Hayes, are you honestly arguing that Scoop Jackson & co. were not neocons? And that he/they were not hardcore hawks on afghanistan along with his proteges, all of whom are the actors of today's neo-con artistry? This argument is as credible as arguing that the moon is made of green cheese - it's simply not debatable. Support for the Afghan mujihadeen (as well as Salvadoran death squads, Nicaraguan Contras and other unsavory characters around the world etc.) was a central tenet of the neoconservative movement in the late 70's and 80's. you seem to not understand the doctrine you purport to espouse. Neocons came of age by believing that communism was absolute evil in a moral sense and were prepared to engage in any and all forms of counteraction....and they did. This is all a matter of public record. An unfortunate side effect of this (which according to your loose theory, amounts to proximate cause) was the arming of the "islamofascists" who turned on them, and us. You really don't have any rational grounds to deny this.
I think his argument is that the nature of American foreign policy has changed. The Reagan days were straight up Kissinger style Realpolitik. American foreign policy was about spheres of influence and power projection by any means. This is different from today's world. Bush's foreign policy is not realist by any means. Invading Iraq, now in the name of democracy, nation-building, intervention, don't necessarily fall under realism anymore. Realism and the Democratic peace theory had a nasty breakup years ago and Bush has chosen to embrace more of the latter. The old realist farts in the state department have been clear in their anger over some of Bush's actions. Even realists recognize the value of soft power (diplomatic credibility) and its importance to one's stance in the world. As the sole remaining superpower, such soft power is no more important than ever and Bush's utter disregard for such a concept is anything but realist. Today's neo-conservatives are not of the same breed as the Reaganite bunch. They've chosen a more arbitrary vision of the world that is grounded in a large academic theory like realism. This has resulted in some good and bad decisions. (that is a discussion for another day)
First, I don't think it's common knowledge -- second, when was Israel losing -- third, what does this have to do with duck radar?
Not entirely. Cheney and Rumsfeld never had nearly as much power as they have now. There were still old guys running around like Kissinger, James baker, george shultz (who is a real moderate by today's standards), etc.. not to mention even beyond the big names, there are still old people in the state department that are remnants of the older republican party. There used to be a lot more balance in the Republican party in terms of moderates and "neo-conservatives." Consequently, the pursued a strategy that was more tempered and thus more in line with traditional realism as opposed to the outlandish global strategy pursued by the bush administration today.
First off, Sam - I never said I was a neoconservative. Second, I understand where your confusion is coming from - I guess the term itself has various encarnations. Some say what originally distinguished a neoconservative from a conservative was that a neoconservative believed in confronting communism rather than detente. Reagan might fit this bill. That isn't the same neoconservative that is a proponent of the intervention in Iraq. 'The father of neoconservatism' Irving Kristol (not scoop jackson - where you got that i have no idea) said a neoconservative was a liberal mugged by reality. Reagan most definitively did not meet that definition, he was not ever a liberal. Many of those who came later were of this mold though. A neoconservative as defined re: Iraq is a hard Wilsonian - believing that we should spread democracy by force if necessary. That such a policy will bring both security and that its our obligation to see others enjoying universal rights. They explicitly reject coddling dictators, and have been vocal on this point in deriding some of our connections to such. Reagan wouldn't fit that definition because his anti-communism overrode concern for the smaller players in the global conflict with the Soviet Union. Today Reagan would more justly go into a realist category. But really you've just sidetracked us. It doesn't matter if it was neocons that supported Afghanistan or not. Osama did not come back from that wanting to attack the US. That happened after troops were stationed in SA. Again its necessary vs sufficient. Lol, no my friend - that doesn't equate to proximate cause. However, as I pointed out earlier - you can argue it was a necessary step in the causal chain, as was Osama's birth. It was not sufficient to cause 9/11, however. Containment (originally the only factor cited by Osama was troops in SA) was the 'trigger' for 9/11. That is undisputed. What's fairly ridiculous is you arguing this when its Osama himself that has validated my position - troops in SA were the reason he attacked the US. True, and to be fair neoconservatism along with every other IR theory had to undergo some radical changes in light of the end of the Cold War and collapse of communism.
Read my earlier post - it's the same people. Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Perle et al - the current neocon cabal and the architects of the last 5 years, ALL came of age as proteges under Neocon godfather Scoop Jackson, who was a huge supporter of arming Islamic jihadists, central american freedom fighters, and all sorts of unsavory folks to combat the great moral evil that was communism. Neocons were ready, willing, and eager to adapt "realist" viewpoints when it came to fighting communism. I'm not sure why this part is being conveniently forgotten. Neocons are realists on high horses, who think they're smarter than everybody else. The results in practice are predictable, and tragic.
I don't know why you don't think Scoop Jackson was not a seminal figure, if not THE seminal figure, amongst the Neo-cons. Wait, so we're using the "osama said it" trump card here? Well if I guess that's what we're doing, let's go to the audiotapes: Recapping, let's see what Osama says caused 9-11, which is what you're going by 1. Jews generally 2. Somalia (can we call that containment/neo-conism? uncertain) 3. Support for M.E. governments 4. Sanctions in Iraq (chalk up one for hayes!) 5. Something to do with oil prices 6. Bases in Saudi Arabia (another victory handed to Hayes!) though it's somehow linked back to Jews 7. Jews again, something about the US embassy in Jerusalem So according to the Hayes theory of causation - with all due respect to containment (and let's be clear, to re-write alternative history and say that neo-con artistry, if implemented in the 90's, would somehow NOT result in bases in SA or Iraq is a HUMONGOUS assumption) it's not the primary factor here. The primary factor accordign to the"Osama said it theory?" Guess who: the Jews. Jews caused 9-11. Osama himself has said it.
The problem with your answer is that Osama revised his list. First he said it was troops in SA, later he added Isreal and sanction in Iraq to form the big 3 in an obvious PR move. His first attack against americans was in 92, which predates Somalia, for instance (no, I wouldn't say Somalia was part of containment). His big turn against ME governments was because of the US troops in SA (you have been corrupted, committ the unholiest of offenses). Really you have three consistent claims from Osama: Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, sanctions against Iraq. TWO of the three are containment, and in reality the second two were added later ('96 IIRC).
I wasn't sure what you meant by this at first. I am not claiming any kind of alternate history ie 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I'm pointing out that the price of the SQ (at the time) was higher than people think. IOW when someone says 'we could have just kept containing Saddam with our presence and sanctions,' I don't think they realize the cost - of which 9/11 is a big one, IMO.
Well, you forget that that too is a revision. He first claimed that he didn't have anything to do with 9-11. Do you see the silliness of this now or are we going to have to turn the clock back even further to an earlier draft?
That's the accounting cost, I'm focusing on the opportunity cost. If 9-11 still happens with a "neo-con" approach (and like I said, considering that neo-cons supported arming the mujihadeen, and that a neo-con invasion of Iraq in 1991 would have resulted in the same thing) then what is the point of saying that containment caused 9-11? It caused it as much as the sun coming up every morning did or the Wright Brothers - and hence is an empty thing to say.
There is a book called Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, which details every public statement from Osama from 1992 to 2004. His reasons for attacking the US consistently revolved around US troops in SA until much later. An Al Jazeera journalist even questioned him about the change from his SA focus to issues like Palestine in 2001/2 and he said “Some of the events of recent times might foreground a certain issue, so we move in that direction.” That doesn't change the point that what triggered his attacks on America was containment. I think you're giving too much credibility to Osama's PR savvy but if it suits your better I'll say 'Containment (troops in SA and sanctions against Iraq) were two of the main reasons for 9/11. This isn't a contention that in some alternate reality things would have been different. I'm confused by your focus on alternate histories according to neoconservatism. The point of saying containment caused 9/11 is to point out the benefits of the SQ were not without cost. Your point of departure for opportunity cost is not '91, but 2001.
Other things aside, you contradict yourself in this very paragraph "His reasons for attacking the US consistently revolved around US troops in SA" "what triggered his attacks on America was containment." You conflate the two. They're not the same thing. It's quite possible that troops would have been in SA (or elsewhere in the Muslim world) for any number of reasons, be they containment, family ties between the Bushes and Saudis, or Neocon wet dreams of abortively spreading democracy. You're the one who always insists something along the lines of "muslims always hate the us anyway so it doesn't matter what they think - so it's really odd for you and Osama to latch on to this one hook and pretend like it's the only thing that matters. That's absolutely what it is. You're saying that it casued it, in the but for sense. You're necessarily invoking alternative histories by making this statement. It's impossible not to.
First, that's not a contradiction, lol. Second - yes - they are the same thing, or rather the US troops were part of containment (it had other components like sanctions). US troops were stationed in SA as part of the containment policy re: Saddam. I'm not sure how you get to 'quite possible.' They weren't there before. There was no reason for them to be there except containment of Saddam. The Saudis only agreed to have them because of Saddam. What do family ties or spreading democracy have to do with anything, lol. That's a major strawman. I've never said anything like that and I'm not even sure why you'd throw that out. I would say its beneath you, but that would be a mischaracterization as well. What? I never said anything about neocons in '91 or any of your other ramblings. What I said was that there were costs to containment. We no longer have to contain Saddam. That is a benefit. There is no alternate history in that statement, nor is any necessary.
I'll break down the issue for you plain and simple hayes: When ascribing causes to things, I tend to use a "but-for" theory. "But for x, y would not have happened". You don't. You use a looser theory - "x was here, x can be traced to y" Which I think is silly, because like I said, it can be transposed out even furhter than a but-for theory until you get to Kevin Bacon. Again, none of this matters in the context of the failure on the ground - which is what I call reality. Please, we've gone rounds and rounds about this in the past. I don't feel like digging it up, but to paraphrase it, it's been argued that the Iraq war has hurt the US image abroad, to which your answer is prove it, and then proof is provided, and then your fallback position is "they all hate us anyway so it doesn't matter what we do ". I don't feel like digging up the thread that says this. It would be "beneath me".
You're entitled to your opinion, like everyone else. You're a liar. Is that plain enough. That's just false. I've never said Muslims all hate us anyway. What I have said is that other things besides Iraq have hurt out image abroad, and you have to quantify the dip as a result of Iraq from the other causes. That's hardly the same thing. I have also said that the US gets criticism when we act and when we don't act. That also is not what you assert. But feel free to retract or look it up. You won't find me saying any such thing as you've 'paraphrased.'
Happy reading. Enjoy your weekend, and don't spend too long on your defense. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=81271&page=2&pp=20&highlight=Hayes
