Neocon Retreads in Obama Foreign Policy

Where Have All the Neocons Gone?

Quote:

---

Albright, together with former Clinton defense secretary William S. Cohen, has headed a U.S. Institute for Peace and Holocaust Museum task force on genocide. Its new report, released on Dec. 8, is called “Preventing Genocide.”....

It recommends that the secretary of defense and U.S. military leaders develop military guidance on genocide prevention and response and “incorporate it into Department of Defense (and interagency) policies, plans, doctrine, training, and lessons learned.” The report’s aims are noble, but it is essentially a stalking horse for liberal intervention. It would create a permanent bureaucracy with a vested interest in insisting upon armed interventionism whenever and wherever the U.S. pleases—the Congo, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and so on...

The notion that Obama will seek to roll back the American empire is a pipedream. It wasn’t McCain but Obama who declared on the campaign trail that America has to “lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.”

---

I don't think this should be much of a surprise. But many of the folks that thought that "change" meant non-interventionism are likely in for a rude awakening.

Wouldn't the logistics problem get in the way of intervening in most of those places?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TristanAbbey

Wouldn't the logistics problem get in the way of intervening in most of those places?

---

Except this time it won't be KBR it will be ACORN handling the logistics....:D

Too good to pass up...:D

From my limited understanding it seems that the most noticable shift might be more of a push for human rights, possibly as a diversion to the usual military activities. This could signal a shift to Liberal IR theory, at least in rhetoric; but this theory is easily bent to justify military action as well. It looks unlikely that any real concerns about human rights and dictators will ever be advanced because of the economic instability of the world and the contributions of those who either: provide cheap labor and goods(China), or are strategically important. Given this, and some recent history, it seems that realist theory is most likely to be correct in the future. Which means we will likely remain in a state of sub-optimization with regard to our military interactions and alliances. Those atempting to implement democracies around the world have failed to take into account many obstacles, particularly the effect of religion, and the necessity of a secular government prior to a shift to democracy. In the end, it is not unthinkable that some Neocons would tweak their theories, to include lessons learned and some human rights concerns, in order to sell them to the democratic party.

I've always thought that Democrats wanted big government for big social programs and Republicans wanted big government for an empire abroad.

So now we have a Democrat who might want big social programs and an empire abroad.

Where's the money coming from? :confused: Oh, that's right, it's coming from me. :(

Silly me, I forgot. :wry:

Democrats and Republicans: the evil of two lessers. :mad:

Actually none of this should surprise anyone. One of our bigger intervenionist presidents was Wilson (take a look at his record in Mexico, Central America, etc.), and he was a democrat. Ol' FDR also nurtured some pretty interesting international ambitions, and often they can be the least pragmatic of expansionists.

Didn't that last guy go to war without congressional assent??? :D

I'd put Carter in there as well but he seemed to snarl everything he touched...

Lest I be accused of partisanship; no brief for either; a pox on both their houses. :cool:

I think that is what it is. Let's do a global group hug and sing KUM BAI AH. When did our leaders start wanting to become rock stars on the global stage vs leading this country?

Always thought that was a somewhat weird term considering that unless someone figures out how to turn back the clock, any order the world ends up with is newer than what was there before:rolleyes:

Let’s not forget the neocon’s pinko origins, these guys were red diaper babies turned Scoop Jackson Democrats. Save for the likes of Pat Buchanan and company, the right seemed to have forgotten this over the past ten years.

We rolled back Russian influence in the Balkans under the liberal interventionist card (which btw, Wolfowitz and Perle were cheerleaders for), and we rolled back Russian influence in Central Asia (for a time being) under the counter terrorism banner. It would seem that both liberal interventionist causes and counter terrorism are tertiary issues in the realm of great power politics. Dare I suggest that both are just pretext and rhetorical veneer for the same thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Where's the money coming from? :confused: Oh, that's right, it's coming from me. :(

---

The money is coming from neither you or I. The money is coming from the Chinese and whoever else will buy our debt. The money is coming from our children and our grandchildren. How much is the national debt now? How many tens of trillion in unfunded liabilities do we have now? Lets be honest with ourselves, we are not paying for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bourbon

"We rolled back Russian influence in the Balkans under the liberal interventionist card (which btw, Wolfowitz and Perle were cheerleaders for)..."

---

I'm unsure whether citing two squirrels as supporters makes an efort better or worse -- but I do know that's the war I mentioned that did not have Congressional approval.

Quote:

---

"... It would seem that both liberal interventionist causes and counter terrorism are tertiary issues in the realm of great power politics. Dare I suggest that both are just pretext and rhetorical veneer for the same thing?"

---

You can suggest it. I think that's grossly incorrect but you can certainly suggest it.