with which Yglesias views neo-conservatism; because, guess what, neo-conservatism never was conservative; it was internationalist liberalism militant.
Internationalist liberalism militant.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Come to think of it, neoconservatism is just Wilsonian liberalism reductio ad absurdum.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Even Myles bashes neocons now.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
…so therefore, there’s no difference between invading Iraq and not invading Iraq.
…so therefore, there’s no difference between want to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, and not wanting to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.
…so therefore, there’s no difference between shouting “Onto Damascus!” after the fall of Baghdad, and thinking that’s batshit insane.
…so therefore, there’s no difference between wanting to maintain an occupying presence in Iraq for 50, why not 100, why not 1000 years, and wanting to withdraw from Iraq.
…so therefore, there’s no difference between wanting a military response to Russia’s incursion into Georgia, and wanting to stay the hell out of Georgia.
You know, the world is divided into people who agree with me about foreign policy in every particular, and…everyone else. Brilliant way to look at things, Lupita.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“why neocons think the way they do”
Sociopathic display of morally and ethically corrupt imperialism and exceptionalism?
Their mommy’s didn’t change their dirty diapers promptly?
July 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Matt is correct. The Democrats let these nuts come to power by not taking them on vigorously and thoroughly. I assume they believed people could see through their bullshit. But they couldn’t because they threw up all that misdirection crap about family values and tax cutting, etc. Obama, as part of the stimulus package, should employ a thousand or more — whatever it takes, historians and their graduate students, to comb through the BushCo records and expose their administration to the light of day. They can then keep these blowhards pinned to the wall trying to rationalize what they did rather than trying to explain their vision of the future (which is simply more of the same).
July 5th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Nonsense. If neoconservatism was militant foreign policy liberalism, the neocons would be mouthing off about human rights and democracy on behalf of causes that have nothing to do with expanding American hegemony.
Gee willikers, they use lots of happy talk and feign solidarity with selected people when they justify the Iraq invasion or their bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran fantasies. Where are the neocons on Honduras? Where where they when the lawyers were protesting Musharrif? Where were they when there was a coup against the elected president of Venezuela (cheering it on, that’s where).
Liberal shmiberal. Their solemn pledges about democracy and freedom are about as credible as Pat Buchanan pretending to be a crusader for racial equality.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Woodrow Wilson’s defining foreign policy planks were opposition to great power domination of the developing world, support for multilateralism in the use of force, and the subordination of nations’ right to use force to an established system of international law.
Neoconservatism adopts the polar opposite stance to each of these planks, happy talk about freedom and democracy aside.
July 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Nonsense. If neoconservatism was militant foreign policy liberalism, the neocons would be mouthing off about human rights and democracy on behalf of causes that have nothing to do with expanding American hegemony.
Fucking exactly.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Even Myles bashes neocons now.
You do realize that it is impossible for a classical liberal to endorse moral-inspired, feelings-bad, democracy-mongering muscular foreign policy, right?
Nonsense. If neoconservatism was militant foreign policy liberalism, the neocons would be mouthing off about human rights and democracy on behalf of causes that have nothing to do with expanding American hegemony.
Listen, man, go off and read a bit Viscount Palmerston, and then come back and try to tell me what militant internationalist liberalism is.
Contra that, I contrast the great Irish statesman Lord Castlereagh, and Lord Curzon. On the American side we had George Washington, Adams, Madison, in fact, the entire Virginian dynasty, the conservative admonition against foreign ventures and “entangling alliances.”
July 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
If neoconservatism was militant foreign policy liberalism, the neocons would be mouthing off about human rights and democracy on behalf of causes that have nothing to do with expanding American hegemony.
In fact, a genuine sound position is to not be activist in foreign policy for any cause at all, whether for or against democracy and human rights. Nancy Pelosi, and the neo-conservatives, share the same astoundingly stupid tendency to sound off on foreign matters of which they have not the slightest understanding.
And Adam, you too, go bugger off and read a bit about Palmerston before you sound off about what militant liberal internationalism is or is not.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Don’t talk down to me, son, just because I ate your lunch. I was reading Morganthau and Kennan when you were reading Run Spot Run.
If neoconservatives were foreign policy liberals, they would aim their militancy, at least once in a while, in a direction that doesn’t serve to advance the power of the United States and its allies.
Name one. Name me one. Go ahead, show me up.
Tick tock.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
People don’t bash neocons because it’s fun to needle Richard Perle.
Perhaps that is not the exclusive reason, but it’s definitely one reason. I once had the exquisite privilege of making a joke at Perle’s expense at an event on Capitol Hill with a couple hundred attendees. When the audience started laughing at him he leaned back so the podium blocked my view of him, but people later told me that he was fuming mad. It was one of the high points of my entire life!
July 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
YOU selected the phrase “international liberal militant.” I’m not objecting to the “militant” part of that description. I agree with you, neoconservatives are militant as hell. Pointing out that they’re too active isn’t a response to my quote at all, since it was the liberal part of “international liberal militant” that I disputed.
Be that as it may, Nancy Pelosi lead the opposition to the Iraq AUMF and the war in general in Congress. Even if we are to grant her the appellation “international liberal militant,” all that does is demonstrate the wide gulf between “international liberal militants” and neoconservatives.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
“It’s actually true that neocon bashing is a bit on the tiresome side. ”
That which is necessary is never tiresome.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Paleos like Myles have been bashing neocons since well before the Iraq War. Paleo-cons – whether “classic liberals” like Myles or troglodytes like Tom Delay, were bashing neo-cons during the Clinton administration.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Neocon bashing is never as tiresome as neoconism itself. If the Washington Post doesn’t get bored running three neocon editorials a day, why should we be bored with bashing the neocons writing them?
July 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
this ain’t Belgravia Dispatch, but it is sure enough funny!
July 5th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
A while ago, I was asked to give a talk at AEI. which led me to think pretty hard about bashing neocons.
I was thinking that a tire iron might do the job, although there’s a lot to be said for a morningstar, or the Old American reliable, the baseball bat.
In the event, I didn’t go. A sin of omission.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
There seems to be some disagreement on what “neo-conservatism” represents among some of the posters. I think it’s sufficient to say that the thing, the approach, they prefer and promote is antithetical to everything that the American I beleive in stands for.
The use of force to convince another person of the soundness of one’s ideas is always a dead-end. Ideas can stand on their own; they need no help from the business end of a rifle.
The use of another’s religious beliefs to promote one’s own political ends is always a very bad policy, no matter how the question is framed. (See “mujahideen, Afghanistan”) Now we are trying to kill off the remnants of those former “patriots” that we sponsored against the Soviet Union. The United States is founded on FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not the adherence of any particular religion. (For the record, I am a rationalist, and not a religionist.)
But that’s not the only place where there is a major schism in modern thought: The next idea to fall is “neo-classical” economics. It does not work. Here’s a link:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
(See #36, if that doesn’t pop up.)
Money is an asset. Debt is a liability. They are polar opposites. I’ll leave it there for now, but we have a major problem on our hands and don’t have a lot of time to try to fix it. Pretty soon it’ll be 1931 again.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
That’d be “believe” and not “beleive”, and it’d be “America” and not “American”
Apologies.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:03 am
While we bash they languish in the orgasmic afterglow of events in Honduras. Events likely set in motion by Americans none of who is a member of the administration and which the administration has zero control over. In other words a mini coup against the president of the United States.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:10 am
[...] Defense of Neocon Bashing Matthew Yglesias In Defense of Neo-Con Bashing [...]
July 6th, 2009 at 12:12 am
If neoconservatives were foreign policy liberals, they would aim their militancy, at least once in a while, in a direction that doesn’t serve to advance the power of the United States and its allies.
Name one. Name me one. Go ahead, show me up.
I should think that invading Iraq does nothing for the American interest. But of course, for people who adore conspiracy theories about oil, hardly the case I suppose. Invading Afghanistan actually makes some sense, in the Russian-containment-cum-Great-Game sort of way, but it is another matter.
But neo-conservatives did seem pretty hot (along with liberals militant) about the Balkan intervention, which was sheer madness. I still can’t understand the mentality of someone who thinks it is a good idea to dabble in a place where one gunshot managed to blow up three empires in one go. It’s silly.
Oh, and Darfur. It wasn’t just Pelosi who was unconscionably gung-ho about the Sudanese business; neo-conservatives didn’t mind it, at least did not speak against it, either.
The weird thing about Nancy Pelosi isn’t that she’s just about imbecilic when it comes to foreign policy; it’s that she, along with a great deal of neo-cons, thinks foreign-policy naivete is quite super.
Regrettable.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 am
But that’s not the only place where there is a major schism in modern thought: The next idea to fall is “neo-classical” economics. It does not work.
I am sure that the hard workers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appreciated your great insight. Indeed, neo-classical economics do not work in making sure that you have to line up for four hours to get inferior bread.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Be that as it may, Nancy Pelosi lead the opposition to the Iraq AUMF and the war in general in Congress. Even if we are to grant her the appellation “international liberal militant,” all that does is demonstrate the wide gulf between “international liberal militants” and neoconservatives.
Again, somehow I suspect that a full-on Sudanese, or another Somalian, adventure would not exactly turn out much better than Iraq and Afghanistan. And Nancy Pelosi, in her benighted inimitable wisdom, has deemed the Darfur an appropriate target of intervention.
Oh, and something tells me she wouldn’t mind dabbling in Tibet too. I hear something you said about “karma”, Nancy?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Oh, and throw in the Obama silliness about a Russian “reset”.
What reset? The wisest words that could be said about a sound Russian policy: keep your distance, and avoid Russia like the plague.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Richard Perle walks into a bar with a blind monkey, a one-legged woman, and a llama. The blind monkey starts to hump the one-legged woman’s good leg thinking it’s a sexy monkey, which causes her to fall over and spook the llama, who proceeds to trash the bar. So Richard Perle says to the llama, ‘Let’s plot a war of aggression that will make America less safe, Israel less safe, and benefit defense contractors in the short run while costing a trillion dollars and killing tens of thousands of innocents!’. Then the monkey says ‘Just because I was fucking Eileen here doesn’t mean you have to fuck Iraq.’.
Ba-dum-bum!
July 6th, 2009 at 12:28 am
+2 points for your scripted unhinged mumbling about Pelosi, Myles!
Truthfully, of course, the point of the Iraq venture, from the neocon POV was to give the US a foothold in the middle east to advance its interests by creating a pro-democracy, pro-Israel, free-market paradise which would convert the rest of the Muslim Arab world to its thinking.
Also, Myles, as I get older, I’m becoming less tolerant of the sort of eccentricities of youth you’re displaying, if only because I see how they fester and grow into outright delusional thinking as people hit middle age. This doesn’t always happen, particularly if you compare my budding fanaticism evident in my 1990s-era USENET posts, so my advice to you, Myles, is to get out more before you age into a conservative version of Don Williams or another LoneWacko.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Also, Myles, as I get older, I’m becoming less tolerant of the sort of eccentricities of youth you’re displaying, if only because I see how they fester and grow into outright delusional thinking as people hit middle age.
Sure. Excessive eccentricity can be deleterious. But nonetheless, I should think that being a classical liberal, the Whig stream that gave us constitutional government, should not be a qualifier of unhinged eccentricity?
There are a lot of very sane libertarians. And I am not even close to an full-on Austrian-school libertarian. A classical liberal, of Gladstonian mold, merely. I should think it is perfectly normal. In fact, I would rather regard modern liberals to be more irrational.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:42 am
In fact, people who share my mindset (the Free Democrats) have been included in the majority of post-war German cabinets. You should not think German cabinet ministers consistently unhinged?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:50 am
They also remain highly prevalent in the Democratic Party too, and that’s where the expulsion/ridicule needs to focus.
And since so much of American political activism/campaign contributions is driven by Israel and so much of Israeli-lobby activism is explicitly-or-euphemistically is about crushing the arabs/muslims again and again, it’s actually very difficult to see how the ideology of crushing arabs and muslims can be successfully removed from US politics.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:57 am
There are a lot of very sane libertarians.
I suppose it’s possible, but there are a lot of crazy libertarians who used to be people who fancied themselves Ayn Rand-quoting intellectuals, too.
By contrast, German Cabinet ministers are not adopted affectations and choosing to adopt the talking points and resentments of what they believed to be the cultural milieu they thought they fantasized about being in. You little persona is cute, but be warned that it can go off in a bad direction, particularly given that you don’t seem to get out much.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:17 am
When discussing neoconservatism, it’s important to distinguish between politicians and intellectuals.
Polticians will in nearly all cases strive to increase their own power and influence, and one of the only constraining forces on them in a democracy is the election. If they believe in something, but know that doing it hurts them politically a great deal, they are unlikely to do it – either because they actually only pretended to believe in it, or because they believe in multiple somethings and don’t want to jeopardize all of them in service of one. This is sad, but it is necessarily true at the highest levels of office. Politicians that hurt themselves politically tend not to attain / retain higher office, and we are left with those who do not.
This is why Obama’s betrayal of civil libertarians and transparency advocates does not necessarily imply that he was lying all along. But I digress.
In an America where the entire population realizes that invading a country causes too much collateral damage to effect democracy promotion, invading Iraq would have carried a political price for Bush. Same goes for an America in which people understand where the 9/11 hijackers came from, and that they had nothing to do with Iraq, no matter how many times Sean Hannity says otherwise. The key to the neoconservative ascendancy (which is only taking a breather at the moment) is that we do not live in such an America.
This would be where the intellectuals come in; their role is to influence public opinion. They help determine what political prices politicians pay for their actions. By the time their ideas turn into policy, we go from a consensus that carbon emissions must be controlled to Waxman-Markey; from a desire to prevent another 9/11 to the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. This is the fault of politicians, rather than intellectuals – usually. The corruption of intellectuals’ ideas by politicians does not invalidate the intellectuals’ ideas, unless that corruption is inevitable and predictable.
I would argue that is the case with liberal internationalism. It simply provides neo-conservatives with cover. “Other countries would be so much better off as democracies. America ought to use its vast power and wealth to make it so,” they say. “Oh look!” the hawks chime in. “That country over there, it sure could use some democracy, wouldn’t you agree liberal internationalists? And establishing democracy in this country would be great for the current national security crisis, wouldn’t you agree nationalists? Why, I believe we have a coalition! Let’s invade then!” And as a result well-meaning folks that want to make the world a better place, and not just for American military hegemony, nod sadly and give the thumbs up, and only years later realize that they have been suckered into slaughtering another million foreigners.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:21 am
“But that’s not the only place where there is a major schism in modern thought: The next idea to fall is “neo-classical” economics. It does not work.”
Myles SG wrote:
>I am sure that the hard workers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appreciated your great insight. Indeed, neo-classical economics do not work in making sure that you have to line up for four hours to get inferior bread<
Where on earth did this wackiness come from? The Soviet Union has been dead for quite a while, and as far as I know no one is lining up to buy bread, inferior or otherwise.
Are you drunk? The reason I ask is because these responses sound like someone who is intoxicated and is inclined to disagree with anyone about anything. I can claim some knowlege about this subject since I was a bartender for a while (until I couldn’t stand drunks anymore) and recognize the thought pattern.
For example, if you’d even read the link that I provided, you’d have seen that you can’t get out of a hole by digging deeper, figuratively speaking. Furthermore, you’d have known that the Congress does indeed have the power to reform the monetary powers of the state, since the Congress has the sole power to create money in the name of the United States. It most certainly had the power to put all the citizens of the country on the hook for the huge amount of leveraged debt that was incurred by a few Wall Street firms! The citizens just haven’t caught on to that yet, but they will.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:04 am
So a set of ideas that dominates one such party is something you need to keep a watchful eye on
…which, to Matthew Yglesias, apparently necessitates and connotes “bashing”. Can’t possibly ‘keep a watchful eye on’ them without bashing them!
Fascinating.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The solution the the problem of the neocons is actually rather simple, though perhaps daunting — prosecute them for their war crimes. Unless and until we do so, we’re endorsing their policies and practices as acceptable, which virtually guarantees they’ll slink back into power eventually — just as Nixonite operatives Rumsfeld and Cheney did, just as the many treasonous Iran/contra conspirators did (including the chief conspirator’s son). Obama’s wish to “look forward” and give them a pass, is actually a cowardly refusal to envision the certain future when that pass is an endorsement of their acts, and the key to their reascent.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Re Joe at 18: “Woodrow Wilson’s defining foreign policy planks were opposition to great power domination of the developing world, support for multilateralism in the use of force, and the subordination of nations’ right to use force to an established system of international law.”
————-
Actually, Woodie’s defining foreign policy plank was simple, two-faced deceit– corrupt greed masked by a facade of high-minded morality. Hence, Myles’ linkage of it to the Neocons.
A little additional thought will also show to the linkage to a significant faction within today’s Democratic Caucus.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I can think of many worse things than hurting the feelings of war-mongers.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Which differs exactly how from Obama’s, the Democrats’, Clinton’s, and the vast majority of Americans who supported the invasion of a country that posed no risk?
Do you mean Afghanistan? We can argue about whether war with Afghanistan was the best or only way to handle the situation, but Al Qaeda obviously does/did pose a risk. Or do you mean Iraq? If so, then I’m pretty sure Obama and the “vast majority” never did support it. They haven’t supported ending it as quickly as it could or should be ended, but that’s really not the same thing at all, and I can explain the differences if you’ll just pin down the claim you’re making here.
Furthermore, Obama has stated quite clearly and idiotically that the US should remain the “leader” of the world which is neocon-speak for military and financial supremacy.
Well, so?
The neocons like that (but they don’t like Obama himself, which is a good sign), but then, so do most Americans or pretty close to most, depending greatly on exactly what you mean by it of course. The problem with the idea that the US should remain the “leader” of the world is a lot bigger than just Obama. He is arguably reducing that problem and probably not making it worse any more than any other president would, so complaining about it is pretty stupid.
When there is a clear difference between “bad” and “worse,” taking a “pox on both their houses” attitude is just wanking.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03saddam.html?scp=2&sq=Saddam%20Hussein&st=cse
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 2, 2009
WASHINGTON — In a series of interrogations before his execution, Saddam Hussein told an F.B.I. agent that on the eve of the 2003 American invasion, Iraq was trapped between United Nations orders to demonstrate that it had disarmed and a fear that appearing too weak would invite attack from its powerful neighbor and foe, Iran.
The ousted Iraqi dictator “was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq,” according to a summary of questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The inspectors, he feared, “would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq,” he told the F.B.I.
Mr. Hussein told the F.B.I. that if United Nations sanctions against his country had been lifted, Iraq would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from Iran.
The summaries of 20 formal interviews and five additional “casual conversations,” as his captors called them, all between February and June 2004, were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a private research group at George Washington University. They were posted Monday night on the archive’s Web site, nsarchive.org.
The interviews contain few major revelations, but they underscore once again both Mr. Hussein’s striking miscalculation of the risks he faced and the United States’ mistaken estimate of the threat Iraq really posed.
So, he didn’t cooperate. Undeniable fact. The CIA should have known this but of course they are horrible at what they do.
He bluffed. Fact.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Notice how bashing neocons is hotly debated but actually stopping neocon-driven foreign policy never happens. Even when you’re supposed to have ‘change.’ Why? Because like the neocons, the current crop of figureheads running DC does so at the behest of Wall Street. Until Wall Street CEOs are rotting in prison for treason and sedition there will never be any kind of fundamental change, either in foreign or in domestic policy.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I, for one, am actually somewhat interested in finding out which crazy-ass racial essentialist theory Steve Sailer has come up with to explain “why neocons think the way they do” and why we are “effectively banned” from discussing them in public.
I’m guessing it’s because the neocons believe, wrongly, that most people in the world are the same deep down inside, and they desperately yearn to live in an American-style secular, free market society, and all therefore yearn to be liberated from their oppressors and live under American military occupation with a puppet regime that holds elections, which will always be won by pro-American parties. They are the intellectual descendants of Alden Pyle, and they deserve about as much credibility as a gaggle of five year olds playing in a cul-de-sac with pink plastic guns.
Most Americans now seem to understand that cultural and religious obstacles to Western-style society can’t be papered over with a few propaganda leaflets, and people who are bombed and subjected to martial law by foreign invaders have a tendency to be upset when their loved ones are killed or imprisoned and tortured, and not particularly give a shit about how pure and golden their attackers’ motives were.
But I’m guessing that Sailer’s opposition to neoconservatism hinges on the melanin content and IQ scores of Arab peoples and some sort of zany effort to levy charges of PC multiculturalism at Charles Krauthammer.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Myles,
I agree with you; the neoconservatives, on the other hand, thought we were going to get a large military garrison permanently stationed in the heart of the Middle East, “an ally in the war on terror,” a dangerous anti-American dictator removed, a series of pro-American revolutions throughout the region, and a base from which to strike Iran and Syria.
Sure, you can’t, but once again, they did. We checked Russia’s little ally, Serbia, extending the west’s presence further into Eastern Europe.
Which is another way of saying that the neo-cons are not speaking out about Darfur, nor do they support taking action there.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
But I’m guessing that Sailer’s opposition to neoconservatism hinges on the melanin content and IQ scores of Arab peoples and some sort of zany effort to levy charges of PC multiculturalism at Charles Krauthammer.
Sailor opposition to neoconservatism is b/c he doesn’t want to waste money on dusky foreigners, just as he doesn’t want to spend money on our fellow countrymen living in the inner-city, which coincides with your high-minded opinions about not spending money on foreign adventures.
Most Americans now seem to understand that cultural and religious obstacles to Western-style society can’t be papered over with a few propaganda leaflets, and people who are bombed and subjected to martial law by foreign invaders have a tendency to be upset when their loved ones are killed or imprisoned and tortured, and not particularly give a shit about how pure and golden their attackers’ motives were.
So I take it you were against Afghanistan also. During the cold war we’d overthrow democracies and replace them with dictatorships. Today it’s the reverse.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Small minds talk about people. Mediocre minds talk about things. Great minds talk about ideas.
I was discussing the ideological parameters of two schools of foreign policy, Wilsonian liberalism vs. neoconservatism. Thank you so much, Don, for adding that Woodrow Wilson was a poopy-head.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Which is another way of saying that the neo-cons are not speaking out about Darfur, nor do they support taking action there.
Nor do the neocon-haters, so get off your high horse. The isolationsist view of the world is “let the rest of the world fend for itself, we have enough problems at home.” They just like to dress it up in heroic talk of opposing the “all-powerful” evil neocons.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Actually, the CIA was much more cautious in its reporting about Iraqi WMDs than such neocon organs as the Bush White House, the Office of Special Plans, or the American Enterprise Institute.
The CIA provided so many qualifications about the evidence being weak and ambiguous that the Bush White House had to go over their assessments with a razor blade before selectively declassifying them, in order to make it appear that the CIA was confident Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs.
The CIA took a great deal of heat from the neocons from 2001-2003 for not taking the word of Ahmed Chalabi, “The George Washington of Iraq,” that Saddam certainly had WMDs.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
What on earth are you talking about? Liberal outlets like DailyKos, the American Prospect, and the Nation have been calling for us to act in Darfur since the beginning of the Bush administration.
Oh, I see. You’re just pulling the old neo-con trick of taking the arguments made by Pat Buchanan/Justin Raimondo-style paleocon isolationists and pretending they are being made by liberals, because you can’t actually argue effectively against what the liberals themselves are saying.
That’s just so 2004, Poptarts.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
These “rapture” Prophets for PROFIT are ANTI-Christ DEATH CULTISTS. God/Jesus would have you in this LIFE to learn “soul lessons”, to increase your consciousness to the point of Redemption. Hagee and his Ilk REJECT the LIFE God gave you, and dangle a “shortcut” in front of people, just as SATAN dangled Temptation in front of Jesus. Do not follow the ANTI-Christ lies of FALSE prophets. Their “shortcut” of cheating God’s lessons does NOT lead to Heaven, any more than cheating on school work teaches you the subject.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Poptarts, Lupita, and Myles SG are all making the same error: dividing the world up into “my team” and “everyone else,” and then pretending that the latter category is meaningful.
Liberals.
Neo-conservatives.
Paleo-conservatives/isolations.
Leftists.
Four different categories, each one, worth understanding.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Four different categories,
At least.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Actually, Myles et alia, the original neoconservative movement grew not out of liberalism or neoliberalism, but from Trotskyist Communism. Irving Kristol (the “Godfather of Neoconservatism”) and a dozen other early neocon “intellectuals” were originally members of the Trotskyist Communist “Young People’s Socialist League,” the so-called “Fourth International” when they were students at City College of New York in the late 1930s.
When Trotsky (Lenin’s own choice for a successor) was murdered by Stalin and the Stalinists purged the Trotskyists, they began their bizarre journey from the far left to the far right. During this time, they really didn’t change their beliefs very much, only their rhetoric. Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” became Bush’s “permanent war (on terrorism)” From the beginning, they subscribed to the elitist views of University of Chicago’s Leo Strauss, who taught that there was an intellectual elite who were the only people intellectually qualified to rule (or to be the eminence gris behind a strawman ruler like Dubya). He also preached military imperialism and advocated emphasizing religion among the sheep as a controlling force. The neocon intellectuals were, to Strauss, to be areligious and amoral, but would put on great profession of belief in order to attract and dominate the so-called peasants.
Trotskyists have always believed that it is easier to co-opt an existing social movement behind the scenes than to try to create their own from scratch. Think of the Cuckoo bird who plants its eggs in another bird’s nest so the other bird will unwittingly hatch and raise the next generation of Cuckoos.
After the purge, they first tried the non-Communist left in America (the McGovernist wing of the Democratic party), but the left understood Trots all too well from long experience, and foiled their takeover attempts. So, they re-formed around Scoop Jackson, the conservative Democratic anti-Soviet hawk. They aligned themselves with the Vietnam hawks and anti-Communists, not out of ideological rejection of Trotskyist Communism, but over their burning hatred for Stalin for deposing Trotsky. Had Trotsky prevailed back in 1940, they would never have abandoned their love affair with the Russian revolution.
When the McGovern wing of the party superceded the Jackson wing in the late 1960s, the neocons found themselves yet again on the losing ideological side and began looking for another movement and ideology to co-opt – another nest of naive birds in which to lay their eggs.
In Conservative Republicans, they found the perfect target – people who were violently anti-USSR and at the same time so naive about what Communism really was that they never recognized these Trotskyists for what they really were. They mistook anti-Sovietism and anti-Stalinism for anti-Communism, and welcomed the neocons into the fold.
As Trotskyists are wont to do whenever they aren’t stepped on and held down, they promptly dug in and, as is also their wont, began taking over the financial structure and mailing lists of their new party. The Republicans, never understanding who these people really were and what they believed (which is virtually the antithesis of old paleo-Conservative policies) were consumed by the neocons, who still are dominating the Right as they were never able to do with the Left.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Please add the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion section to your list of neocon publications.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Um, being “tiresome” is not a substantive criticism of being *CORRECT*.
In any case, what’s truly tiresome is that the people who have been, and likely continue to be correct have to justify themselves against those who have been, and likely continue to be wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Oh, I see. You’re just pulling the old neo-con trick of taking the arguments made by Pat Buchanan/Justin Raimondo-style paleocon isolationists and pretending they are being made by liberals, because you can’t actually argue effectively against what the liberals themselves are saying.
I see what you et al are doing, which you do ad nauseum, is take liberal internationalists and paint them as the demonized “neocons.”
If we used military force if Darfur the antiwar people would be up in arms. As they were in Bosnia. Were you for Afghanistan? If so it wasn’t that different from other military interventions and your over the top rhetoric on Iraq – which Matt often engages in – is out of line.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The CIA provided so many qualifications about the evidence being weak and ambiguous that the Bush White House had to go over their assessments with a razor blade before selectively declassifying them, in order to make it appear that the CIA was confident Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs.
The CIA took a great deal of heat from the neocons from 2001-2003 for not taking the word of Ahmed Chalabi, “The George Washington of Iraq,” that Saddam certainly had WMDs.
The fact is Saddam didn’t cooperate with UN inspectors and was bluffing b/c he was afraid of Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/middleeast/03saddam.html?scp=2&sq=Saddam%20Hussein&st=cse
Going on and on and on about the “all powerful” neocons won’t change this fact. All you do is ad hominem about Chalabi and Neocons. We got rid of a genocidal dictator which may have had benefical effects in neighboring Iran.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222254/
July 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
WTF? Not only am I doing no such thing, I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean.
I was for Afghanistan. Once again: liberals, leftists, neocons, paleocon isolations: four different things.
Nobody in Iraq attacked us. It’s 2009; it’s really time for you to acknowledge that.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Who’s questioned that fact? The FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam talked about that in his 60 Minutes interview TWO YEARS AGO.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I’ll pay you a thousand dollars for every use of the phrase “all powerful” you can find in my comments. Ready? GO!
This is a thread about neoconservatism. It hardly demonstrates an obsession on my part that I commented on neoconservatism.
Among the things you don’t understand very well, but think you do, is the meaning of the phrase “ad hominem.”
And, once again, the timeline:
Before Bush’s Iraq policy: massive, pro-American, pro-democracy street protests in Iran.
During Bush’s Iraq policy: complete absence of pro-democracy protests on the streets of Iran.
After Bush’s Iraq policy: massive pro-democracy street protests throughout Iran.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
BTW, Poptarts, since you’re so passionate in the defense of neoconservatism as a humane, democratic, liberalizing force, which is TOTALLY not just a line of bull to put a happy face on hegemonic imperialism:
Could you please name for me the causes neoconservatives have supported, and wanted the U.S. to do something about, that weren’t intended to advance American hegemony?
C’mon, name me one. Just one.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Could you please name for me the causes neoconservatives have supported, and wanted the U.S. to do something about, that weren’t intended to advance American hegemony?
C’mon, name me one. Just one.
Bosnia/Kosovo. Although I suppose that could be seen as a bit of military muscle flexing.
Before Bush’s Iraq policy: massive, pro-American, pro-democracy street protests in Iran.
During Bush’s Iraq policy: complete absence of pro-democracy protests on the streets of Iran.
After Bush’s Iraq policy: massive pro-democracy street protests throughout Iran.
Read:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222254/
If you were for Afghanistan you have to admit the Taliban didn’t attack us, al Qaeda did. And a lot of civilians were killed. What’s the mission? How long are we going to say? When will drones stop bombing wedding parties?
July 6th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The Neocons were disastrously wrong about Vietnam.
But in Iraq a genocidal dictator was removed from power.
And yes Iraq didn’t attack us but they did try to annex a member of the UN and didn’t follow through on the terms of the UN cease fire.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
There were no neocons during Vietnam.
Did the Taliban try to annex a member of the UN? Did the Taliban not follow through on the terms of a UN cease fire?
Here was your claim:
In fact, the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were hugely different. That YOU think they were both good ideas doesn’t mean that the motivations and purposes of both of those wars were the same thing, or that someone who believed in the arguments for one of those wars must necessarily believe the arguments for the other.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Bosnia/Kosovo was, among other things, an expansion of NATO into Russia’s traditional orbit. We backed western-leaning rebels against a communist dictator who was a Russian client.
Germany never attacked us in World War 2; Japan did. Nonetheless, just as the Taliban were and are close allies and protectors of al Qaeda, Germany and Italy were close allies and protectors of Japan. Going after Japan meant going to war with their allies, because they were working in concert. Going to war with al Qaeda meant going to war with their allies, because they were working in closer concert.
Don’t change the subject. This isn’t a grab-bag for you to try to find things to fling at foreign policy liberals. You made specific claims about the ideological foundations of the Afghan and Iraq Wars, and my comments are about those ideological foundations.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Sorry, I got to the part that said “by Christopher Hitchens,” and couldn’t stop laughing.
I really don’t care how the old fraud is trying to soothe his conscience this week.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
…by ignoring the existence of the 1999 and 2003 protests movements in Iran, and the complete absence of such movements until the end of the Bush Policy, and then pretending that the Iranians marching in the streets for democracy could only possibly have learned such behavior from the glory that is post-war Iraq, I see.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Let us now praise famous neoconservatives.
Your argument does not compute. You and Yglesias agree that neoconservatives are a menace, because they dominate the foreign policy debate withing the Republican party. Quite so, they are indeed a menace. Then you conclude that we should bash them, because nothing hurts ones standing within the Republican party more than pissing liberals off.
Yes of course, why didn’t I think of that. Just look at the case of Sarah Palin, a certifiable nut case with no qualifications who became a heroine to Republicans because liberals didn’t bash her. Or what about Rush Limbaugh ?
I wish I were talking about the ignorant base, but clearly Republican elected officials and intellectuals love whatever liberals hate. Yes we must use all means fair or foul to undermine the neoconservatives. I suggest calling them “brilliant”, “knowledgeable” and “fascinating”. It’s a dirty rotten job but some one’s got to do it.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Palin lost.
Her and McCain’s identification with neo-conservative foreign policy helped doom them, along with the Republican Congress.
I’m supposed to be afraid of Republicans supporting neoconservatives, why, exactly?
July 7th, 2009 at 1:56 am
The United States of America has always had some elements of “idealist” foreign policy and some others from “realist” foreign policy. And believing in “exceptionalism” or “manifest destiny”, it may not well lead to “interventionism” but also to “isolationism”. What is quite strange, is that pragmatism and isolationism were more ideas from the right, while the left was keen to intervene (Wilson, James Polk,…) or, at least, to stigmatise dictatorships (Pinochet,…). But even, it is impossible to say that George W. Bush was the “supreme” idealist leader (his speechs about freedom, democracy and human rights did not lead him to act or break with Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan…) : his only break-up with the “realist” wing of his party (like his father Bush 41, and villains like Baker, Scowcroft or Powell) were about Israel. Question : do the praise of realism by people from the Left, and the hate towards neo-conservative intellectuals, mean that we should regret the good old times when the oil/saudi-lobby were more influential than the israelian lobby and when the U.S. tried to preserve good relations with all the dictators of the world as soon as they were “friends” ?
July 7th, 2009 at 2:12 am
In 1492, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion.2 This was the reply:
” Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.
The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. [Emphasis mine]
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.
(Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.”
2. The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: “This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.” — vide, photostat facing page 80.
~ The above was quoted from Waters Flowing Eastward by Paquita de Shishmareff, pp. 73-74
July 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Fleur,
I don’t think “the praise of realism by people from the Left” is actually directed towards Realist foreign policy as such – that is, about a vision of foreign policy that values the pursuit of national power and interests above moral considerations – but rather, towards being realistic in our expectations and valuing empiricism in forming our perceptions of the world.
The fact that a branch of conservatism has chosen to define itself as idealistic rather than realistic doesn’t mean the left has changed its philosophical orientation.
It’s funny; before and during the invasion of Iraq, conservatives loved to expound on how the left never supported any military action if it furthered American interests, while only conservatives are clear-eyed and realistic enough to understand that, gosh darnit, there is evil in the world and we can’t just sing kumbaya. Now, in arguing about the same war, the same conservative vision of foreign policy, conservatives cast themselves as the idealists, and liberals and cold-hearted realists.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
The fact that a branch of conservatism has chosen to define itself as idealistic rather than realistic doesn’t mean the left has changed its philosophical orientation
I am not sure. It could be true if the critics were aimed only towards one aspect of the neoconsevative movement (which may well be defined as promoting idealistic goals with some more realist methods).
But sometimes I get the strong feeling that this is not only their methods which are not accepted by the left (rejection of supranational institutions, use of military coercition, so-called “torture”/strong examinations…), but their very wide goals, too.
In France, the intellectuals (mostly from the left, the same intellectuals who pleaded for “humanitarian” interventions in Yugoslavia or Africa) who supported the change of the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq were condemned/on the defensive, like we should be ashame of beeing happy that Iraq is now a democracy itself or linking support to dictators with the rise of islamism. And that, when someone speaks again about freedom or democracy, he is seen as “not serious” or “narcissist” (to say the least). Just like a Charles de Gaulle used to consider the idealistic speeches of John Kennedy (Villepin/Chirac were on this position too : this region of the world is soooo complex,… yadayadayda… ergo strong dictators are a good thing). For me, more too often, the stress on the questionable methods of the conservative rhetorics (what about the supranational bodies for instance ? is UNO some kind of panacea as admirable and as infallible as the Pope in ancient times ?) sounds like an easy way to promote the status quo and to finally defend the same ideas as Pat Buchanan or Jean-Marie Le Pen (appeasement/neutrality).
July 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
[...] http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/in-defense-of-neo-con-bashing.php [...]