Friday, July 21, 2006
"War is a bracing tonic for the national spirit ..."So Gene Healy writes about the thinking of neocons. Here is an extended excerpt of Healy's essay at cato-at-liberty.org: (emp add) War without End
Here’s the money quote from the Bill Kristol piece George Will went after yesterday:"We might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement." And here’s a front pager in today’s Washington Post about neoconservative anger towards the Bush administration because of its newfound restraint in foreign policy. Prominent Iraq hawks like Max Boot and Cakewalk Ken Adelman are upset that their favored tactic, "bomb today for a brighter tomorrow," no longer commands the respect it once did in Washington.
Now, you could marvel at the brazenness of all this: the same people who helped lead us into the biggest foreign policy disaster in 30 years trying to push another war (or wars) on us without so much as a prefatory "sorry about the whole Iraq thing, old boy." But the current squawking also strikes me as a useful reminder of how very, very important war is in the neoconservative vision. It is as central to that vision as peace is to the classical liberal vision.
For the neoconservatives, it’s not about Israel. It’s about war. War is a bracing tonic for the national spirit and in all its forms it presents opportunities for national greatness. "Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington," David Brooks once wrote. And Washington’s never louder or more powerful than when it has a war to fight.
In 1997, Fred Barnes pouted about the “ennui” accompanying that decade’s peace and prosperity:The last great moment in Washington was Desert Storm…. It was exciting to follow and write about … Every press conference, I watched. Desert Storm was all I thought about or talked about. My stories concentrated on President Bush’s heroic role in the war." Indeed, for many neoconservatives, the 1990s were about the search for an enemy. Who it was didn’t much matter. That can be seen in this 1996 Foreign Affairs article by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, in which they seem distinctly unsettled by the apparant lack of anyone for the U.S. to fight:"The ubiquitous post-Cold War question — where is the threat? — is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness." To dispel any notions of weakness, a little therapeutic bombing is sometimes in order. As AEI’s Michael Ledeen apparently put it some years ago:"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." Juan Williams got it right last week when he said to Bill Kristol: (from Think Progress) Well, it just seems to me that you want…you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran.
posted by Quiddity at 7/21/2006 12:54:00 AM
6 comments
War is a bracing tonic for the national spirit and in all its forms it presents opportunities for national greatness.
The very essence of fascism.
You need to include a comment by the idiot Santorum, "There has been a war against the war."
I read on another site that the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon. This would seem to put a completely different slant on this so-called self-defense claim by Israel.
Syria and Iran, in that order were always phase II & III of the war plan, It was implicit in the rhetoric and what passed for planning.
Phase I. 2003:Kick Saddam out, install Chalabi to universal acclaim from his underground army of supporters, have him recognize Israel and grant basing rights to the US, draw down US troops in actual occupation to 30,000 in November.
Phase II. 2004: Invade Syria and its (then) client Lebanon from Iraq and wipe out Hezbollah once and for all, Install pro-Western leadership and coast to reelection.
Phase III. 2005- : with the Arab world at least nominally unified behind you take out the second axis of the 'Axis of Evil' Iran, once again from your bases in Iraq. Install Permanent Majority back home
This isn't some loony left fantasy, this really was the Neo-Con plan, the discussed it pretty much out in the open to anyone who would listen, though always with same plausible deniability after the Iraqi component start going south.
What is clear as clear is that they have not given up, they STILL want to take Syria and Iran down and the sooner the better, they STILL think the American people will swing into line. You may think they are delusional, you may think I am delusional, but I am afraid that is the Ledeen-Gingrich Plan. Iraq was just phase I of World War III, and as such just a temporary setback in the effort to establish the New American Century. They not only think like that, they talk like that. Check the PNAC website sometime.
The definitive piece on this need for war appeared in "Foreign Affairs" in 2000.
With no Soviet threat, America has found it exceedingly difficult to define its "national interest." Foreign policy in a Republican administration should refocus the country on key priorities: building a military ready to ensure American power, coping with rogue regimes, and managing Beijing and Moscow. Above all, the next president must be comfortable with America's special role as the world's leader.
It goes on to castigate Clinton for fighting the Kosovo war "incompetently", arguing that little wars were sapping the nations strength. Big wars clarify the national interest.
The author? The current Secretary of State.
Text here.
Quote from the essay -
The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.
|
