The Neoconservative Policy of War
The Neoconservatives are on the forefront of the push for war with Iran, and in general the Neocon policy calls for war, regardless of whom with. Now I don’t underestimate the Neocon belief that Iran is an immediate, and very dangerous, threat. I can believe that they truly think this. However, after Iraq, I wonder why they aren’t more cautious about the situation. They somehow seem set on a strategy. And the individual wars are in themselves debatable, but as a generality, the Neocon policy does most definitely call for war.
The Search for an Enemy
Look at current foreign policy debates in relation to the Middle East, and look back at what the Neoconservatives were arguing in the 1990s. It is clear that war is essential to their political theory, and some point to the Middle East, but I think it is more than that, and it isn’t just about Israel either. A year prior to 9/11 the Weekly Standard was demanding more pressure to be put on China over the spy plane incident.
And prior to that, you had many Neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol, providing huge support for the Kosovo War, a war which had nothing to do with American security. So the 1990s were really just an uncomfortable time for Neoconservatives. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and there wasn’t any clear cut enemy to fight.
Just look at the 1996 article that Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote in Foreign Affairs, titled “Towards a Neo Reaganite Foreign Policy” an idea, like neoconservative and conservative, there isn’t much similarity. They justify and encourage war when they say
"Most of the world’s major powers welcome US global involvement and prefer America’s benevolent hegemony to the alternatives….The principal concern of America’s allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw."
Add to it that they expand on how American weakness will be the downfall of American power, so she must remain on a war footing. Without a threat, it really becomes the political theory of Neoconservatism which comes under threat. The idea seems to be that we must engage in these wars in order to maintain our dominance and keep the world afraid of American superiority.
It is almost appropriate of Michael Ledeen’s comment a few years back where he said that "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” So to the Neoconservatives, it really isn’t an issue of who we go to war with, as long as we go to war.
Liberals Mugged by Reality
When defining a Neoconservative, there really is only way to do so, and it is as Irving Kristol said, they are “liberal[s] mugged by reality.” A funny definition, but also truthful in its own right. The original Neoconservatives were disaffected left-wingers. You have the one wave of ex-Trotskyites who were disillusioned with the Soviet Union, such as Irving Kristol. Next you had a wave of liberal-democrats who had been alienated by the new left in the 1960s. Prominent Neoconservatives now include the Kristols, Norman Podhoretz and his son John, and William Bennett just to name a few.
Now you don’t have to be an ex-leftist to be a Neoconservative, it just comes down to whether you agree with their policies. Cultural decline in America, and cultures in general are very important, as can be seen in their aggressive Wilsonian foreign policy. Basically, they are the opposites of libertarians or Goldwater conservatives. They accept the welfare state, with Irving Kristol writing piece years ago where he called for a “Conservative welfare state.”
Big Government and War
There is no doubt that Neoconservatives are big-government conservatives, yet we mentioned before their pro-war policy. It seems that to the Neocons, domestic and foreign policies are linked. While libertarians and Goldwater conservatives are content with having the freedom to build their businesses, Neocons seem to think that prosperity requires bold acts on the part of the government. Simply look at the subset of Neoconservatives who call themselves the National Greatness Conservatives, who include Bill Kristol and David Brooks from the New York Times, these are men who believe and support this.
David Brooks had written that American greatness can only be found in Washington, and when else is Washington at its most dominant? Well of course, during war time. The Weekly Standard is blatant about its belief of Teddy Roosevelt being the greatest president, a man who said "In strict confidence ...I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." He felt that war was great for the national spirit and helped promote the masculine virtues.
These men think that economic dominance isn’t all that great, that it doesn’t really show America’s might. These men think that America must expand its influence globally and maintain the position as the greatest nation.
A Future Policy of War
It is almost funny that a conservative debate today can take place about what World War we are in. Newt Gingrich says WW3, Norman Podhoretz says WW4 because he counts the Cold War as a World War. But regardless of the number, they all are united around this perpetual war concept. And when combined with the War on Terror, it is causing problems. It means more wars with other nations, for example Newt Gingrich in an article suggesting Iran, maybe Syria, or perhaps North Korea as targets.
And the thing about these wars is they allow for greater civilian fatality tolerance. You even see some Neoconservatives hinting that, hey perhaps we didn’t kill enough people when we invaded Iraq. John Podhoretz wrote a column in the New York Post suggestion perhaps the mistake in Iraq was we didn’t kill enough Sunnis? At least enough to intimidate them and scare them into surrender.
What does this mean to us? Well for starters, it means a permanent war footing and many more restrictions on civil liberties. Max Boot wrote an op-ed called “Forget Privacy, We Need to Spy More,” a title which sure doesn’t make me feel comfortable. John Yoo is a favourite constitutional theorist, the same guy who worked at the Justice Office of Legal Counsel from 2001-2003 where he was a point man for the Bush administration.
He designed an entirely new constitution for the administration, the Neoconstitution. This is where you have one branch of government with all the power. Wars are easy when Congress isn’t involved in the process. Wire taps are easy as there is no need to go to a judge. Even the ability to lock up people indefinitely and refusing a fair trial.
Truthfully, I see the Neoconservative plan as a huge mistake. I don’t see how the Neocon solutions are going to fix the problems with Al-Qaeda. It seems we have tried this with Iraq and if anything it gave a boost to Al-Qaeda.
Yet in the face of this evidence the Neocons continue on forward with their plan. Liberals mugged by reality may still be true, but their relationship with reality isn’t anything like ours. They deny the logical, rational reality and focus on their policy of war.
The Search for an Enemy
Look at current foreign policy debates in relation to the Middle East, and look back at what the Neoconservatives were arguing in the 1990s. It is clear that war is essential to their political theory, and some point to the Middle East, but I think it is more than that, and it isn’t just about Israel either. A year prior to 9/11 the Weekly Standard was demanding more pressure to be put on China over the spy plane incident.
And prior to that, you had many Neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol, providing huge support for the Kosovo War, a war which had nothing to do with American security. So the 1990s were really just an uncomfortable time for Neoconservatives. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and there wasn’t any clear cut enemy to fight.
Just look at the 1996 article that Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote in Foreign Affairs, titled “Towards a Neo Reaganite Foreign Policy” an idea, like neoconservative and conservative, there isn’t much similarity. They justify and encourage war when they say
"Most of the world’s major powers welcome US global involvement and prefer America’s benevolent hegemony to the alternatives….The principal concern of America’s allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw."
Add to it that they expand on how American weakness will be the downfall of American power, so she must remain on a war footing. Without a threat, it really becomes the political theory of Neoconservatism which comes under threat. The idea seems to be that we must engage in these wars in order to maintain our dominance and keep the world afraid of American superiority.
It is almost appropriate of Michael Ledeen’s comment a few years back where he said that "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” So to the Neoconservatives, it really isn’t an issue of who we go to war with, as long as we go to war.
Liberals Mugged by Reality
When defining a Neoconservative, there really is only way to do so, and it is as Irving Kristol said, they are “liberal[s] mugged by reality.” A funny definition, but also truthful in its own right. The original Neoconservatives were disaffected left-wingers. You have the one wave of ex-Trotskyites who were disillusioned with the Soviet Union, such as Irving Kristol. Next you had a wave of liberal-democrats who had been alienated by the new left in the 1960s. Prominent Neoconservatives now include the Kristols, Norman Podhoretz and his son John, and William Bennett just to name a few.
Now you don’t have to be an ex-leftist to be a Neoconservative, it just comes down to whether you agree with their policies. Cultural decline in America, and cultures in general are very important, as can be seen in their aggressive Wilsonian foreign policy. Basically, they are the opposites of libertarians or Goldwater conservatives. They accept the welfare state, with Irving Kristol writing piece years ago where he called for a “Conservative welfare state.”
Big Government and War
There is no doubt that Neoconservatives are big-government conservatives, yet we mentioned before their pro-war policy. It seems that to the Neocons, domestic and foreign policies are linked. While libertarians and Goldwater conservatives are content with having the freedom to build their businesses, Neocons seem to think that prosperity requires bold acts on the part of the government. Simply look at the subset of Neoconservatives who call themselves the National Greatness Conservatives, who include Bill Kristol and David Brooks from the New York Times, these are men who believe and support this.
David Brooks had written that American greatness can only be found in Washington, and when else is Washington at its most dominant? Well of course, during war time. The Weekly Standard is blatant about its belief of Teddy Roosevelt being the greatest president, a man who said "In strict confidence ...I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." He felt that war was great for the national spirit and helped promote the masculine virtues.
These men think that economic dominance isn’t all that great, that it doesn’t really show America’s might. These men think that America must expand its influence globally and maintain the position as the greatest nation.
A Future Policy of War
It is almost funny that a conservative debate today can take place about what World War we are in. Newt Gingrich says WW3, Norman Podhoretz says WW4 because he counts the Cold War as a World War. But regardless of the number, they all are united around this perpetual war concept. And when combined with the War on Terror, it is causing problems. It means more wars with other nations, for example Newt Gingrich in an article suggesting Iran, maybe Syria, or perhaps North Korea as targets.
And the thing about these wars is they allow for greater civilian fatality tolerance. You even see some Neoconservatives hinting that, hey perhaps we didn’t kill enough people when we invaded Iraq. John Podhoretz wrote a column in the New York Post suggestion perhaps the mistake in Iraq was we didn’t kill enough Sunnis? At least enough to intimidate them and scare them into surrender.
What does this mean to us? Well for starters, it means a permanent war footing and many more restrictions on civil liberties. Max Boot wrote an op-ed called “Forget Privacy, We Need to Spy More,” a title which sure doesn’t make me feel comfortable. John Yoo is a favourite constitutional theorist, the same guy who worked at the Justice Office of Legal Counsel from 2001-2003 where he was a point man for the Bush administration.
He designed an entirely new constitution for the administration, the Neoconstitution. This is where you have one branch of government with all the power. Wars are easy when Congress isn’t involved in the process. Wire taps are easy as there is no need to go to a judge. Even the ability to lock up people indefinitely and refusing a fair trial.
Truthfully, I see the Neoconservative plan as a huge mistake. I don’t see how the Neocon solutions are going to fix the problems with Al-Qaeda. It seems we have tried this with Iraq and if anything it gave a boost to Al-Qaeda.
Yet in the face of this evidence the Neocons continue on forward with their plan. Liberals mugged by reality may still be true, but their relationship with reality isn’t anything like ours. They deny the logical, rational reality and focus on their policy of war.