Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Neoconservatism out of the closet | 79 comments (78 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (4.00 / 2)
I'm not sure what you think that piece proves. Sure, if you define the neocons as being part and parcel of the Israel Lobby, then the neocons are part and parcel of the Israel Lobby. Duh.

Your argument in the diary was that the neocon project was primarily about furthering Israel's Likud's interests. Your argument in this subthread was that the attack on Iraq was primarily about furthering Israel's Likud's interests.

Nobody doubts that the neocons are, at the moment, strong supporters of the Israeli far-right (whether the attack on Iraq furthered Israeli interests, or even Israeli far-right interests, is more debatable). What remains to be adequately argued is that this support is central to the neocon project. In other words, everybody agrees that there is wagging going on, but who's the tail and who's the dog?

One way to shed some light on the matter would be to go through some of the major flip-flops of American, neocon and/or Israeli foreign policy over the last couple of decades. Then one could investigate whether the three actors flipped at the same time, or one or two of them maintained an independent line.

If two actors did flip at the same time, one would have to check whether there were plausible reasons for their objective interests to change in concert. If there were no such commonality of interests, one could conclude that the actor that changed against its best interests was being influenced by the other actor. If there turned out to be a commonality of interests, one could still infer something about the relationship from the timing - the leading actor is more likely to be the originator of the change than the lagging actor.

For example, in the 1980's, back when quite a lot of the neocons were involved in the Raygun/Bush the Elder administration, Saddam Hussein and the neocons were best buddies. This changed around the early 1990's. There's a couple of plausible reasons for why the American and/or neocon stance on Iraq would change (the collapse of the Soviet Union reduced Iranian power, which in turn reduced the need for a countervailing influence; Iraq lost their war against Iran, reducing their value both as a client state and as a countervailing force; the US needed a third-world country to throw up against the wall to demonstrate that they were the only show in the post-Soviet town, and the air defences around Damaskus were too good).

Was Israel hostile to Iraq in the 1980's?

If so, that would be a strike against the argument put forth in your diary: When, in the 1980's, the neocons were given the choice between supporting their vision for the US and supporting Israeli policy, they chose the US.

If not, when did Israel change its stance vis-a-vis Iraq? If they did so before the neocons, and the neocons changed stance before the US, one might reasonably infer that the policy change was being promoted by Israel through the neocons. If, OTOH, the neocons became hostile to Iraq before the US and Israel became hostile to Iraq after the US did, it would indicate that the neocons influenced American policy, and Israel followed American policy. Finally, if the US turned against Iraq before both Israel and the neocons, it would indicate that both Israel and the neocons are in the tail, and some other faction or factions are in the dog.

That's an empirical question. I don't know enough to answer it right now, but it should be possible to answer.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 at 01:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Let me know when you get your answer. For the time being you might want to read and critique Walt, and the article his paragraphs are an introduction to concerning Turkey getting on Israel's shit list.

by shergald on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 at 03:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
You really don't get the whole "burden of proof" thing.

You're the one making an assertion that, on the face of it, appears to be highly improbable. You need to either provide compelling evidence or at the very least provide a reasonably detailed description of where it can be found. The American conventional wisdom isn't evidence - the American conventional wisdom used to be that they'd greet us with flowers and that housing prices can only go up...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 12:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
If you want to understand the IP conflict you will not be able to ignore American politics, and one way to get an appreciation is to read Mearshirmer and Walt's book, The Israel Lobby, where they present the details much more in depth than in their LRB article.

On the other hand, it my understand that this conflict has been debated here to death. How could that be the case without understand the ways in which Israel infouences the US Congress and White House. Best lobby in town, even better than the National Rifle Association.

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 07:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
I'm not ignoring American politics.

I'm arguing that the relationship is a little more complicated than "Israel is running American foreign policy through teh AIPAC."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 07:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
The Israel Lobby is a blanket term covering several Jewish organizations in the US, including AIPAC, all of which support a Likud policy platform. That would include Zionists of America, American Jewish Committee, and now the Anti-Defamation League, and many others.

I'm not certain what complications you might be referring to, apart from oil and the false notion that Israel provides a base of operations for Americab Middle East diplomacy, Israeli lobbyists have made certain that US politicians follow the Israeli line, whatever it may be. You need only appreciate the response in Congress to the Mavi Marmara incident, where even VP Biden repeated the usual hogwash, that "Israel has a right to defend itself."

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 10:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 1)
I'm not certain what complications you might be referring to,

Lessee...

  1. Israel is a huge customer for American-made war toys.

  2. Israel is located right next to the most valuable bit of real estate on the planet. And, unlike Egypt, Israel is completely dependent on the US, because Israel doesn't have a lot of other friends.

  3. Israel is a nice potential launch pad for air strikes into the surrounding territories and a secure base for naval operations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Even better, from Washington's perspective, Israel is willing to carry out those operations itself (and frequently pretends to be prepared to take unilateral action), which gives plausible deniability to Washington when people complain that one of their client states is bombing brown people.

  4. Israeli spies and hitmen, unlike the CIA et al, are actually reasonably competent. And there's one more layer of cut-outs between Mossad/Shin Beth and the White House, which is always a plus.

  5. A Palestinian victory over Israeli colonialism might set a precedent that would be irritating to the US, vis-a-vis the US' own colonial empire.

  6. Keeping the Near East divided helps prevent any sort of effective political organisation in the world's most valuable subcontinent.

  7. Backing Israel feeds the "Islam vs. The WestTM" narrative. And Muslims are just about the perfect enemy:

    • Unlike Russians, they are mostly brown, so they can be killed with a sort of impunity that Russians couldn't back in the good old days of the Cold War.

    • Unlike Mexicans, they are mostly in far-away countries, so they won't riot in American cities when they are mistreated.

    • And unlike Russians, they have no serious prospect of ever hitting back at the US in a way that does anything more substantial than provide a photo-op for some jingoist to proclaim renewed devotion to the wrr on trr.

    From the perspective of the armaments industry and the police state proponents, what's not to like?

And that's just the realpolitik. When you add the naked racism (Israelis are generally whiter than the surrounding people) and the fact that support for Palestine is a left-wing narrative, supporting Israel fits the neocon agenda like stupid fits a Creationist.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 11:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
By the numbers:

1.No disagreement.

2.Except Egypt, Jordan, Canada, Britain, and so on.

3.Except that since 1967, 1973, all they have attacked are civilian populations in Lebanon and Gaza, 2006, 2008, West Bank 2000.

      4. Mosaad competent? Take the last hit alone. We don't do assassinations. Intelligence, no argument after the Iraq war debacle.

5.Not at least since Obama, although AIPAC has had him running backtracking for a while.

6.Not since Obama. The Neocons have always been Israel centric as Walt argues.

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 02:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
  1. All American client states, whose support will vanish with the American support.

  2. Yes, and all Saakashvili has attacked is Ossetia. Doesn't mean having him around wasn't useful for the people who desire a continued belligerent encirclement of Russia.

  3. They don't have to be exceptionally competent to beat the CIA...

  4. Bah. If Obama is an anti-imperialist, I'm Mickey Mouse.

  5. If Obama is in favour of political unification of the Middle East, he has a funny way of showing it.

  6. If the neocons have always been Israel-centric, why were they best buddies with Saddam back in the 1980s?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 03:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
That was the period of the Iraq-Iran war, 1980-1988, Iran of course being a theocracy critical of Israel and the US satan. As such, perhaps on memory of things past, the US supported Saddam militarily in that war, which was fought to a stalemate.

Otherwise, you will have to provide references to this friendliness, and just what that meant. I think that it was in 1982, that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility in progress.

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 06:15:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Otherwise, you will have to provide references to this friendliness, and just what that meant.

In the '80s, the neocons were selling chemical weapons to Iraq. The same chemical weapons that were later used against Kurds and Shias, and, ironically, were dragged out as casus belli in 2003 (nevermind that such stuff has a shelf life...).

That friendly enough for you?

I think that it was in 1982, that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility in progress.

Well, that was sort of my point. Iraq was on Israel's shit list throughout, but it wasn't on the neocons' shit list until the balance of American geostrategic interests shifted against Iraq.

Which points to the conclusion that the neocons are primarily American nationalists, and that their support for Israel is a consequence of their broader ideology, rather than a driving force in it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 06:21:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Neocons selling Saddam chemical weapons? Who were these Neocons? Whatever Saddam was given by the US, its purpose was to help take down Iran.

I can only guess that the Neocons chose to support the lesser of two evils in this time period, but certainly Saddam had no use for Israel even then. But who cares. He was being used to attain American foreign policy goals, and the takedown of Iran was one, supported by Israel.

Still, I just don't believe that Walt's thesis can be so simply contradicted. It is almost impossible to name a prominent Neocon who is not a strong Israelophile and whose positions are not supportive of Israel in every way, or should I say, the right wing way. Neocons are Likudniks, pure and simple, from Perle on down, as evident in A Clean Break.

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 07:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
I can only guess that the Neocons chose to support the lesser of two evils in this time period,

Um, no. Empires don't do "lesser of two evils." They do "out son-of-a-bitch."

It is almost impossible to name a prominent Neocon who is not a strong Israelophile

What do you base that on? What they say for public consumption?

Neocons are Likudniks, pure and simple, from Perle on down, as evident in A Clean Break.

You keep referring to that paper, but I still don't think it says what you think it says. I've seen substantially the same sort of garbage pushed to Europeans (if you swap out Iraq and Jordan with Russia and Ukraine), and it's quite obvious that the neocons are not Europhiles.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 08:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Name a Neocon who is not a Israelophile of the Likud variety.

Again, just what Neocon(s) sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis in the 1980s?

by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 07:57:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet
Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.



By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 08:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
First of all the decision to assist Saddam against Uran obviously came from the White House, Reagan, and his secretaries of state, Alexander Haig and/or George Shultz. Caspar Weinberger was his Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld was a Defense Department operative, and that was all. Certainly in the Bush administration, it is safe to say that Rumsfeld as well as Cheney took on neuconservatism trappings, after 9/11 especially or specifically, but to associate his nonpolicy work during the Reagan administration as neoconservative in retrospect is inaccurate. Rumsfeld was just not a policy maker at that time.

Clearly the attempt to use Saddam against Iran was not an attempt, obviously, to democratize Iraq, but it might have been to weaken or take down the anti-American Iranian theocracy.


by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 10:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Wait, are you claiming Rumsfeld was not a neocon since the 1970's?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 11:13:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
You're reference doesn't show anything of the kind.

Rumsfeld's role with Saddam was simply an implementarion of US foreign policy at the time in confronting to Iran.

by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 12:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 1)
Certainly in the Bush administration, it is safe to say that Rumsfeld as well as Cheney took on neuconservatism trappings, after 9/11 especially or specifically,

You will want to stop digging now...

The neocons have existed in roughly their current configuration since the late '70s/early '80s, with essentially unchanged ideological priorities.

but to associate his nonpolicy work during the Reagan administration as neoconservative in retrospect is inaccurate. Rumsfeld was just not a policy maker at that time.

I suppose it's possible to imagine that the second-in-command of the American war department does not play any major role in shaping American foreign policy. Stranger things have happened - after all, you just had two presidents in a row who didn't seem to play any major role in shaping American foreign policy...

But it really is a case that you need to make in slightly greater detail than by off-hand assertion.

Clearly the attempt to use Saddam against Iran was not an attempt, obviously, to democratize Iraq,

Well, duh.

Why is that relevant, again? The neocons have never, outside certain parts of their agit-prop, had any concern what so ever for democracy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 03:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Jake, I'm sorry, but you're pulling out straws now. And I was wrong about Rumsfeld's role in Iraq. He was a Special Envoy, and no, he did not make policy, he carried it out. And no, the Reagan administration was not a neoconservative one. For that matter, neither was Bush's until 9/11. There are no documents, papers, or associations of Rumsfeld that could assign him to the Neocon camp before 9/11. For much of the time between 1980 and 2000, he was an excutive with a pharmaceutical company, although he might have come back to serve the Bush I administration.

And no, Reagan was not courting Saddam in the attempt to democratize Iraq, which is a duh, in anyone's book. And if you don't know why that is relevant, you don't understand the Neocons, and their foreign policy project, or why they hit on Iraq years later (even though it was done for Israel's sake).

And finally, who the hell ever said that Neoconservatism developed with the Bush administration? And no, there is no credible evidence that Rumsfeld was a neocon in the 70s or 80s, and no, there was no Neocon angle to the Iraq-Iran war such that the neocons gave Saddam chemical weapons. You made that up yourself, me thinks, because Rumsfeld took a Neoconservative course in the Defense Department. Once a Neocon, you had to be one forever, right?

Is this the think tank you were talking about?


by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
And no, Reagan was not courting Saddam in the attempt to democratize Iraq, which is a duh, in anyone's book. And if you don't know why that is relevant, you don't understand the Neocons, and their foreign policy project,

No, you don't understand what the neocon project is about.

It's not about "promoting democracy." It's not about "freedom." It's certainly not about "winning the war on terror." And it's not about Israel. Those are just advertising slogans, and have nothing to do with their policy prescriptions. Most of these guys got their political schooling under Nixon and have, in fact, been quite consistent in their policies and objectives ever since: To put the executive and economic power of the United States under their clique's control (remember the "permanent majority" and "unitary executive?") and use it to advance their own wealth and act out their fantasies of control and dominance.

If saying "we're promoting democracy" is what makes the rubes buy their scam, then they'll say that they're spreading democracy. If claiming that they're defending Israel is what will make the Millenialist fundagelicals rally to their flag, then they support Israel. If fighting the wrr on trr is what will make the FOX News watching mouthbreather demographic rally behind them, then they're fighting the wrr on trr.

But you shouldn't for a single moment believe that they're sincere about any of that. If supporting Israel were to become a net liability to their quest for power, they would fuck over Israel just as fast as they fucked over Saddam.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 05:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Okay, let's end it here.

I don't know what the Neocons are all about. Walt's thesis that the Neocons are Israel-centric is false because a Neocon gave chemical weapons to the Iraqis in the 80s.

Case closed.

by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 08:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 1)
There are no documents, papers, or associations of Rumsfeld that could assign him to the Neocon camp before 9/11.

Does membership in the neoconservative think tank count?

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006.
by generic on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 07:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Yes it does count but not for this argument concerning Saddam and chemical weapons, when Rumsfeld was just a special envoy to Iraq carrying out a Reagan contraIran policy he did not make. But it does contradict my 9/11 assertion by four years, still a couple of decades too early.


by shergald on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 07:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Dude. Guy was chief of staff in the Ford administration. That's the same position Rahm Emmanuel occupies at the moment. Wanna claim that he isn't a policymaker too?

Besides, the entire neocon cabal's modus operandi stinks of the political schooling they received during their time in the Nixon administration - only this time they're remembering to burn the tapes.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 10:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
No Rumsfeld was not a policy maker in the Ford administration, who I gather you may think was in cahoots with the Neocons.

Take my advise: give it up. The Neocons did not have any real effect on US foreign policy until 9/11. In fact, the Wolfowitz Iraq invasion plan was already out there in the early 90s, when he attempted to get Clinton to do the dirty work. Clinton allegedly threw it in the wastebasket. It is not that Neocons were not embedded yet, but they just had no effect on American foreign policy, yet.

And no, the Neocons did not supply Saddam with chemical weapons, and no, Walt is not wrong because of that preposterous notion. As I mentioned before, Iraq was just being used by the US to counter Iran.

So let's stop beating a dead horse, shall we?

by shergald on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 11:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Even if we pretend that those assertions are all true (we clearly disagree on both the history, the influence and the political agenda of the neoconservative faction), you still have to demonstrate you original claim: That the neocons are an Israel-centric faction.

I just don't see the evidence - and no, Walt isn't evidence; he just asserts that this is the case and proceeds to take it as read in his political analysis. Which, for the purposes of discussing Israeli policy is not necessarily wrong - from the perspective of Israel and the Palestinians it doesn't matter why the neocons currently support Israel, just that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. But you made a stronger claim than Walt does, so you need to provide comparatively stronger evidence.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 11:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
My assertion did not exceed Walt's. You only have to survey the prominent Neocons to understand that they are more than supportive of Israel. They are Likudniks and that would include both the Jewish and nonJewish Neocons, the latter including Woosley and John Bolton, AIPAC's favorite standby. You can survey the actors behind the scenes pushing the Bush administration, a willing participant, toward war on Iraq.

Walt also notes the fakery about the Neocon project to spread democracy by whatever means, especially American military power, because of their current attacks on Turkey, a secular demoracy and member of NATO, in fact.

I support Walt's view over your because he is a Middle East expert and highly learned, and I know a lot of his references and sources, over your own view. It is pretty weak if not trivial to bring up some notion about a Neocon giving Saddam chemical weapons, in counterarguing his view.

But this give and take has gone on long enough.

by shergald on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 at 04:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
My assertion did not exceed Walt's. You only have to survey the prominent Neocons to understand that they are more than supportive of Israel.

But that's not what you were arguing. You were arguing that:

They are Likudniks and that would include both the Jewish and nonJewish Neocons, the latter including Woosley and John Bolton, AIPAC's favorite standby.

In other words, you were claiming that they support Israel and derive the rest of their agenda from that support. Which is bullshit - they have an agenda, and supporting Israel furthers that agenda at the moment.

I support Walt's view over your because he is a Middle East expert and highly learned,

In other words, you're making an argument from authority because you don't have the ability or inclination to make an argument on its merits.

and I know a lot of his references and sources,

Then you need to start sharing them, so the reader can judge for himself. Because the writeups you've linked to so far are exceptionally weak as far as supporting your point goes.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 07:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Mearshirmer and Walt's 'The Israel Lobby' may be weak in your own mind, but me thinks that's because you haven't read it. No matter, you're just not familiar with the Neocon cast of characters that go beyond the Kristols and Perles, which is understandable.

So shall we just quit this give and take and agree that we have a disagreement.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 09:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
I'm not saying it's weak on its own merits. I'm saying it doesn't support the case you're trying to make.

And I'm saying that you're relying excessively on a single reference with the associated risk of devolving into argument from authority.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 10:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Mearshirmer and Walt are indeed authorities, but they get their authority from their knowledge of the history of US-Israeli relations.

But it is you that have chosen to contradict Walt's thesis, and you have done so on the basis of the most trivial nonfact, that a Neocon gave Saddam, a nemesis of Israel, chemical weapons. Can it be said that your skepticism is based on a purely isolated event about which you made a false assumption. Why would a Neocon help Saddam if he were Israel-centric, was the conclusion we were to draw, and that was the evidence you provided to contradict Walt.

Weak tea, but since I have neither the time nor inclination to carry this on any further, as I said above, let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 10:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
But it is you that have chosen to contradict Walt's thesis, and you have done so on the basis of the most trivial nonfact, that a Neocon gave Saddam, a nemesis of Israel, chemical weapons.

No, that would be not what I based my scepticism on. I base my scepticism on the fact that the neocons have a long history as a coherent group, a history that goes back to the Nixon administration, in which the bulk of the core actors received their political schooling. And that they have a well-defined domestic policy agenda to which Israel by all appearances is entirely incidental.

They are using Israel to further their purposes, not the other way around.

For a thorough discussion of several of the main figures, you can do worse than Dubose and Bernstein's Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, which goes over Cheney's career and, in that process, touches upon most of the core neoconservative figures.

Or you could look into what the people who actually study the neoconservative faction have to say about their motives and agenda. With all due respect to the in-depth knowledge of your totemic authorities about US-Israel relations and the politics of the Near East, if you want to understand the internal power politics of the Beltway, you need to read people who study the Beltway, not people who study how the Beltway deals with a single, fairly minor, policy item.

Can it be said that your skepticism is based on a purely isolated event about which you made a false assumption.

It could be said. It would be wrong, but it could be said. It's a free country, after all.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that the neoconservatives are a new thing that came into power with Bush the Lesser. I have no idea what gave you that idea, apart from neoconservative agit-prop, but these guys aren't a new and exciting development. They're the Nixon administration in drag.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 05:37:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
"delusion that the neoconservatives are a new thing that came into power with Bush the Lesser. I have no idea what gave you that idea"

I don't know what YOU that idea from reading my posts. The history of the Neoconservative movement is well known to everyone and to say that 9/11 put it into practice, was never to suggest that it just started with the Bush administration. Silly notion. But that everyone who is a Neocon was or had to be a Neocon before or during the 1970s is fallacious.

by shergald on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 at 06:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
PS: I think Rumsfeld was Assistant Secretary of Defense at the time.

by shergald on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 at 10:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
And it is for certain that Iraq was on Israel's shit list way before the 2003 invasion. You may recall the scud attacks.

by shergald on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 at 03:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Completely and utterly irrelevant for determining whether the neocons are Israeli puppets or Israel is a neocon puppet, since Iraq was also on the neocons' shit list since at least 1991.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 12:41:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 1)
Iraq-Israel relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The relationship between Iraq and Israel has been a challenging one since 1948, when Iraq declared war on the newly established Jewish state, since then relations between the two states have remained hostile at best. Iraqi forces took part in action against Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, as well as firing dozens of Scud ballistic missiles at Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf War (despite Israel not being involved in that war). Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Does that answer the question at hand?

Iraq was best buddies of the US against Iran between the 1979 Tehran embassy hostage-taking until some time before the 1991 gulf war, while Israel and Iraq were on each other's shit lists throughout.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 08:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 1)
Iraq-Israel relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since 1948, Israel and Iraq have been implacable foes. Technically, Baghdad has been in a continuous state of war with Israel since 1948.[3] It sent armies to fight Israel in 1948 and 1967, and to back up Syria's defence of Damascus in the October 1973 war. Unlike Egypt, Jordan or Syria, Iraq has never been willing to discuss an armistice with Israel, let alone a peace accord like those Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan-despite some wishful mediation attempts by the United States and other Western countries with business interests in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's presidency.
The reference to Syria and Egypt is relevant because of the United Arab Republic that Iraq hoped to be part of. Also because Syria is not a US client but Egypt is.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 08:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
Your reply should be addressed to Jake.

by shergald on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 10:23:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
My reply is in the right subthread.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 10:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Think tank =|= Echo chamber (none / 0)
That does partly answer my question.

Clearly, the neocon-Israel relationship cannot be described as a simple client/suzerain relationship, since they held divergent opinions on a subject that was sort of important to both of them at the time.

Of course one should be careful about extrapolating from single data points, but it is a strike against the diarist's hypothesis.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 at 08:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Neoconservatism out of the closet | 79 comments (78 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: