RRD:One of the sickest jokes played on the human race is the idea that the Neo-conservatives(fn1) are pro-Israel or pro-American(particularly in terms of the effects of their policies.) Max Boot 2006 on Hamas:
The weakness in backing strongmen - Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/01/opinion/oe-boot1
..."It now has a choice -- either suspend its war on Israel and concentrate on delivering mundane civil services, or risk a backlash among voters."...
RRD:What voters?He spoke as if Hamas was going to permit new elections and abide by them. ....”The Hamas militants,unlike their fellow fundamentalists in Iran, don't have the luxury of oil revenues.Much of the Palestinian Authority's budget comes from European,American and Israeli largesse, which presumably will be cut off unless Hamas comes out against violence and in favor of Israel's right to exist. If Hamas sticks to a rigid ideological agenda, it will become as unpopular as the Taliban. And if Hamastan becomes a breeding ground of international terrorism, it will be even more vulnerable to a military response than Afghanistan was.".... RRD:How's that working out for you Max?
...."Palestine, like Iran, may have to pass through a period of Islamist misrule before it arrives at something better, as Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing under relatively moderate religious parties. "....
RRD:I'm sorry a period?The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in power for 33 years,and may soon have a atomic bomb.During that time that regime has either directly or indirectly killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis and god only knows how many Iranians.Hamas has remained in power six years after Boot offered this prediction.
...."That's unfortunate, but what's the alternative? There aren't many well-intentioned strongmen who will overhaul Islamic societies along Western lines and pave the way for democracy, as Kemal Ataturk did in post-Ottoman Turkey.”...
RRD:Note that Boot offers us the alternative of backing strongmen or encouraging elections which will lead to even more deranged strongmen coming to power.The possiblity that the U.S. should do neither does not seem to occur to him.
Six years later Hamas is still there & Boot believes that we should pressure the Egyptian Military to let Hamas' parent organization--The Muslim Brotherhood--come to power:
Let the Brotherhood Rule in Egypt « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/18/let-the-brotherhood-rule-in-egypt/
...."Tempting as it is for the U.S. to acquiesce in the military’s latest power grab, it is a mistake. The military is either ushering in the day of reckoning (if civil war breaks out) or delaying it (if it doesn’t). Either way, Egypt’s long-term prospects are not served by this decision, because it will allow the Brotherhood to claim the cloak of martyrdom. The best bet in the long run for weakening Brotherhood authority would be to allow it to rule. Already, the Brotherhood’s appeal seems to have declined since the parliamentary elections which ended in January. Undoubtedly, if the Brotherhood were granted full authority over Egypt’s dysfunctional state and anemic economy, its popularity would decline some more–unless it were able to moderate its wilder instincts and deliver real results. By keeping the Brotherhood out of power, the SCAF is taking upon itself all the blame for Egypt’s dire condition–not a wise long-term bet."...
RRD:You see rather than having the Muslim Brotherhood claim "martyrdom",we should have them rule Egypt for a "period"(30yrs?).And after all they will have to moderate or lose....blah...blah
I sometimes wonder if Neo-conservatives like Boot and Kristol want Islamists in power so that we will have to go to war with those regimes.This in turn will give us the "tonic" of a cause larger than ourselves.(fn2) So what should we do?
Should the US government ” acquiesce” to the power grab,or,should we not ”acquiesce” to the power grab.
Neither,the US government should act to defend American citizens from foreign threats.
That means (at a minimum) providing moral support to those who are pro-freedom when doing so would/might remove the threat of a hostile regime that means to harm our citizens:(such as helping--at least verbally--the Green Movement in Iran against the IRI);However it does not mean that we should install another dictatorial gang into power (such as the MEK),nor does it mean toppling democratically elected governments(unless they actually threaten us with military attacks or terrorism,of course).
Footnotes: fn1. RRD:I use the word "Neo-Conservative” to refer to a particular group of individuals,motivated or influenced by a particular set of ideas,as defined in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
Boot may or may not share all the characteristics listed in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
I myself was formerly sympathetic to the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" strategy i.e. promoting freedom(though not necessarily through military force) since I believed "Democracies don't go to war with one another". I still believe that the citizens in foreign countries should be free,but elections do not automatically translate into freedom. The Nazis were voted into power through elections. I do NOT use the term "Neo-Conservative" in the way that it is used by many Ron Paul supporters
i.e.,”someone who is more hawkish than Ron Paul”,or ”someone who is pro-Israel”,I am both and I am not a Neo-Conservative.If you believe that sharing a (alleged) goal with Neo-Conservatives such as stopping Tehran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons,or supporting Israel makes you a "Neo-Con" then you should also conclude that Ron Paul is a member of the Taliban since "he wants us out of Afghanistan" just as the Taliban "want us out of Afghanistan".
Conversely one could claim that I and other opponents of Obama's military intervention in Libya are in league with Gaddafi. As to Thompson's article I am largely in agreement with him,though I think that some of his statements(in other articles) about particular individuals associated with Neo-conservatism(e.g. Michael Ledeen) may be in error.I have not however delved into either Ledeen's writings or Thompson's so I am not sure.
Neoconservatism Unmasked C. Bradley Thompson Cato Unbound
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/
fn2. The Death of Neoconservatism: Six Questions for C. Bradley Thompson—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007833
The weakness in backing strongmen - Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/01/opinion/oe-boot1
..."It now has a choice -- either suspend its war on Israel and concentrate on delivering mundane civil services, or risk a backlash among voters."...
RRD:What voters?He spoke as if Hamas was going to permit new elections and abide by them. ....”The Hamas militants,unlike their fellow fundamentalists in Iran, don't have the luxury of oil revenues.Much of the Palestinian Authority's budget comes from European,American and Israeli largesse, which presumably will be cut off unless Hamas comes out against violence and in favor of Israel's right to exist. If Hamas sticks to a rigid ideological agenda, it will become as unpopular as the Taliban. And if Hamastan becomes a breeding ground of international terrorism, it will be even more vulnerable to a military response than Afghanistan was.".... RRD:How's that working out for you Max?
...."Palestine, like Iran, may have to pass through a period of Islamist misrule before it arrives at something better, as Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing under relatively moderate religious parties. "....
RRD:I'm sorry a period?The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in power for 33 years,and may soon have a atomic bomb.During that time that regime has either directly or indirectly killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis and god only knows how many Iranians.Hamas has remained in power six years after Boot offered this prediction.
...."That's unfortunate, but what's the alternative? There aren't many well-intentioned strongmen who will overhaul Islamic societies along Western lines and pave the way for democracy, as Kemal Ataturk did in post-Ottoman Turkey.”...
RRD:Note that Boot offers us the alternative of backing strongmen or encouraging elections which will lead to even more deranged strongmen coming to power.The possiblity that the U.S. should do neither does not seem to occur to him.
Six years later Hamas is still there & Boot believes that we should pressure the Egyptian Military to let Hamas' parent organization--The Muslim Brotherhood--come to power:
Let the Brotherhood Rule in Egypt « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/18/let-the-brotherhood-rule-in-egypt/
...."Tempting as it is for the U.S. to acquiesce in the military’s latest power grab, it is a mistake. The military is either ushering in the day of reckoning (if civil war breaks out) or delaying it (if it doesn’t). Either way, Egypt’s long-term prospects are not served by this decision, because it will allow the Brotherhood to claim the cloak of martyrdom. The best bet in the long run for weakening Brotherhood authority would be to allow it to rule. Already, the Brotherhood’s appeal seems to have declined since the parliamentary elections which ended in January. Undoubtedly, if the Brotherhood were granted full authority over Egypt’s dysfunctional state and anemic economy, its popularity would decline some more–unless it were able to moderate its wilder instincts and deliver real results. By keeping the Brotherhood out of power, the SCAF is taking upon itself all the blame for Egypt’s dire condition–not a wise long-term bet."...
RRD:You see rather than having the Muslim Brotherhood claim "martyrdom",we should have them rule Egypt for a "period"(30yrs?).And after all they will have to moderate or lose....blah...blah
I sometimes wonder if Neo-conservatives like Boot and Kristol want Islamists in power so that we will have to go to war with those regimes.This in turn will give us the "tonic" of a cause larger than ourselves.(fn2) So what should we do?
Should the US government ” acquiesce” to the power grab,or,should we not ”acquiesce” to the power grab.
Neither,the US government should act to defend American citizens from foreign threats.
That means (at a minimum) providing moral support to those who are pro-freedom when doing so would/might remove the threat of a hostile regime that means to harm our citizens:(such as helping--at least verbally--the Green Movement in Iran against the IRI);However it does not mean that we should install another dictatorial gang into power (such as the MEK),nor does it mean toppling democratically elected governments(unless they actually threaten us with military attacks or terrorism,of course).
Footnotes: fn1. RRD:I use the word "Neo-Conservative” to refer to a particular group of individuals,motivated or influenced by a particular set of ideas,as defined in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
Boot may or may not share all the characteristics listed in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
I myself was formerly sympathetic to the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" strategy i.e. promoting freedom(though not necessarily through military force) since I believed "Democracies don't go to war with one another". I still believe that the citizens in foreign countries should be free,but elections do not automatically translate into freedom. The Nazis were voted into power through elections. I do NOT use the term "Neo-Conservative" in the way that it is used by many Ron Paul supporters
i.e.,”someone who is more hawkish than Ron Paul”,or ”someone who is pro-Israel”,I am both and I am not a Neo-Conservative.If you believe that sharing a (alleged) goal with Neo-Conservatives such as stopping Tehran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons,or supporting Israel makes you a "Neo-Con" then you should also conclude that Ron Paul is a member of the Taliban since "he wants us out of Afghanistan" just as the Taliban "want us out of Afghanistan".
Conversely one could claim that I and other opponents of Obama's military intervention in Libya are in league with Gaddafi. As to Thompson's article I am largely in agreement with him,though I think that some of his statements(in other articles) about particular individuals associated with Neo-conservatism(e.g. Michael Ledeen) may be in error.I have not however delved into either Ledeen's writings or Thompson's so I am not sure.
Neoconservatism Unmasked C. Bradley Thompson Cato Unbound
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/
fn2. The Death of Neoconservatism: Six Questions for C. Bradley Thompson—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007833
No comments:
Post a Comment