posted
I didn't even realize I was one until I encountered the term and read up on it, a few years back. Then I found that, although I differed in background, I agreed with the neocon foreign relations policy.
Unfortunately, neoconservativism has produced a major disaster in the Iraq War. Many neocons seem content to bloviate about how they're still right, but I'm willing to lay the philosophy aside.
The catch is, I can't figure out what exactly is wrong with it, other than that it didn't work this time. The results are sufficiently bad that I don't think the problem is purely a local-conditions thing limited to Iraq. Anyone who can help me find the weak spot so I can properly adjust my political philosophy will be given a substantial reward in kudos from me.
Basic principles of neoconservativism as I understand it:
1) Democracy and liberty are universally desirable (people may differ on priorities and degrees, but no one truly wants to be oppressed).
2) Foreign intervention is sometimes required to help other countries reach the above goals.
3) That intervention must sometimes take military form (for instance, when dealing with intractable dictators who have modern weapons).
4) Cooperation with other nations, while useful, cannot be counted on; a nation must be prepared to act on its own if others will not help.
Am I missing any hidden assumptions? Is one of those I have listed wrong, or erroneously attributed on my part? How do I get out of my personal quagmire?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By truly understanding our motives. Is this in their best interests or just in ours or both?
By recognizing that we don't get to make decisions for other countries, even if it is in our best interests and even if we think it would be better for them.
By realizing that the struggle for liberty must come from the inside if those "liberated" are going to know what to do with freedom once they have it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think they do. Are you suggesting that, because the current administration are not "real neocons", that I can avoid ideological crisis while remaining a neocon? Or are you saying that all neocons who actually have power are lying about this one?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, more the former than the latter, I suppose, but really I was just starting to think about your question, and poking around at it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: By recognizing that we don't get to make decisions for other countries, even if it is in our best interests and even if we think it would be better for them.
Kosovo? World War I? World War II? How about Iran and Nukes? North Korea and Nukes?
quote: By realizing that the struggle for liberty must come from the inside if those "liberated" are going to know what to do with freedom once they have it.
Which is easy to say unless you live in a country like Rwanda. I guess they should have just risen up and stopped the genocide all by themselves?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One big question, as I see it, is whether it's possible to successfully impose liberty on someone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that obviously would be self-contradictory, Tom. Is it my first premise that is wrong, then? I have to confess I tend to find that idea--that some people really prefer being enslaved--outrageous, in the literal sense. I spent a good deal of time fulminating to myself about it at work last night. I'm not sure why that would be the case, except that the only motivation I can understand for it is laziness. "Please make all the important decisions for me so that I can concentrate on..." (And there I break down--I can't think of anything one would focus on in a dictatorial state other than keeping one's head down .) Or perhaps I suspect that the claim is being used to justify inaction on the part of potential liberators.
It seems to me that if premise 1 is true, one never really has to "impose" liberty--one only needs to remove impediments to it. While ideally, people need to work toward their own freedom, this is not 1775. It's gotten a lot harder to successfully rebel against someone determined to keep you under his thumb.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current administration has failed even the neocons, and the top neoconservative theorists, like you, are beginning to recognize it.
Recently, Francis Fukuyama, the author of the book The End Of History and the founder of neoconservatism said that Neoconservatism is dead, the doctrine "in shambles."
quote:Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly".
Neoconservatism was hijacked by the Bush gang. This war was not even started on the principles of Neoconservatism, although it was supported by their authors (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.). This war, while disastrous for America and Neoconservatism, has been pretty good to Bush. For example, here's yet another story where Bush family rakes in the millions directly from this war:
quote:From the Los Angeles Times: Bush's Uncle Earned Millions in War Firm Sale As President Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, an uncle of the commander in chief is collecting $2.7 million in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.
A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shows that William H.T. Bush collected just under $1.9 million in cash plus stock valued at more than $800,000 from the sale of Engineered Support Systems Inc. to DRS Technologies of New Jersey.
The $1.7-billion deal closed Jan. 31. Both firms have extensive military contracts.
William Bush was a director of Engineered Support Systems. Recent SEC filings show he was paid cash and DRS stock in exchange for shares and options he obtained as a director.
Before DRS purchased it, Missouri-based ESSI experienced record growth as a result of expanded U.S. military contracts — many to supply U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The contracts, some awarded on a no-bid basis, include a $77-million deal to refit military vehicles with armor for use in Iraq.
Of course, there's also evidence of other crimes:
quote:SEC filings show that two federal investigations of ESSI are underway. One inquiry involves a stop order from the government on the field generators. The order was issued because the units didn't operate properly.
The generator contract was a major source of revenue. SEC files show that ESSI did not tell stockholders about the stop order until last June, about seven months after it was issued.
During the interim, several ESSI executives, including Bush's uncle, cashed in stock and stock options worth millions of dollars, the filings show.
According to one recent filing, the SEC and the U.S. attorney in St. Louis are investigating the delayed disclosure and other matters.
Unnamed members of the ESSI board and corporate officers have been subpoenaed in the inquiry, according to documents.
SEC filings show that William Bush, 67, exercised options on 8,348 shares of ESSI stock on Jan. 18, 2005, about two months after the stop order was issued and six months before it was disclosed. He collected about $450,000 in cash.
Also, did you know that Bush's family made millions through the Dubai port deal, even though it didn't go through? I don't really have the time to dig up much on it it right now, but this site does a pretty good job summarizing some of it. For those too busy to read even that, basically it says that the Carlyle Group, the investment firm tied to George HW Bush, made 800 Million in straight profit by buying a rail shipping company called CSX (upon which the current Shrub nominated its CEO John Snow to be Treasury Secretary) and turning around to sell it without any improvements to Dubai Ports World before that company put in its bid to buy P&O and thus the ports.
I'm glad that some neocons are beginning to recognize that even they were fooled. It's the first step toward the proper level of outrage at this sort of behavior.
quote:It seems to me that if premise 1 is true, one never really has to "impose" liberty--one only needs to remove impediments to it.
How do you differentiate between an exercise of liberty and the creation of an impediment to liberty?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to confess I tend to find that idea--that some people really prefer being enslaved--outrageous, in the literal sense.
This is one of the false assumptions the neocons make. The truth is that not only can people prefer being "enslaved", but that almost everybody does. They just don't call it slavery. Why do you pay your taxes, follow the law, and obey police officers? You actually prefer having this restriction on your liberty (whether you call it slavery or not) because the same restriction is also applied to everyone else, and you'd rather give up your right to do it in order to ensure nobody else will.
Neocons claim they are promoting freedom, but in reality they are merely promoting changing which things are allowed and which are not. (For instance, they might want to allow Christianity and freedom of the press, but still not allow murder or stealing.) What they need to realize is that other people might disagree on what people should be free to do and what they should not be free to do.
Consider what would happen if Iran was the most powerful nation in the world. Consider what would happen if they believed in the same four assumptions you listed. They might feel the need to impose freedom on us - only their freedom probably doesn't look like what our freedom looks like. But when you say any country can unilaterally attack any other country in order to bring whatever they consider freedom to that other country, you necessarily imply that all weaker nations are subject to the will of the most powerful nation, and thus not really that free at all.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is an issue of respect. The above assumptions assume that we know better than another country. It states that we can do whatever we like so as long as it's for their own good. This argument is flawed. Countries, even third world countries, are not children. And we are most certainly not their parents. These countries are filled with adults who deserve the respect that we give to all adults, namely the ability to make their own choices. This is true even if we do not like the choices that they make.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mabus: I have to confess I tend to find that idea--that some people really prefer being enslaved--outrageous, in the literal sense. I spent a good deal of time fulminating to myself about it at work last night. I'm not sure why that would be the case, except that the only motivation I can understand for it is laziness.
People also define terms and context differently. Someone might respond, "Ah, you may think that is what 'freedom' is, but real freedom is like this: <insert something antithecal to what you construe freedom as meaning>." Or someone might say, "Yes, that sounds good in theory, but that is not the way the world 'really works.' With your type of freedom, <insert some condemnation of US morals, values, society, or really, anything bad> will result. That isn't real freedom."
That doesn't mean I myself don't believe democratic freedom is a good thing. (Ha! Try to parse that. ) It's just that I don't think it is simple or straightforward enough an argument -- especially when we are discussing hidden assumptions, the very setting up of one's worldview -- to get through by military means.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the biggest dangers I see is that the ends seem to justify the means. Even assuming that the purpose of the Iraqi war was to remove Saddam from power, we started a freaking war just to do it. I'm no pacifist, but starting a war like that just sort of rubs me the wrong way.
Perhaps the scariest thing for a neocon is finding yourself in the position you are: feeling betrayed by people who, working within the system and identified as neocons, were able to do something that you now consider a disaster.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mabus: Basic principles of neoconservativism as I understand it:
1) Democracy and liberty are universally desirable (people may differ on priorities and degrees, but no one truly wants to be oppressed).
2) Foreign intervention is sometimes required to help other countries reach the above goals.
3) That intervention must sometimes take military form (for instance, when dealing with intractable dictators who have modern weapons).
4) Cooperation with other nations, while useful, cannot be counted on; a nation must be prepared to act on its own if others will not help.
Am I missing any hidden assumptions? Is one of those I have listed wrong, or erroneously attributed on my part? How do I get out of my personal quagmire?
I think there is some ground not covered by this list of assumptions, that may point to another assumption that you have not listed. Specifically, I would ask "Why Iraq?" There are other dictatorships. Some that are more repressive. Some that have been around longer. The fact that we have not gone into these other countries, but we did go into Iraq suggests that there is at least another factor at work here. I think if you explore the issue of when you decide to invade a country to free its people, then you may find what went wrong--a principle violated--or you may clarify your own belief on the issue, possibly still considering yourself a neocon and possibly not.
I personally do not believe that our motives were to free the Iraqi people, nor do I think we invaded to protect ourselves. I also do not believe we invaded in order to make a profit or to gain control of an oil source. I do think our motives were rather muddled. (What makes me sad is that I do think our nation was plunged into war over what amounts to personal pique.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an article in Newsweek recently noted, democratic process is not necessarily synonymous with creation of liberty. U.S. history ought to remind us as much.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Mabus...I feel your pain. I think that what the Iraq war shows us (and to an even greater extent, Afghanistan) is the following:
1) People have to be ready for a revolution before leading one makes sense. Revolutions are not just a lot of upheaval, followed by a new social order -- a lament that many neocons (and oldcons) have been preaching for a long time. No...the revolutions come about because sufficient numbers of people are disgusted with the way things are, and want a more or less specific change. They become convinced FIRST...then there's the revolution.
2) Revolutionary LEADERS are riding a tiger. For every one of them that remains in power after the fighting, there are hundreds who don't survive their own movement. Assuming you get it started successfully, you can't steer it...much.
3) The ones who do make it throught THAT grinder are almost always brutal dictators when they come out the other side -- believing all the while that their cruelty is necessary, and temporary. Just until everyone gets a taste of the new perfection...
4) HUMANS are involved. Neocons, in particular, seem to believe more strongly than most in an ordered, logical world. If they can't find it, they create it in their own mind. They think things like passing laws will change people's minds. That if everyone did what was truly in their own best interest, the world would be a great place. That everyone cares about the same things, when you get right down to it.
And this is the real take home message on why this stuff NEVER works, and never will work...it is all based on the underlying assumption that logical thought will win out in the short term. That people will not let emotion get in the way of a better day for themselves and their children. That a few short years of being told what to do from a committee of their "betters" are going to pass and the world will be wonderful on the other side.
If more political theorists would become well versed in mob psychology, maybe we'd have fewer political theorists. At the very least, we might end up with fewer ideologues. Or at least less certainty from them when they do speak out.
I will quote Terry Pratchett:
"Their mistake was in treating people like things."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) It's just that I don't think it is simple or straightforward enough an argument -- especially when we are discussing hidden assumptions, the very setting up of one's worldview -- to get through by military means.
