27-04-2003 05:01									#1
	The Shadow Men Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

From the print edition of the Economist
Also available on the net at www.economist.com with subscription

quote: Printable page E-mail this Foreign policy The shadow men Apr 24th 2003 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition War in Iraq has helped to create a new American foreign-policy establishment. Neo-conservatives are only part of it IN 2000, a close-knit group of about 20 people took their places in the Bush administration, hoping to overthrow Saddam Hussein and spread American ideas of democracy throughout the Middle East. They called themselves “neo-conservatives” and, for two years, no one paid them much notice. Now the tyrant has gone, and governments around the world are nervously wondering what this much suspected group of men mean to do next. With Baghdad still burning, the neo-cons' most senior official, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, popped up to say that “there has got to be change in Syria”. That comment ushered in two weeks of harsh diplomatic pressure from the Bush administration about the other Baath regime, though Mr Wolfowitz quickly added that “change” did not, in this case, mean regime change. Such talk rattles chancelleries round the world. Those in power try to be diplomatic about their concerns. But Lord Jopling, a former British cabinet minister, spoke for many when he told the House of Lords on March 18th that “neo-conservatives...now have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the president himself.” Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative writer living in Brussels, says “One finds Britain's finest minds propounding...conspiracy theories concerning the ‘neo-conservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. In Paris, all the talk is of oil and ‘imperialism’—and Jews.” A member of the French parliament quoted his country's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, saying “the hawks in the US administration [are] in the hands of [Ariel] Sharon”—a comment seen in some circles as a coded message about undue pro-Israeli influence exercised by neo-cons, most of whom are Jewish, at the heart of the administration. So has a cabal taken over the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world? Is a tiny group of ideologues using undue power to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, create an empire, trash international law—and damn the consequences? Not really. To argue that an intellectual clique has usurped American foreign policy is to give them both too much credit, and too little. American foreign policy has not been captured by a tiny, ideological clique that has imposed its narrow views on others. Rather, the neo-cons are part of a broader movement endorsed by the president, and espoused, to different degrees, by almost all the principals involved, from Vice-President **** Cheney down (Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is a notable exception). Strands of neo-conservatism can even be found among some Democrats, which is why it makes sense to think that a new foreign-policy establishment may be emerging. For the same reason, the criticism neglects the role of others. Near-consensus is found around the notion that America should use its power vigorously to reshape the world. Yet because parts of the neo-con agenda have been adopted by a president who is a mostly pragmatic decision-maker, and because the neo-cons themselves are politically astute, the neo-cons do not have things all their own way. They are powerful in so far as the president listens to them, rather than in their own right. The result is that American foreign policy is becoming a mixture of neo-conservative ideas, the president's instincts—and the realities of power. How they grew To see how this came about, start with who the neo-cons are. It is understandable that they are seen as a clique, because, to begin with, they were. The group started in the 1960s as a breakaway faction from the Democratic Party. This first generation emerged as critics of the liberal establishment of their day; paradoxically, considering their reputation as ideologues, their main complaint was that Democrats had lost touch with the practical results of their policies. The term “neo” (new) was an insult thrown at them by the left, but it distinguished them from “real” conservatives; one of their founders, Irving Kristol, joked that a neo-conservative was a liberal “mugged by reality”. Foreign policy was only part of the original neo-con agenda: social policy was at least as important. The second generation of neo-cons is different. Few are Democrats or former Democrats. They are unapologetic Republicans. And while they retain distinctive views on domestic matters (for example, neo-cons were among the fiercest critics of the former Republican Senate leader Trent Lott, who was obliged to step down for making racist remarks), foreign policy is their focus—partly because their main social-policy proposals, such as welfare reform and the dismantling of affirmative action, have become mainstream. The second generation forms a clique intellectually and socially, but not politically. Most come from similar backgrounds, whether professors (like Mr Wolfowitz and Steve Cambone, also at the Pentagon) or lawyers (like Doug Feith, the Pentagon's number three, Scooter Libby, Mr Cheney's chief of staff, and the State Department's John Bolton). They join the same think-tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where Richard Perle, perhaps their most flamboyant spokesman, is a fellow. They write for and read the same magazine, the Weekly Standard, edited by Bill Kristol, son of one of the neo-cons' founders. They co-author the same studies (five of the 27 authors of “Rebuilding America's Defences”, a highly influential report published in 2000, are in the administration). They are, in short, Washington talkers and intellectuals. In most other countries, where foreign policy is made by permanent bureaucracies, it would be unthinkable for a small group of professors and lawyers to take any sort of policymaking role, let alone a dominant one. In America, with its traditions of entrepreneurial policy advocacy and political appointees, it is not so odd. What is unusual is that the neo-cons are so different from the Texan business establishment gathered around George Bush. They also differ from the corporate chieftains the president hired for top jobs, such as Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (both former CEOs). Many neo-cons backed John McCain, Mr Bush's Republican rival, in the campaign; a few had even supported Al Gore. So it was hardly surprising that, at the start, neo-cons were merely one among several groups vying for foreign-policy influence—and without much success. On the campaign trail, Mr Bush talked about a “humble, but strong” policy and was critical of “nation-building”—very un-neo-con stances. The dominant foreign-policy voice in the president's early days was that of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. Ms Rice's main concern was to improve America's ties with other great powers—a policy that, while part of the neo-con agenda, was hardly uppermost in it. Even Mr Cheney, who was to become the neo-cons' most powerful backer, seemed to differ from them early on. As defence secretary under the first President Bush, he had supported the decision not to overthrow Saddam in 1991 (to Mr Wolfowitz's dismay). And he was on record as being critical of Israel and its settlement policies—anathema to the most pro-Israeli neo-cons. Even in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, when Mr Wolfowitz went to the president to argue his case that the terrorist attacks showed America needed urgently to address the threat of Saddam Hussein, he was fobbed off. Intellect v chaos So how did the neo-cons go from being one group among several to the positions of influence they now occupy? By articulating views that came to seem more important after September 11th 2001—but which many conservatives agreed with even before that. Neo-cons start with the notion that America faces the challenge of managing a “unipolar world” (a phrase coined by a neo-conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in 1991). They see the world in terms of good and evil. They think America should be willing to use military power to defeat the forces of chaos. Admittedly, they go on to advocate democratic transformation in the Middle East, a view that is not shared throughout the administration. (This is an extremely radical policy, so not only are neo-cons not ‘neo', they are not, in the normal sense of the term, conservative either.) But that apart, their views are not so different from others in the administration. Neo-cons are also energetic in style, preferring moral clarity to diplomatic finesse, and confrontation to the pursuit of incremental advantage. They are sceptical of multilateral institutions that limit American power and effectiveness; they prefer to focus on new threats and opportunities, rather than old alliances. Again, these views are not unique to neo-cons. The trends have been visible in American policy since the end of the cold war. Indeed, as Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, opinion in the Republican Party has been shifting for longer than that. The movement away from Euro-centric east-coasters towards Sunbelt conservatives more concerned about Asia, Latin America and the Middle East began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the 1970s. These common intellectual roots made it possible for neo-cons to maintain close ties with traditional conservative politicians such as Messrs Rumsfeld and Cheney. Though neither really counts as a neo-con, Mr Rumsfeld signed a letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging him to make removing Saddam Hussein and his regime “the aim of American foreign policy”, and the founding document of neo-con policy was the Defence Planning Guidance drafted for Mr Cheney in 1992 during his stint as defence secretary. Written by Mr Wolfowitz and Mr Libby, it raised the notion of pre-emptive attacks and called on America to increase military spending to the point where it could not be challenged. Ten years later, both ideas have been enshrined as official policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy. The event that turned general like-mindedness into specific influence was the terrorist assault of September 11th 2001. “Night fell on a different world,” Mr Bush said. Neo-cons had long been obsessed with the Middle East and with “undeterrable” threats, such as nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Traditional Republican internationalists, who had less to say on either count, offered little intellectual alternative. As the old rule of politics says, “You can't fight something with nothing.” Mr Bush therefore embraced large parts of the neo-con agenda. But not immediately. The decision to take on Saddam by force seems to have been made sometime between September 2001 and March 2002. In January 2002, in his state-of-the-union address, Mr Bush invoked the infamous “axis of evil”—which could have been lifted from a neo-con handbook. This February, he gave a speech to the AEI about building democracy in Iraq and encouraging political reform in the Middle East. How much to blame? Some Europeans seem to think the neo-cons' influence is a direct result of Mr Bush's inability to grasp basic foreign-policy ideas. The recent evolution of American policy does not bear out this patronising view. The new policy was adopted in response to a cataclysmic event. It enjoys support at almost every level of government, including Congress (the main exceptions are the State Department and serving officers in the armed forces). Above all, the new policy is defined by the president himself. The neo-con clique depends on Mr Bush, not the other way around. Fine, you might argue, but this just shifts the focus of concern from the cabal to the consensus. Whoever formulates policy, it is still, say critics, inimical to the interests of (some) Europeans, international law, multilateral institutions and traditional alliances. Moreover, if policy is run by a coalition of people, of whom neo-cons are just the first among equals, then that raises questions about the stability of the coalition, and whether there are internal tensions waiting to erupt between neo-cons and others. The worries about America's foreign policy are mostly about means and costs, not ends. Neo-cons want to liberate Iraq, spread democracy through the Middle East and improve counter-proliferation measures. Critics can hardly object to any of these, even if they do not care to focus on the aims as relentlessly as neo-cons do. Europeans often attribute everything they dislike in American policy to the influence of this cabal. Yet to do so is obviously wrong: the administration's—indeed, America's—disengagement from certain international treaties long predated the neo-cons' ascendancy. It is true that neo-cons are more unsparing than most in their disdain for multilateral bodies that they think act against American interests. But their attitude to “entangling alliances” is pragmatic, rather than hostile across the board. Many, though not all, like NATO because of its role in uniting eastern and western Europe after the collapse of communism. When France and Germany held up a Turkish request to NATO for supplies of defensive equipment before the Iraq war, the administration found a way round the obstacle within the organisation, rather than acting outside it. The neo-cons' main ire is reserved for the United Nations and, sometimes, the European Union (see article) . Clearly there have been big diplomatic ructions in the past year, notably in the Security Council over the second Iraq resolution. But it is hard to blame the neo-cons entirely, or even at all. The French and Russians were responsible for much of the bad blood, while the department largely responsible for American diplomacy in that unhappy hour was the very un-neo-con State. The one area where neo-conservative influence may really prove inimical to the interests of others is Israel. Neo-cons are among Ariel Sharon's staunchest defenders. Most fear the “road map” will endanger Israel's security, and will do everything they can to stop it. On the other hand, the map is itself an indication of the limits of their influence. If neo-cons really ran the show, as they are said to, there would almost certainly be no such map. That there is testifies to the other forces acting on Mr Bush: the State Department, the National Security Council, even Tony Blair. These forces will continue to influence the president and moderate the neo-cons' power. This could be good or bad. Good in that the wildest flights of neo-con fancy will be grounded; bad if the result is policy incoherence. At the moment, the good outcome seems the more likely. The limits of influence Iraq is the neo-cons' test case. Military victory has increased the group's influence hugely; a serious reversal could undo it. But successful post-war reconstruction would embolden them to press the president to adopt other bits of their agenda. This does not mean sending troops to Damascus (the neo-cons write what they mean: they have always singled out Iraq, and no other country, for military action). Rather, it means putting pressure on Syria to stop supporting Hizbullah and on the Saudis to stop exporting Wahhabi extremism; and it means backing the internal opposition in Iran to the clerical regime. But there will be constraints on getting this wish-list through. 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. Lastly, there is Mr Bush himself. His main concern is re-election, and he has already started to switch his attention back to the economy to avoid his father's fate. That may do more than anything to temper the neo-cons' influence. 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.

To summarize for those lazy ones: The article talks about how the Neo conservatives (neo cons) were formed, how they gained power in the Bush administration, how their policies have been enacted , the limits of their influence, and their possible futures in American foreign policy.

	27-04-2003 05:55									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Great article. It really makes you wonder how the neo-cons became the demons in the left's most absurd fantasies. The majority of their policy goals are intelligent and ultimately good for the world.

quote: The worries about America's foreign policy are mostly about means and costs, not ends. Neo-cons want to liberate Iraq, spread democracy through the Middle East and improve counter-proliferation measures. Critics can hardly object to any of these, even if they do not care to focus on the aims as relentlessly as neo-cons do.

Who can be opposed to that?

	27-04-2003 06:54									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

Their means and their basic assumptions about how they will get there are, in my view, basically flawed. Thus, when they act, the possibilities that unintended consequences will get out of hand are too great to ignore.

It is that simple. Agreeing on goals is much simpler than means. Everyone can agree they would like to see and end to world Hunger and AIDS...now, how do we do it? Certainly everyone will NOT agree there.

	27-04-2003 06:58									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The point the article makes is that the neo-cons gained favor with Bush primarily because they were the only group that had proposed "means" of combating the threat posed by rogue nations collaborating with terrorist organizations. It's really easy to criticize the means the neo-cons choose to achieve their goals, but I hardly ever see the critics propose means of their own. If you can't provide a coherent alternative to the neo-cons, then you shouldn't ***** when their means are the ones that become policy.

	27-04-2003 07:02									#5
	Suffering from ads?

You miss one point: I think that the neo-cons are inherently wrong in their world-view. It doesn't matter to me that they were th only ones with a vision in the admin: their vision is wrong.

An argument can be wrong even if there is no alternative given. That seems a rather simple truth to me.

	27-04-2003 07:08									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I think that the neo-cons are inherently wrong in their world-view.

Interesting comment. In what way is their world-view wrong?

	27-04-2003 07:18									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If I can hazard a guess :

In the belief that the world will accept a US provided Democracy and a US provided geopolitical transformation without the creation of extreme resistance and grudge from the concerned populations.

	27-04-2003 07:20									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap You miss one point: I think that the neo-cons are inherently wrong in their world-view. It doesn't matter to me that they were th only ones with a vision in the admin: their vision is wrong. An argument can be wrong even if there is no alternative given. That seems a rather simple truth to me.

And I think your argument is wrong.

	27-04-2003 07:21									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

They believe the US's power is so great that they can ignore world institutions" they are correct that our military can defeat any other military one on one, but the fact is that even just Iraq strained our resources, given all the other commitments the Us has. They couldn't attack Syria or Iran or start a war in the Korean penninsula even if they wanted, because the US is powerful but not that powerful.

Here the Economist blames the Pentagon and others for the notion that we will pull out of Iraq quickly: i don;t buy it. you don;t see wolfowitz calling for us to stay there for years on end, nor do you see any other of the neo-cons making those claims either. You can;t change the world simply by invaisdng and then saying good-bye. These neo-cons seem to share the distaste for nation building that is what would make their program even slightly possible.

They think by shaking the world they will scare our eneimes away and empower similar thinkers world-wide: but there is no worse kiss of death today that ot be labelled the actor for another, foreign, state. There are other forces out there, waiting for the status quo to collapse, the very forces we say we are figthing. If all the Us plans to do is confront and attack, without building the foundations of anything, then we will fail.

These people see the current status quo as hurting the US: ludicrous, the uS is the biggest beneficiary of the status quo: why do you think we were attacked?The fact is that the US would get further in this porgram if we coopted international orgs to work with us, not by leaving them behind or trying to undermine them. The system of inernational alws favors the US.

These guiys say they want dmeocracy in the ME: what does that mean? If Islamist won elections, would they see that as a victory cause, hey, they had an election? And what will they do to insure that these dmeocracies don;t backslide, like we have seen other dmeocracies do? Under whats auspices could they do so?

These are just some porblems I see.

	27-04-2003 07:22									#10
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Fez And I think your argument is wrong.

And this add absolutely 0 to the discussion Fez. If you want to show a reformed you, either say somehting valuable, or say nothing at all.

	27-04-2003 07:37									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: They couldn't attack Syria or Iran or start a war in the Korean penninsula even if they wanted, because the US is powerful but not that powerful.

Didn't you read the article? There's no reason to think the neo-cons want to use military force anywhere other than in Iraq. Iraq is to be used as an example and a base from which democratic movements in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria can be supported. A ballsy plan, to be sure, but it's the only one I've seen that provides a game plan for beating political Islamism and its associated terrorist groups.

quote: you don;t see wolfowitz calling for us to stay there for years on end, nor do you see any other of the neo-cons making those claims either.

I'm prettry sure I've heard Wolfowitz trying to play down talk of a quick exit in Iraq.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nationworld-hed

quote: You can;t change the world simply by invaisdng and then saying good-bye. These neo-cons seem to share the distaste for nation building that is what would make their program even slightly possible.

The article mentioned that neo-conservatives support nation building. It was one of the things that set them apart from the views of Bush the candidate.

quote: These people see the current status quo as hurting the US: ludicrous, the uS is the biggest beneficiary of the status quo: why do you think we were attacked?

The current status quo is hurting the US. Terrorists are being bred in failed societies all over the Middle East. The only way to truly beat terrorism is to fix the failed systems in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and other states that are prime sources for terrorist recruits. This is the major foreign policy problem for the US in the decades to come and you can't solve it without some source of decisive action. Maintaining the status quo will just allow the situation to get progressively worse.

quote: These guiys say they want dmeocracy in the ME: what does that mean? If Islamist won elections, would they see that as a victory cause, hey, they had an election? And what will they do to insure that these dmeocracies don;t backslide, like we have seen other dmeocracies do? Under whats auspices could they do so?

These are very real concerns that I share, but they do nothing to discredit the world view of the neo-cons. Their plan is certainly audacious and has a high element of risk, but I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that the neo-cons aren't sincere about the noble goals that lie behind their plan.

edit: Added link

	27-04-2003 07:51									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Is Hillary Clinton a neo-con? Her speech on Iraq was terrific.

	27-04-2003 07:51									#13
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap And this add absolutely 0 to the discussion Fez. If you want to show a reformed you, either say somehting valuable, or say nothing at all.

Wow.. you just contradicted yourself.

You say that neo-conservatives have no basis.. but when I say you have no basis.. you say "you can't say that".

Contradiction.

	27-04-2003 07:56									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I just don't understand why liberals think the neo-cons are the epitome of evil. They're almost Wilsonian in their views, seeking to harness realist, power-based foreign policy strategies to serve the idealistic purpose of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. You might think that this is naive, but I don't see how you can think it is evil.

	27-04-2003 08:08									#15
	Support Apolyton

In my little imagery, the Neo-cons are about protecting USA's egoistical and short term interests no matter what, especially no matter how destructive for longer term interests of everyone, including the US. And still in my imagery, their talks about spreading freedom and democracy is a sham destined to the American public opinion so that the American voter buys it.

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

	27-04-2003 08:10									#16
	Support Apolyton

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

	27-04-2003 08:14									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 08:21									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 08:24									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	27-04-2003 09:08									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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 :

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 09:37									#21
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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?

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

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

Not a very nuanced assessment.

quote: 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?

	27-04-2003 10:13									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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.

quote: quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 10:17									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

Good night.

	27-04-2003 10:33									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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

	27-04-2003 11:38									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The article serves as an apologetic whitewash.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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."

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 14:28									#26
	Remove this text

quote: 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."

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 20:30									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	27-04-2003 20:45									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	27-04-2003 23:20									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

	27-04-2003 23:30									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

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.

quote: 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.