Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Obama the neocon?

Probably not, but an editorial by Fred Hiatt, "Will Obama's foreign policy follow his new democracy rhetoric?", raises the possibility just enough that it lets me get in a plug for that prominent bogeyman of the left, that banner for the hideous Bush-Cheney foreign policy, necoconservatism.

This was -- and may still be -- a "third way", if you like, between two other strategic alternatives for foreign policy. On the one hand, there was the naive idealism/crass cynicism of "liberal internationalism", which was an attempt at a top-down imposition of order by creating the shells or facades of global institutions fluffed up with a lot of talk about "international law", etc., but behind which facades sheltered the worst sorts of despotisms and petty tyrannies engaged in the same old squabbles that states have always fought over. As a general strategy, it failed miserably the first time it was tried, with the League of Nations, and at least as miserably the second time, with the United Nations, except, of course, that nuclear weapons have preserved us from another world war. On the other hand, there is the older notion of realpolitik, exemplified by Kissinger, which at least has its realism, or attempt at realism, to save it from cynicism. But, even in Metternich's or Bismark's day, its lack of any moral principle other than national self-interest was never realistic enough in a long term sense, and fails all the more dismally today when nations and their economies are so much more tightly interlocked. So, on the third hand, we have the strategic approach known as neoconservatism, which views a truly realistic foreign policy as one guided by some long-range and general principles, such as democracy, the rule of law, and individual rights. Contrary to popular leftist opinion, this doesn't imply a policy of belligerent intervention and nation building in states that lack those principles now (except under exceptional conditions, where alternatives are worse), but instead a policy of positive encouragement and help, in a long-term effort to build a bottom-up world order chacteristized by peace and mutual prosperity.

Now, as I indicated, I don't hold out much hope that Obama even understands these kinds of distinctions -- not because he's stupid, but simply because his whole background indicates a kind of can't-we-all-just-get-along foreign policy naivete at best, and a lefty, America as the real "evil empire" mind set at worst. See this post summarizing Kenneth Anderson's take on the present Administration's underlying foreign policy assumptions for a more nuanced, but no less skeptical, analysis. But it would be nice to think that, regardless of the label used, and notwithstanding the forum in which they were uttered, words like these had some real "neoconservative" substance behind them:
The idea is a simple one -- that freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice, and peace in the lives of individual human beings. And for the United States, this is a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity. As Robert Kennedy said, "the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit." So we stand up for universal values because it's the right thing to do. But we also know from experience that those who defend these values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights -- whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments -- have chosen to be our adversaries....
 ...experience shows us that history is on the side of liberty; that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies, and open governments. To put it simply, democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for our citizens. And I believe that truth will only grow stronger in a world where the borders between nations are blurred.

6 comments:

  1. we have the strategic approach known as neoconservatism, which views a truly realistic foreign policy as one guided by some long-range and general principles, such as democracy, the rule of law, and individual rights. Contrary to popular leftist opinion, this doesn't imply a policy of belligerent intervention and nation building in states that lack those principles now (except under exceptional conditions, where alternatives are worse), but instead a policy of positive encouragement and help...

    Sounds nearly Orwellian, m. According to neo-cons, the attack on Iraq wasn't belligerent interventionism or Realpolitik, it was a "police action" (with what, approx. 200,000 civilian casualties. Some say more...many more).... War is peace, ignorance is strength etc.

    For that matter, the very premises of the Iraqi war effort were mostly, if not entirely falsified, were they not?? Were we lied to or not re WMDs?? (the bipartisan Robb-Silvermann report itself suggested as much)--at any rate questions, many of them were not adequately answered (as I said on my blog like 2003 when Hitchens started into his flagwaving and support of BushCo). The fact that US and UK petroleum corps wanted access to Iraqi oil fields had nothing to do with our battle to bring democracy to the iraqis either, did it, Mr Realpolitik.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, I'd obviously be Mr Neocon, not Realpolitik -- try to keep up, J. Second, if the "premises" for the Iraq war were falsified there were sure a lot of people in on the lies, including the Clintons and many prominent Democrats. Third, it's the Robb-Silberman, not -Silvermann report, and it clearly indicated that there was no indication of political pressure to modify the intelligence estimates of Iraqi WMDs. Fourth, other after-the-fact reports, written with the great luxury of hind-sight and without the responsibility for decisions taken under uncertain conditions, concluded that, though there were no stockpiles of WMDs after all, there was certainly great capability for Iraq to re-start an active WMD program, including nuclear, as soon as the inspection regime was over, as it was about to be. And fifth, and most important, stockpiles of active WMDs, while certainly and deservedly a serious concern, were never the "premise" of the Iraqi war effort in the first place -- the premise was the removal of one of the most vicious regimes on the planet, a regime that had repeatedly threatened not just the US but its neighbors and the rest of the world as well, that had demonstrated that it had not just the capability of producing WMDs but the willingness to use them, even on its own people, that provided aid and comfort to terrorists, and that occupied the keystone of a region within which terrorists travelled freely. Apart from those details, you're also wrong about the oil motive, since anyone but the paranoid left can see that it's cheaper for everyone concerned simply to buy the oil, which Iraq was quite willing to sell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Second, if the "premises" for the Iraq war were falsified there were sure a lot of people in on the lies, including the Clintons and many prominent Democrats.

    Of course. Few would deny that except Clintonites. The Robb-Silbermann report makes it quite evident that the WMD intelligence was not convincing, even though Bush/Cheney et al. insisted otherwise. Which is to say, the R-S report presents convincing evidence of lies, or at least great misrepresentation. Even the GOPers who signed the report (including McCaint, I believe) said as much.

    You are mistaken re the Oil. Or just deliberately lying. The oil corps wanted access. It may have been cheaper at times, as long as those countries decided to sell. Having US/UK refineries in place greatly facilitates the process. I wager that in the days following 9-11 it was BP execs, along with AIPACers, and the Texass oil men (ie, Bush II's golfing cronies) who gave the IWE the thumbs up, and then took it to the Clintoncrats and maybe NY Times for approval.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wager that in the days following 9-11 it was BP execs, along with AIPACers, and the Texass oil men (ie, Bush II's golfing cronies) who gave the IWE the thumbs up, and then took it to the Clintoncrats and maybe NY Times for approval.

    You left out the Trilateral Commission, didn't you? Not to mention the Templars, the Illuminati, and the little green men hiding behind the comet, sending out rays to control our brains.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, you're an atheist-rightist, right, so warfare and skullduggery on a grand scale doesn't really trouble you,as long as it advances your goals--sort of Kissinger RealPolitik tradition. No outlandish conspiracy claims were made. Those are all fairly well-known points--BP/Blair, AIPAC/neocons ties to Israel (can anyone say ...bipartisanship?), Bush/Exxon, etc. And the NY Times sold the war from day one, with help from other media sources--Foxnews, WSJ, CBS, Limbaugh-land, etc.

    ReplyDelete

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>