Neoconservatism dead, "new" realism?

[Arrian]

One has to question whether the US government - under any given administration - was capable of success in Iraq, given the parameters of the operation. I tend toward "no." That the Bushies ****ed it up (beyond all repair, it appears) is clear... what is unclear is whether another admin could have succeeded (as opposed to merely managing a lesser failure).

Obviously, the above assumes failure in the end, which is not a 100% given at this point. It doesn't look good, though. Maybe 90%...

-Arrian

[Thedrin]

If a better strategy was known - wouldn't they have implemented it?

They should have. It's near certain that they didn't (many retirees criticising the planning of the invasion).

I don't think that the neocon's goals could have been realised but I reckon they will point to a flawed execution as the reason for failure - that the plan for occupation was the reason Iraq failed and, as a result of that, their ideology could not have been tested.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Thedrin
The neoconservatives won't look at Iraq as an arguement against their political philosophy but I suspect they might want Rumsfeld's head on a platter.

Not just neocons.

[Cort Haus]

If the key principle of neo-conservativism is interventionism, rather than militarism, then the philosophy is very much alive.

The failure in Iraq is often seen as either a function of Bush's leadership, or an over-ambitious project, but less often is there a challenge to the basic premise that western-led coalitions & alliances can attack sovereign states at will.

The starting point should be 'First, do no harm', and this can extend to diplomatic and electoral interventions as well as military ones.

[GePap]

I certainly do think Iraq has undermined the neocon notion that US military power can be used in a transformative manner. What those thinkers failed to realize is that military force can destroy the status quo just fine, but by itself it can play only a secondary role in building something new.

This admin was both the only one that would act on neocon notions but probably the least capable of making anything out of the ideology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed, GePap... in, say, 2000 Presidential election terms, one may say that neoconservatives would have liked Bush for before and during the 'war' and Gore for afterwards. The question is whether both views can reside in the same President. A President willing to use aggression for democracy may not be the best one to change the hearts and minds of the country that is being invaded.

Who knows... the only thing that is clear is that Bush was not the right ambassador, post-war, for the neoconservative ideology.

[Arrian]

We shoulda turned the occupation/reconstruction planning over to the Brits. As it was, there doesn't appear to have been any such planning, which is criminal.

-Arrian

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Arrian
We shoulda turned the occupation/reconstruction planning over to the Brits.

They gassed the '20s jihad. Maybe you should try that?

[KrazyHorse]

Worked, dinnut?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Worked, dinnut?

Disinvent television, and it'd probably work again.

[Arrian]

The Brits appear to have learnt and adapted, and at least they *thought* about what to do once the war part was over.

I'm not saying it would've necessarily led to success. I'm just saying it likely would've been better.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Didn't the British contingent have easier turf to manage than their US counterparts, in terms of ethnic mix and scale?

Perhaps elements of the British operation were a bit less gung-ho than some of their US counterparts, and perhaps the experience of empires past came into play to help at the margins, but I doubt that anyone could really have succeeded in constraining the immense and wild forces that were unleashed by the 'regime change'.

[DanS]

I think neoconservatism is representative of a durable strain of thought within US foreign policy. I doubt Iraq will have much long-term impact on its adherents.

On the other hand, it's not surprising to me that a German publication would pronounce its death. There's a Wilsonian string of thoughts that lead to neoconservative conclusions. That string of thoughts has few analogs in Germany, or continental Europe generally.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Didn't the British contingent have easier turf to manage than their US counterparts, in terms of ethnic mix and scale?

Perhaps elements of the British operation were a bit less gung-ho than some of their US counterparts, and perhaps the experience of empires past came into play to help at the margins, but I doubt that anyone could really have succeeded in constraining the immense and wild forces that were unleashed by the 'regime change'.

Which is why I said I didn't think it would've meant success, just less painful failure. The key difference that I saw was that the Brits at least appeared to understand that once you knocked off Saddam you had to have a plan to rebuild.

It was a flippant comment anyway.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS
I think neoconservatism is representative of a durable strain of thought within US foreign policy. I doubt Iraq will have much long-term impact on its adherents.

On the other hand, it's not surprising to me that a German publication would pronounce its death. There's a Wilsonian string of thoughts that lead to neoconservative conclusions. That string of thoughts has few analogs in Germany, or continental Europe generally.

Germany has a long tradition of idealism, just take Kant et al. For example the league of nations, product of Wilson's work, was founded mainly on Kantian ideas.