The Shadow Men

[Giancarlo]

Spiffor.. your imagery is flawed in all senses. The neo-conservatives are just trying to protecting America. America's interests destructive? Since when? Right...

[Drake Tungsten]

I admit my imagery may be flawed, but I doubt being the only one to think that way.

I don't think many people know much about neo-conservatism; this article opened my eyes to just how little I knew about the neo-conservative movement. The more I read about neo-conservative views, the more respect I seem to gain for them. They really do seem to incorporate some of the best aspects of both liberal and realist thought. I think I'm going to have to hit the library on this one; it's an interesting topic and certainly worthy of further investigation.

[Drake Tungsten]

Spiffor.. your imagery is flawed in all senses. The neo-conservatives are just trying to protecting America. America's interests destructive? Since when? Right...

Don't be so hard on Spiff; he's just repeating the standard line on neo-cons in the continental European press. I read an article from Der Spiegel a couple months back that talked at length about the war-mongering handful of neo-cons who had hijacked the Bush administration to serve American business interests. If I was exposed to that kind of stuff on a daily basis, I would probably feel just like Spiffor. The information you are exposed to has an incalculable effect on the views you hold.

You have to give Spiffor credit; he admits that his viewpoint may be flawed and seems to want to learn more about the subject. That's all you can expect out of a person.

[Giancarlo]

Yeah I gotta chill some... I am gonna drink a glass of wine... Spiff does make some valid points. And he has the strength admit he might be wrong. Sorry man, for being so harsh. I am learning.

[Spiffor]

No problem Fez. I didn't take badly a 'harsh' comment on 'Poly in a looooooooooong time

Drake :
Well, I was too lazy to read the entire article before. But now I've done it, and the Neo-cons barely seem any better in my book. I have to admit, however, that their emphasis on nation-building sure makes them look better than before. But there are some inherently flawed conceptions by them :

Near-consensus is found around the notion that America should use its power vigorously to reshape the world

Granted, this is not only a neo-con thing, but they seem to be the most militant about it. Call me an ugly cultural relativist, or any derivation of pinko tree-hugger, but I don't think the people of the Earth are ready to accept a fast change that comes from the outside, especially from the hated US.
Besides, I think it is an extremely arrogant position to pretend the US has any legitimacy to reshape the world.
And lastly, all historical attempts from powerful countries to reshape the world have been terrible failures because of this arrogance : colonization and post WW1 ME partition come to mind.

I agree the US should try to help the local populations to reshape their regions if there is a need. However, dictating it (which seems to be the creed) is a complete mistake that will lead to even more rejection. Especially if we are dealing with Arabs, who are proud people.

They see the world in terms of good and evil

This is probably the very reason why I think the neo-cons are doomed to failure. Because this very idea is what I call "arrogance". Maybe because this reminds me of the speeches held by the colonial powers at the beginning of Africa's colonization. Maybe because this reminds me of the religious talks underlying the Spanish conquests in America.
To put it simply : the neo-cons want to impose their definition of "good" on the planet, and want to oust their definition of "evil". No matter how different these definitions are in the other parts of the planet.
The use of morals as a fundamental part of their ideology is not only extremely naive. It is also extremely bad for the American foreign policy to be enforced with minimal resistance. They seem to forget their "good" can be rejected by the people they intend to liberate as "decay", "imperialism" or something.
Their fundament is to ignore the other's perceptions, even though they can try to marginally take them into account in the end. Such a conduct of diplomacy can only lead to misunderstandings, cold relationship, or wars.

They are sceptical of multilateral institutions that limit American power and effectiveness

Except if they believe the US will afford to have a superior military than the cumulated rest of the world for long, such an idea is stupid. It takes much money to "manage a unipolar world", and the costs must be shared with other countries, so that the burden on the US economy isn't that great. Except if they have done a fantastic IR discovery, multipolar organizations are the way to go to have a reliable and stable world-police organization. Now, the UN does have to change. But rejecting it altogether in favor of ad-hoc alliances will only deprive the American taxpayer, and will reduce the American economic competitiveness. In real politics, it is simply unrealistic.

And he was on record as being critical of Israel and its settlement policies—anathema to the most pro-Israeli neo-cons[...]
Neo-cons are among Ariel Sharon's staunchest defenders

These people pretend to bring a solution to fundamentalist terrorism ? The settlement policy is an absolute aberration that brings nearly no gain to Israel except the flattering of hardcore Zionists' ego, they are lowly populated and could have very little political weight if they were listened only during elections.
Yet, this handful of people are one of the biggest hindrances to the peace process, and the continuous war between Israel and Palestine is the focusing point of the Muslim World's hatred towards the west, Israel and the US in particular.
I cannot understand, in any way, how the support of Israel's expansionsim is in any way "good", or is in any way "good for the interests of the US". This really looks like absurd, blind support for Israel as a friend State, NOT like something that has been thought upon. The reading of this made me wonder if the article's author is one who believes they are a jewish cabal. It sure gave some credibility to De Villepin's quote. Again


In short, from what I read in the article, Neo-cons are either bigots or naive people, whose only positive side is their support of nation-building. Not a very pleasant bunch, if you ask me. Surely not the kind of bunch that will save America from the end of its "hyperpower" status.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Besides, I think it is an extremely arrogant position to pretend the US has any legitimacy to reshape the world.

We didn't gain any legitimacy when we beat fascism off in WWII? We didn't gain any legitimacy when we beat communism off in the Cold War? Don't kid yourself; Islamism is as big a threat to Western liberal democracy as fascism and communism were. Why shouldn't the US use its power to stop yet another dangerous ideology? Is our use of power suddenly illegitimate because we aren't fighting an imminent threat to Europe this time around?

To put it simply : the neo-cons want to impose their definition of "good" on the planet, and want to oust their definition of "evil". No matter how different these definitions are in the other parts of the plan

Why is this a bad thing? The "good" that the neo-cons want to spread are the values of Western liberal democracies. Don't you believe that Western views on government, civil liberties and human rights are better than those held in other regions of the world? Aren't our views on woman's rights "right" and those held by the Arab world "wrong"? Europeans get so caught up in the pseudo-religious, American style terminology (good v. evil) of the neo-con's message that they never seem to realize that the neo-cons are fighting for the same values we all love and cherish. What's so wrong about wanting to spread Western liberal democratic values to the rest of the world?

Except if they have done a fantastic IR discovery, multipolar organizations are the way to go to have a reliable and stable world-police organization.

The article makes it clear that the neo-cons don't disapprove of all international organizations, only the ones they believe constrain American freedom of action while not providing enough benefit to the US to justify the constraint. NATO was an example of an international organization neo-cons support because they believe its benefits for the US outweigh its negatives.

I cannot understand, in any way, how the support of Israel's expansionsim is in any way "good", or is in any way "good for the interests of the US". This really looks like absurd, blind support for Israel as a friend State, NOT like something that has been thought upon.

You're right on this; supporting the settlements is not good for the interests of the US in any way. This is why I disagree with the neo-cons on this issue. If you view the ME conflict solely in terms of US interests, then the settlements have to go.

If you view it from an Israeli POV, however, things are more complicated. A hostile Palestinian state occupying the high ground in Judea and Samaria would greatly increase the security threat to a now dangerously narrow Israel. The Israelis would still have their nukes around, but no one wants to have to depend solely on nuclear deterrence. If you care about Israeli security, you wouldn't want to remove all the settlements before it was clear that the Palestinians really want to live in peace, as opposed to using the West Bank as a staging area to push the Jews into the sea.

So, the neo-cons do have a pro-Israeli bent, but the whole "Jewish cabal" line is totally false and de Villepin should be ashamed for saying such a thing. The neo-cons seemingly have little control over US policy towards Israel-Palestine, so any attempt to blame the neo-cons and American Jews for American policy is absurd.

In short, from what I read in the article, Neo-cons are either bigots or naive people

Not a very nuanced assessment.

Surely not the kind of bunch that will save America from the end of its "hyperpower" status.

The loss of America's "hyperpower" status is inevitable; the real question is about how we should shape the world while we have the opportunity. Should we try to spread our values around the world? Or should we just sit back and relax, wallowing in the spoils of our position while doing nothing to help others in the world?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Originally posted by Spiffor
Besides, I think it is an extremely arrogant position to pretend the US has any legitimacy to reshape the world.

We didn't gain any legitimacy when we beat fascism off in WWII? We didn't gain any legitimacy when we beat communism off in the Cold War? Don't kid yourself; Islamism is as big a threat to Western liberal democracy as fascism and communism were. Why shouldn't the US use its power to stop yet another dangerous ideology? Is our use of power suddenly illegitimate because we aren't fighting an imminent threat to Europe this time around?

My point wasn't much about legitimacy, it was rather about reshaping the world according to American values. All former occurences of a powerful country trying to reshape the world according to its views has miserably failed : colonization, post-WW1 ME partition, post-WW1 Austria-Hungary partition, North-South Korea partition, etc etc.
The belief that a reshaping action coming from outside the reshaped area might work is completely wrong IMHO. The initiative must come from within. Yet, if there are strong democratic demands in Arabic countries, i'd be delighted to see the US, or any other powerful country/organization helping them.

To put it simply : the neo-cons want to impose their definition of "good" on the planet, and want to oust their definition of "evil". No matter how different these definitions are in the other parts of the plan

Why is this a bad thing? The "good" that the neo-cons want to spread are the values of Western liberal democracies. Don't you believe that Western views on government, civil liberties and human rights are better than those held in other regions of the world? Aren't our views on woman's rights "right" and those held by the Arab world "wrong"? Europeans get so caught up in the pseudo-religious, American style terminology (good v. evil) of the neo-con's message that they never seem to realize that the neo-cons are fighting for the same values we all love and cherish. What's so wrong about wanting to spread Western liberal democratic values to the rest of the world?

As long as the other people aren't ready to accept them, I think it is arrogant as well as unrealistic to believe these values will spread without resistance. Iran is a good example for it : the Shah modernised and americanized the society very quickly. Who overrode him ? A democratic opposition ? The commies ? Nope, the very people that were shocked by this sudden cultural change and that wanted to go backwards.
I think Muslim people will soon come to understand their treatment of women cannot continue. In Tunisia and Morocco, for example, most urban women aren't bound to virginity before marriage. Such a move can come from within. Such a move can only work if it comes from within.

Except if they have done a fantastic IR discovery, multipolar organizations are the way to go to have a reliable and stable world-police organization.

The article makes it clear that the neo-cons don't disapprove of all international organizations, only the ones they believe constrain American freedom of action while not providing enough benefit to the US to justify the constraint. NATO was an example of an international organization neo-cons support because they believe its benefits for the US outweigh its negatives.

NATO doesn't have Russia, China, India, Japan, and other power players around, whether financial or military. All these countries have an interest in world stability too, so it would be economically unsound to count on separate alliances or agreements.
However, these separate alliances are "good" for the US, because they're absolute boss in each of these, rather than having to make some concessions in a true multilateral frame such as the UN. The fanatical refusal to give up any sovereignity (face it, local alliances don't put any weight on US' decision ability) is bad for the US economy because it raises costs.

If you view it from an Israeli POV, however, things are more complicated. A hostile Palestinian state occupying the high ground in Judea and Samaria would greatly increase the security threat to a now dangerously narrow Israel. The Israelis would still have their nukes around, but no one wants to have to depend solely on nuclear deterrence. If you care about Israeli security, you wouldn't want to remove all the settlements before it was clear that the Palestinians really want to live in peace, as opposed to using the West Bank as a staging area to push the Jews into the sea.

The settlements are one of the most important reasons why the Palestinians hate the Israelis nowadays. These people have their army destroy Palestinian's houses, so that they move in, and take as much water as they want, slash the territory so that moving Palestinians have to go through Isreali military checkpoints all the time, give the overall impression of being invading soldiers. The very exstence of settlements is the permanent insult thrown at the Pals. Settlements aren't the only reason of why the Pals hate the Israelis, but they are a very important one. IMHO, their existence cannot bring any good to Israel's safety. And the peace process cannot have hopes of succeeding with them around.

So, the neo-cons do have a pro-Israeli bent, but the whole "Jewish cabal" line is totally false and de Villepin should be ashamed for saying such a thing. The neo-cons seemingly have little control over US policy towards Israel-Palestine, so any attempt to blame the neo-cons and American Jews for American policy is absurd.

Agreed. I hate all things "Jewish cabal". However, the sheer support from neo-cons to Sharon is very disturbing. It cannot help their cause here, that's for sure.

In short, from what I read in the article, Neo-cons are either bigots or naive people

Not a very nuanced assessment.

Yep But I think it's right. Whenever you fundamentally think in terms of "good" and "evil" without thinking of the others' definitions of it, you are a bigot in my book.
To me, the absolute anti-bigot is Bush Sr. when he says "somebody's terrorist is somebody else's freedom fighter". Such an attempt to actually listen to the other people can help making a foreign policy successful.

Surely not the kind of bunch that will save America from the end of its "hyperpower" status.

The loss of America's "hyperpower" status is inevitable; the real question is about how we should shape the world while we have the opportunity. Should we try to spread our values around the world? Or should we just sit back and relax, wallowing in the spoils of our position while doing nothing to help others in the world?

The answer : help those that ask for help, and help those whose aims are similar to your values. The Arabic world and Africa, the two upcoming challenges for the remaining time of America's hyperpower, are utter messes and should be dealt with extreme caution while "reshaping" them. Go there with your cowboy-missionary boots, and you'll manage to even worsen the mess we Europeans created there a century ago.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's too late to reply to all that. Maybe I'll find time tomorrow.

Good night.

[Spiffor]

g'night. I'll go to bed too.

[Sandman]

The article serves as an apologetic whitewash.

They think America should be willing to use military power to defeat the forces of chaos.

Oh please. This is the real world, not Middle Earth.

Neo-cons are also energetic in style, preferring moral clarity to diplomatic finesse, and confrontation to the pursuit of incremental advantage.

In other words, warmongers.

The neo-cons have waited more than ten years to reform Iraq. They will not lose interest in it, as happened in Afghanistan. But they could be distracted by, say, a crisis in North Korea or on the Indian subcontinent. They could be defeated in Congress over the cost of their plans, especially if the economy falters. Or fault lines could re-emerge with mainstream conservatives over how long to keep troops abroad, with the mainstream, backed by the cautious realists in the armed forces, demanding that troops return home as soon as possible.

What we have here is pre-prepared excuses for letting Iraq wither on the vine. "We wanted to rebuild Iraq, honest, but the North Koreans were getting uppity."

European and other governments could add their weight to these countervailing trends if they chose. But, with the exception of Britain, they have not, preferring to demonise the neo-cons as a cabal. This is almost certainly a mistake. The neo- cons are not a marginal group. They are providing much of the intellectual framework for America's foreign policy. Barring a serious reversal abroad, that will continue—and demonising them will merely marginalise their critics.

"Join us or die"

Here's my alternative viewpoint:

* Terrorism is primarily a problem for the police.

* Terrorism cannot be defeated, merely controlled.

* International institutions such as the UN are the best way of controlling terrorism.

* Terrorists have a set of aims and objectives which must be understood. They are not necessarily trying to destroy freedom or civilization.

* Chemical and biological weapons are not weapons of mass destruction.

* Military adventurism is likely to trigger more terrorism.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why is this a bad thing? The "good" that the neo-cons want to spread are the values of Western liberal democracies. Don't you believe that Western views on government, civil liberties and human rights are better than those held in other regions of the world? Aren't our views on woman's rights "right" and those held by the Arab world "wrong"? Europeans get so caught up in the pseudo-religious, American style terminology (good v. evil) of the neo-con's message that they never seem to realize that the neo-cons are fighting for the same values we all love and cherish. What's so wrong about wanting to spread Western liberal democratic values to the rest of the world?

I'm sorry but inflicting your view on another person or society through military action or other methods is always wrong. As spiffor said a society must want the change or you will just create resentment in the society you are seeking to change. As the famous quotation goes

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Islamism is as big a threat to Western liberal democracy as fascism and communism were.

I'm not entirely sure how Islamism is a threat to society. Radical factions may and can be a threat but mainstream Islamism? I think not.

[Ned]

Spiffor, you raise many good points. I think the neo-con policy can be summarized by the simple observation that the neo-cons want values to be part of our foreign policy. A traditional foreign policy sees all states as equally valid. A neo-con foreign policy sees non democratic regimes as illegitimate. The neo-con foreign policy seeks to make the world more democratic through active diplomacy, "directed" use of foreign aid and loans, and the use of the military in extreme circumstances.

IMF loans have long been linked to economic reforms. Overall, this approach seems to be working.

In the future, the neo cons want to extend this principle to foreign aid. They want our foreign aid to be linked to reforms of the structural problems that create the need for foreign aid in the first place. I have heard, for instance, the observation that no-strings-attached foreign aid to corrupt dictatorships simply allows them to spend more on weapons, and to cover for disasterous losses in corrupt and inefficient state-owned industries. Food aid allows governments to continue to create shortages by regulating food prices to a level below subsistance levels of farmers.

But your example of Iran does illustrate a central problem. If the "people" want to live in theocracy and not in a democracy, there is little we can actually do to change things. Leaving Iran alone has caused a groundswell of pro-democracy feelings in Iran that may be enough to spontaneously overthrown Iran's theocracy.

[Spiffor]

Ned :

If neo-conservatism is what you say, it is a legitimate IR doctrine then, close to the idea I have of Carter's doctrine. To me, it is perfectly legitimate that a country is less toerant (or maybe not tolerant at all) towards countries whose values are completely opposed. The US stance towards Iran seems legit to me, while France's stance towards African dictatorships is disgraceful.

However, I think there is a nuance between Carter's and Wolfowitz's doctrines : A "moralistic" diplomacy would simply deal differently with dictatorships and socialist countries (both opposed to American values), and will avoid helping them, while neo-conservatism seems to be extremely militant about overthrowing these regimes through force, or through high non-military pressure.
This militantism, and this willingness to spread the values even if they are not acknowledged in the targeted areas, is my main beef. By far.

[GePap]

The same neo-cons that want to liberate Iraq have no problems dealing with Central Asiasn dictatorships and includng them in the 'coolition" against Iraq. That by itself shows the extent of the "moralism" that drives these individuals.

Why is this a bad thing? The "good" that the neo-cons want to spread are the values of Western liberal democracies. Don't you believe that Western views on government, civil liberties and human rights are better than those held in other regions of the world? Aren't our views on woman's rights "right" and those held by the Arab world "wrong"? Europeans get so caught up in the pseudo-religious, American style terminology (good v. evil) of the neo-con's message that they never seem to realize that the neo-cons are fighting for the same values we all love and cherish. What's so wrong about wanting to spread Western liberal democratic values to the rest of the world?

That alsmost by definition, these types of systems only work if PEOPLE CHOSE THEM THEMSELVES. People mst be given a reason why to become democracies, and one that goes further than "see, we can kick your ass, immitate us or we will kick it again! That seems to be the basic message form Neo-cons: become like America so that America will be nice to you. Sorry, but such a message is bound to fail utterly. There was a nice article in yesterdays NYT magazine by Neill Fergusson (a supporter of the war) about why "American Imperialism" is likely to fail: Americans aren't interested in the world: how knowlegable about the places we are trying to gerrymander are we? European administrators would spend decades learning the lay of the land: we think 2 years is quite enough, as long as we don;t actualy fraternize with the people there.

Islamism is as big a threat to Western liberal democracy as fascism and communism were.

Battles against ideas are not won on the battlefield alone. you need to show how your ideas are better. During this war, massive portest sprung up against it in Egypt and the Egyptian ogvernment cracked them down mercilessly. The Us did not say a word. What sort of idea about the Us is a student beaten by police in a state which recieves vast sums of money from the Us supposed to think about us when we talk about how we will bring freedom to Iraqis while at the time they try to express some sort of freedom of their own we say nothing about them or in support of them, cause what they are tyring to say is that we are wrong? I though freedom to portest was aright we want to foster...but only as long as those protests are for the US?

I don't think many people know much about neo-conservatism; this article opened my eyes to just how little I knew about the neo-conservative movement. The more I read about neo-conservative views, the more respect I seem to gain for them. They really do seem to incorporate some of the best aspects of both liberal and realist thought. I think I'm going to have to hit the library on this one; it's an interesting topic and certainly worthy of further investigation.

To me, they sybolize the comming together of the worst aspects of the 60;s movemnt with hard-core realists: Driven by ideology and yet slaves to a narrow view in which number of tanks somewho equals how many dmeocracies one can manufacture.

These individuals are not ideliasitc enough to instantly drop opur support for dictatorships aroudn the world and become a force for world-wide democracy willing to pay for that idea, nor are they realists enough to know that you can;t expect other states and other forces to sit idely by while we threaten them.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know why everyone thinks that the neo-cons see military power as the solution to every problem or as the primary means of spreading democracy. The article said that Iraq is supposed to be a one-shot deal and that democracy will be encouraged in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other places by different means. The view of the neo-cons as war-mongers is incorrect, yet many of you seem to be basing your arguments against neo-con policies on that mistaken perception. From what I've read, the neo-cons seem to understand that military force may sometimes be necessary to spread American values, but it is hardly their sole means of achieving their goals.

The neo-con foreign policy seeks to make the world more democratic through active diplomacy, "directed" use of foreign aid and loans, and the use of the military in extreme circumstances.

I think Ned hit the nail on the head with this.