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 (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 ]

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