meh. I don't like calling anybody "conservative" as of late. Fiscal conservatism died long ago. I really don't agree with your definitions of neocon and realist. I do not think Cheney/Rumsfeld et. al. are obsessed with the truth or reality. They mold reality to fit their preconcieved notions and ideological goals - which tend to be neoconservative, particularly with regard to foreign policy. This is made very apparent in the later parts of your post. And here is where neoconservatism fails. You cannot militarily spread "American ideals". Military occupation breeds resentment, not infatuation. To believe otherwise is delusional. Define U.S. values. I would venture to say that these "younger neocons" and I would seriously differ on what consititutes these values. The altruism you express in believing these goals is, sadly, being taken advantage of by those whose interests have nothing to do with cultural change. But I have a bigger issue than that anyhow - what right does the US have to impose a regime change to invoke cultural unity? Who gave the US the right to dictate what are proper values? This is an especially galling statement considering the christian elitism evident in much of the Bush neocon doctrine. This is an interesting paragraph - but really a different debate. I'll let it go - for now. Now we are getting close to agreement. "a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States" is the key bit. Values and interests are murky terms that could never be defined in such a way as to please all Americans, nevermind a whole different cultural group. Neocons could care less about the Kurds and Shiites - they only care about spreading their ideology and protecting their interests. Nice words, but I don't see actions to match. This may be more of a "human" problem than a ideological inadequacy, but the point remains. Than they advocate a policy of grand hypocrisy. I'd have to look at the hisotrical data - seems convincing just of the top of my head. Then they are again hypocritical. Neconservatives are by no means secular - as they have allied themselves with the extreme religious right to gain political power and support. Their economic policies favor the rich over the poor (tax cuts, corporate welfare, defecit spending). And their policies often include provisions to erode civil and universal rights (patriot act, torture, free speech zones). Conveniantly selecting those nations that will contribute to corporate and political interests. I like your optimism Hayes - but if this is what you think you support as a neoconservative, you've been had. EDIT: Off to happy hour. Looking forward to your reply Hayes.
A realist believes the only way to stop aggression is balance of power politics. That humans are inherently self centered and not benevolent. That contrasts with neoconservatism which sprang from liberalism and believes in the stabilizing effect of democratic reform, people are good but need a little kick in the rump. A realist would straight out support a dictator and a neoconservative most likely would not - to many conflicts with the ideology. Well, thanks for clearing that up (resist urge to put rolleyes.....resist urge...). We militarily spread our ideals in Japan and Germany, no? Or maybe I'm just being delusional. If we believe that individual rights are universal, and there's a pretty good argument that those are principles our country was founded on, then why wouldn't we want everyone else to enjoy the rights they are entitled to? Further, who flat out supports totalitarianism? Do you? I don't. Removing a totalitarian regime therefore is a pretty worthy goal, IMO. Your claim has no warrant. On the contrary, neoconservatives lambasted the first Bush administration for abandoning the shiites and kurds after calling for them to rise up. Well, we intervened in Iraq. That's a pretty big action seems to me. Nothing hypocritical there. Democractic regimes are less likely to wage war on other states than totalitarian ones, especially with each other. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen just that its less likely. My argument with thecabbage is that the presence of neoconservatives indicates there was a measure of concern with iraqis in the decision to intervene in Iraq - not to defend all aspects of neoconservatism. By that I'm not conceeding your critique as correct either. Your equation of the administration as a whole with neoconservatism is incorrect. Bush was obviously NOT a neoconservative before 9/11, yet he was closely allied with the religious right. That the connection predates the rise in influence of neoconservatism within the administration disproves your corollation. This cuts to the heart of my disagreement with thecabbage. IF you believe neoconservatives at least played a part in the decision to intervene in Iraq, then you must rationally also conclude they did it for the reasons they believe are the right thing to do. The defining characteristic of a neoconservative, whether you believe they are correct or not, are what they are. Hence, if neoconservatives did influence or direct the decision to intervene in Iraq, at least part of that calculus was that it would be better for the Iraqi people, not for our corporate interests. I don't remember saying I was a neoconservative....or a conservative....or a republican. You know what they say about assuming...
These are very different scenarios - I don't think they at all correlate to the neocon ideology. Again - these are very nice ideals - but I don't see this kind-hearted benevolence. I see a group of people taking advantage of a fearful and paranoid public. The motivation was not liberty for Iraqis. I know you've been arguing this with thacabbage - but the motivation was always WMD/threat related. It's all well and good that you think it was democracy-oriented, but that's not enough for me, and probably would not have been enough for the vast majority of Americans. The majority of Americans still believe Iraq caused 9/11! I don't suppose that helped did it? Unfortunately, the American people did not consider democracy the motivation - it was apparent enough to Rove/Cheney et. al. that the American public would never risk their own lives for Iraqi liberty (especially when so many well-connected people would profit from it) that they made up all sorts of connections and deceitful accusations to convince the post 9/11 fear-crazed public to invade to stop "terrorism". If this is a representation of neocon procedural policy it stinks. (Resisting roll eyes) Our own militarism in the name of "neoconservatism" doesn't count? Our "perpetual war for perpetual peace"? If this was the rationale why was it not sold the public in this manner? I can guess why - but I don't think you or I will come to an agreement on that minor detail. Things change. It could just as easily prove that the budding neocon movement joined with religious extremists. Ironic, considering they view religious extremists so negatively outside their own country. If you want to convince me that neocons desire secular government, get them to stop the religious infiltration of government in their own country first. Heck, get them to select a leader that doesn't "talk to god" before making a decision to invade another nation. The hypocrisy is staggering. Two points: 1) "The right thing to do" is nebulous. As I mentioned before this is really an unfair statement to make - how do you know that American "values" are what is needed everywhere? Universal rights are one thing - but cultural change is wholly different... 2) I still think there is an element of naivety here. I don't understand how you can continue to cling to such altruistic motivation considering the events in question. Answer me this - why Iraq? Why not the authoritarian regime in N. Korea, or (dare I say it) the monarchy in Saudi Arabia? I don't think you've answered this yet - and I can assume it's difficult for you to address. I envy your optimism - but see my sig. I don't see enough data to convince me of your theory of American intent - in fact, the data convinces me of the opposite. You can argue that (your definition of) neocon philosophy of democratic regime change played a part in the decision, and I'd be hard pressed to prove you wrong. But I think it's doomed to failure - and I feel sorry for all those sacrificed in vain to support this new-age colonialism.
Hayes/rhadamanthus: I'm not going to reply to your last post because this point/rebuttal form of debate is getting really confusing to remember what each of us originally said. After reading through your response to me (Hayes), what I have garnered is: A)I am basically arguing that human rights played very little to absolutely no role in this intervention while you aren't claiming that it played a big role, but are disputing my claim that it played no role to very little role. B)I never said that the only reason we have ever intervened was for resources but rather I said the only reason we have ever intervened is when we are directly effected. For example, we have protected Isreal since her birth not because she provided us resources but because we felt an affinity to the state embedded in our common JudeoChristian/Biblical roots. None of that exists with the Iraqis. C)I cannot buy into your definition of neoconservative. D)You have conceded that even if the outcome is human rights for the Iraqis, you deem this intervention as justified. I disagree. "They know we own their country...we dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." - Brigadier-General William Looney, US air force, director of the bombing of Iraq "We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period...is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality...we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation." - George Kennan, US stragetic planner, 1948 *President Jimmy Carter told Congress that Washington would use "any means necessary, including military force, to keep the oil flowing." You may inquire what any of this has anything to do with neoconservative ideology. Isolationist or interventionist, since the start of WW2, our foreign policy has centered around the security of these oil fields. Call me a cynic, but I prefer to think of myself as a realist and that you are simply too optimistic regarding the integrity of this or any administration. You do not become the greatest empire since the fall of the Romans by predicating military intervention upon acts of altruism and sympathy for human rights. Have you heard of Centcom? It is the nerve center for all U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf region and its principal task has been to protect the global flow of petroleum. It was formally established on January 1, 1983. The Carter Doctrine designated the flow of Persian Gulf oil as a "vital interest" of the United States. Is it any coincidence to you that the very first military objective of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was to secure control over the oil fields and refineries of southern Iraq? Following the initial U.S. incursion into Baghdad, American forces seized and occupied the Oil Ministry while allowing looters to overrun all the other government buildings in the neighborhood. While your definition of neoconservative no doubt may be the textbook definition, I really think you are delusional if you think this administration absolutely subscribes to such ideals of altruism. I cannot take you seriously if you will claim to me that the same administration which has advocated the use of torture, lied to its own people, and propogated fear within the homeland started a war based on the concerns of a foreign people. While there is abundant speculation about numerous crimes, it is a proven FACT that this administration lied to its people and thus I cannot attribute any ideals of ethics or morality to it and its motives abroad. You mean to tell me that the same administration that advocates torture and suspends basic rights of habeas corpus is gung ho about human rights violations? Please. The definition you provided of a "neoconservative" may be the textbook and correct description of their ideology, but this administration hardly predicates its motives upon such just causes. You also mean to me that human rights violations are so important to this administration that they would break with the international community, disregard sanctity of international treaties, and unilaterally attack? They would smear their standing and image in the world for the sake of human rights and liberation? Please. It was only convenient to further their imperialist agenda because 9/11 created the opportunity to garner the public support which would justify such an intervention. They saw their chance and they went in. I can't understand how you equate democratization with liberation. Was Reagan's Contra dirty war in Nicaragua liberation? Was the US-sponsored terror inflicted on the people of Nicaragua following their election of the socialist Sandinistas, ousting Reagan darling and vicious dictator Somoza liberation too? You are too optimistic of government and its politics if you simply equate democratization with liberation. Just because in some instances it is conducive to improved human rights, democratization does not mean a sympathy for human rights. Like you even said, no two democratic states have gone to war with each other since 1800. It is simply the spread of an affable ideology to create ally states. Noone cares the least bit about humanity. Like I said, it is looking out for OUR best interests. It is in OUR interests if Iraq is democratized because they would then have a friendly government to the United States. After that, it doesn't matter what suffering the civilians undergo or how many body bags were filled to acheive the feat. You said to rhadamanthus that democratization is clearly favorable and this is pure Eurocentricity. Who are we to judge or impose upon the world? This brings to mind the "White Man's Burden" of civilizing the barbarians and spreading western ideals and culture. That was used to justify colonialism just like you are justifying democratization through an unethical, illegal war which has resulted in the deaths of thousands. I understand your point of what the definition of "neoconservative" truly is, but I will not accept that the most corrupt administration since Ulysses S. Grant left the White House would center policy upon such concerns. After all of the atrocities and scandals we have seen government commit over the decades, and I mean this with all due respect, I think you are delusional if you think human rights played any role in this intervention and it was not based solely on special interests.
Brilliant, thacabbage. And I wholeheartedly endorse this: "I'm not going to reply to your last post because this point/rebuttal form of debate is getting really confusing to remember what each of us originally said." I much prefer reading, and writing, the "small essays" members write, such as this excellent one, to the dissection of each little point, as is preferred by several here. I get confused between one dissection and another... between an arm and a big toe, if you will. I would have quoted, ordinarily, a portion of this, but I couldn't do it. It all hangs together so well. Keep D&D Civil.
Good point, Deckard. Excellent post,Cabbage. I was about to post about the futility of engaging in point counterpoint minuatiae with Hayes. I think his frequent line by line, or at times word by word parsing, causes him also to lose the forest for the trees. I believe it was Sam Fisher who after a bout with it, referred to the style "as a road to nowhere".
You can pretty much end your fantasy of Condi running for prez - she said *NO* this morning on Meet the Press.
