[magprob]

Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and more quick deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.

My second question: Why is the United States not mentioned in the last day prophecy of the Bible?

[tomder55]

The terrorists are the shock troops of the jihadist or radical Islamist movement, a movement whose strength is limited but substantial—far greater than, for example, that of the Communists just after Lenin seized power in Russia. Jihadism has many times more supporters, its reach is more global, it has far more resources, and it has a natural constituency that Communism only pretended to have. Lenin and his band succeeded in fastening their grip on a backward country and used it as a springboard from which their heirs could contest seriously for world domination. Who is to say how powerful a threat radical Islam could become if allowed to metastasize further?

This movement has already been at war with us for some time, and has killed us by the thousands. Bush's announcement of a “war against terror” was thus nothing more than a declaration that we had decided to fight back. Soros, Brzezinski, and Fuku-yama notwithstanding, this war was not “optional.” If we had declined to fight it now, we would only have to fight more desperately later. If we do not fight back, can anyone imagine that the jihadists will stop? Conversely, defeat of their cause will assuredly demoralize that movement and thin its ranks.

As for the neoconservatives, they have taken their lumps over the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the tenets of neoconservatism continue to offer the most cogent approach to the challenge that faces our country. To recapitulate those tenets one last time: (1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force.

This suggests a few priorities. First, for all our failures in Iraq, we cannot afford to accept defeat there; nor do we have to. True, our more fanciful images of what Iraq would become after Saddam's removal have gone by the boards. But there is still a world of difference between a relatively stable if troubled country and a state of anarchy.

And then there is Iran. Even if we turn a corner in Iraq, our relative success will be negated if we allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. Once it does, not only will we be haunted by the specter of nuclear terrorism, but we may be constrained by nuclear blackmail from actions we would want to take in future chapters of the war against terror.

Next, only by enlarging our military can we base strategic decisions on military need and not on the availability of forces. How is it that a nation of 300 million cannot indefinitely sustain a force level of 150,000 in a given theater, meaning one soldier for every 2,000 Americans?

Finally, our efforts to foster democracy in the Middle East must not be curtailed but prosecuted vigorously and more effectively. True, the “Arab spring” of 2005 did not turn out to be as successful as the famous “Prague spring” of 1968. But then, it took two decades for that Prague spring to yield fruit. The modest liberalization in the Middle East and the democratic ferment that we have stirred there promise further advances if we persevere.

None of this offers a complete guide to waging the war against terror. But it does amount to a coherent approach, essentially similar to the one by means of which we won the cold war. By contrast, liberals and realists have no coherent approach to suggest—or at least they have not suggested one. That, after all, is why George W. Bush, searching urgently for a response to the events of September 11, stumbled into the arms of neoconservatism, unlikely though the match seemed. One can always wish that policies were executed better, but for a strategy in the war that has been imposed upon us, neoconservatism remains the only game in town.

The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism
Joshua Muravchik

[Dark_crow]

Neo-conservatism is a political philosophy that opposes Liberalism. Neo-conservatives believe in the superiority of certain values while Liberals believe that the value accepted should be the one most practical.

[magprob]

And I quote:
One can always wish that policies were executed better, but for a strategy in the war that has been imposed upon us, neoconservatism remains the only game in town.

I believe that to be true. Iran has been fighting us for many years and wearing many disguises in the process. Russia has been there all along playing not so silent partner. Now Turkey has been sucked in by Iran. Iran has a Kurdish element in its north that they want to be rid of. The stage is set. This war will not go away no matter how much the Liberals wish it might. It is going to get bigger and better... soon!

[Dark_crow]

Yes, there is no doubt that beginning in the late 50's the necons have brought us to another world war where most everyone has to take sides. Even their strategy is poor; they should at least have the good sense in war to follow the Israeli example.

[tomder55]

Magprob

It is not something new for Turkey to do cross border incursions into Kurdistan to hunt Kurdish terrorists. PKK and other alphabet soup named militias do not represent the whole of autonomous Kurdistan .Ansar al-Islam was also a Kurdish area terrorist group.They are not associated with the other legitimate Iraqi Kurds .Speaking as one who has for years supported Kurdish autonomy,we have no business giving these groups cover . If they are using Iraq Kurdistan as sanctuary then I think Turkey has the right to go after them.

[Dark_crow]

Magprob

It is not something new for Turkey to do cross border incursions into Kurdistan to hunt Kurdish terrorists. PKK and other alphabet soup named militias do not represent the whole of autonomous Kurdistan .Ansar al-Islam was also a Kurdish area terrorist group.They are not associated with the other legitimate Iraqi Kurds .Speaking as one who has for years supported Kurdish autonomy,we have no business giving these groups cover . If they are using Iraq Kurdistan as sanctuary then I think Turkey has the right to go after them.

Tom

Interestingly enough the PKK was supported by Saddam who supplied arms and equipment to the PKK who had bases in Iraq. The PKK had an office in Baghdad and camps in Makhmur and Domiz.

[ETWolverine]

Hello Mag,

Rome fell for the same reason that every other empire fell... they became decadent and corrupt, and thus weak and unable to defend themselves. For Rome it was "bread and circuses". For the Greek Empire it was Helenism. These things led to corruption of values, power plays and such, which in turn led to a lack of willingness to defend the nation... and thus the nation fell under its own weight.

So... following this pattern, which political ideology more closely resembles the one that wishes to stick to old-style values and which one seems to want to change or ignore those values completely? Which philosophy seems to be the one that wishes to fight for the survival and strength of the nation, and which one seems more interested in bashing the nation and weakening the military?

I'd say that conservatism and neoconservatism are closer to being the party that wants a strong country with strong values and a strong national identity, while liberalism seems to be more interested in us becoming part of the "international community" and giving up our national identity and soveriegnty in the process.

That's my opinion. But note that the bread and circusses of Rome (in which the people were given more and more forms of "entertainment" to keep them in line with the party platform) bears an eerie resemblance to the modern dea of welfare politics (in which the people are given free benefits in order to keep them in line with the party plaform). They both consist of keeping the people happy, stupid, weak and uninformed. Rome fell when they couldn't provide enough bread and circusses to keep the people happy, and the people stopped being lazy fat and stupid, and stopped believing the Roman government could take care of them. How long before social security, Medicaid, and the various welfare programs run out of money, and the people start demanding their "rightful" benefits?

The pattern of self destruction is being followed by the liberals, not by the neocons.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Hello Mag,

Rome fell for the same reason that every other empire fell... they became decadent and corrupt, and thus weak and unable to defend themselves. For Rome it was "bread and circuses". For the Greek Empire it was Helenism. These things led to corruption of values, power plays and such, which in turn led to a lack of willingness to defend the nation... and thus the nation fell under its own weight.

So... following this pattern, which political ideology more closely resembles the one that wishes to stick to old-style values and which one seems to want to change or ignore those values completely? Which philosophy seems to be the one that wishes to fight for the survival and strength of the nation, and which one seems more interested in bashing the nation and weakening the military?

I'd say that conservatism and neoconservatism are closer to being the party that wants a strong country with strong values and a strong national identity, while liberalism seems to be more interested in us becoming part of the "international community" and giving up our national identity and soveriegnty in the process.

That's my opinion. But note that the bread and circusses of Rome (in which the people were given more and more forms of "entertainment" to keep them in line with the party platform) bears an eerie resemblance to the modern dea of welfare politics (in which the people are given free benefits in order to keep them in line with the party plaform). They both consist of keeping the people happy, stupid, weak and uninformed. Rome fell when they couldn't provide enough bread and circusses to keep the people happy, and the people stopped being lazy fat and stupid, and stopped believing the Roman government could take care of them. How long before social security, Medicaid, and the various welfare programs run out of money, and the people start demanding their "rightful" benefits?

The pattern of self destruction is being followed by the liberals, not by the neocons.

Elliot

Elliot

That’s the conservative conception; here is a liberal conception.

The rise to power is part of the cause of the fall.

The rise was of course through imperialism, militarism and fascism.

The fall was through partisanship, over-confidence, absolutism, and fawning to please authority.

[BABRAM]

Hello Mag,

Rome fell when they couldn't provide enough bread and circusses to keep the people happy, and the people stopped being lazy fat and stupid, and stopped believing the Roman government could take care of them. How long before social security, Medicaid, and the various welfare programs run out of money, and the people start demanding their "rightful" benefits?

The pattern of self destruction is being followed by the liberals, not by the neocons.

Elliot

Excellent point. Upon retirement I wish I was guaranteed every dime that was taken from me and put into Social Security. Instead it will be demanded upon us that we continue to support lazy fat, and irresponsible child bearing stupids that are given freebies because our elected polticians have been voted in by the naïve uneducated public. If I'm lucky I'll see a portion of my hard earned money that was distributed into Social Security.



Bobby

[magprob]

Very well put ETWolverine! Thank you!

[ETWolverine]

Elliot

That's the conservative conception; here is a liberal conception.

The rise to power is part of the cause of the fall.

The rise was of course through imperialism, militarism and fascism.

The fall was through partisanship, over-confidence, absolutism, and fawning to please authority.

Assuming that's true, then we must avoid partisanship, over-confidence, asolutism and fawning to please authority... all of which seem to me to be liberal "virtues" rather than conservative ones. We should instead stick to "imperialism, militarism, and fascism", as you describe them. (I see them as strong national identity, military strength and a willingness to fight for our national interests. You say "to-may-to", I say "to-mah-to".)

Elliot

[magprob]

At this time the Roman Empire was beginning to crumble and, not wishing to lose its grip over the populous, needed another instrument of control, and quickly. To accomplish this they needed a central figure to rally people around. Until then the Romans had mostly worshipped the pagan God Mithras. Mithras could not be used as the central "power" because he was so well known to the populous, and the Roman emperors could add nothing more to Mithras to make Mithras the centre of power. A new "power figure" was therefore required. Of course the Romans were aware of Jesus and the considerable powerhe wielded over people, in the most positive possible way of course, and realised that this person would be a most convenient icon as a starting point for a new "religion" and power base, especially as at that time early Christianity was already taking ahold in the region. This early Christianity was probably the first and only true Christianity before the Romans perverted it. And so over the next 300 years or so the Roman emperors looked atways in which they could leverage Jesus and his teachings into anew Religion to exert control over the masses.
Adrian Cooper

I might blame it on Mithras!

[inthebox]

Here is a different theory:


The Lost Sex Study - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com

Seeking to test the Freudian notion that civilization is a byproduct of repressed sexuality, the scholar J. D. Unwin studied 86 different societies. His findings startled many scholars - above all, Unwin himself - because all 86 demonstrated a direct tie between monogamy and the "expansive energy" of civilization...

For Roman, Greek, Sumerian, Moorish, Babylonian, and Anglo-Saxon civilizations, Unwin had several hundred years of history to draw on. He found with no exceptions that these societies flourished during eras that valued sexual fidelity. Inevitably, sexual mores would loosen and the societies would subsequently decline, only to rise again when they returned to more rigid sexual standards.




Grace and Peace

[magprob]

I came out of the woods and into civilization after years of wandering aimlessley because hey, that's where the chicks are.