The Emerging "Neocon" Alibi on Iraq

[Steve Blair]

I'm continually amazed at how think tanks, the chattering class, Capitol Hill, and even the upper reaches of the Executive Branch are populated by folks with no earned knowledge of the real world, or often even of their subject matter. Prime case is Michael Ledeen, the neocon "Iran expert." He's never even been to Iran. And people listen to this guy!

I think the real key here is no knowledge of their subject matter. I've seen people who've "been there" who have no real clue as to the history of where they've been (in other words, what was behind the "there" that they saw), and have no idea how to go about gaining that knowledge. Yet they still think they are "experts" based on their handful of trips.

We have far too many folks kicking around in these circles who don't understand even the basics of intellectual research and confuse .ppt and a few History Channel shows for real research and background.

[Tom Odom]

We have far too many folks kicking around in these circles who don't understand even the basics of intellectual research and confuse .ppt History and a few History Channel shows for real research and background.

Steve gets it, too, Marc!

[marct]

Steve gets it, too, Marc!

So many students will be disappointed if we ever started testing not using ppt and the History Channel . I mean, after all, if it's good enough for politicians and bureaucrats, what's like the problem, eh ?

Marc

Editorial note: the expression "eh?" was first popularized by Bob and Doug MacKenzie in the early 1980's. Originally, it was only used in a small stretch of Canada opposite Buffalo. The author only used it here to keep Tom happy

[Rank amateur]

Here's a new one. The "Iraq war" actually started in 1968.

when I wrote the essays that go to make up A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, I was expressing an impatience with those who thought that hostilities had not really "begun" until George W. Bush gave a certain order in the spring of 2003.

Anyone with even a glancing acquaintance with Iraq would have to know that a heavy U.S. involvement in the affairs of that country began no later than 1968, with the role played by the CIA in the coup that ultimately brought Saddam Hussein's wing of the Baath Party to power.

[J Wolfsberger]

... has never been noted for sloppy thinking.

One of the problems with the anti-war crowd is that they don't seem to have had a problem with the numerous bombing raids carried out under the previous administration, or the economic sanctions. (With the exception that some seemed to think we should have lifted them once Saddam turned "Oil for Food" into "Oil for Politicians and Weapons.") On the other hand, the fact that Bush wasn't 100% correct in everything, and the occupation was bungled, makes him and the US totally evil.

A second problem, that Hitchens has spoken to before, is that they refuse to recognize the world is a better place with Saddam out of power. That, too, is always ignored.

It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

[Ken White]

...
It would be nice to lock leftist, anti war types and "Neocons" in a room. The next day we could shoot the survivors.

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

[marct]

I'll even donate a few. Voila, no survivors....

have an ideal way of dealing with Post Modernists and others suffering from PMS (Post Modernist Syndrome) which was similar. Lock them in a spherical room and tell them to deconstruct a continuous loop of Celine Dion .

There would be no survivors .

[Ken White]

date isn't that far off the mark for our involvement specifically in Iraq. Hitchens engages in his usual hyperbole and provocative style but he's not totally out to lunch in that article

One can argue that Iraq was not well planned or even a good plan -- but one should have an alternative proposal for what was to be done about the steadily increasing probes from the Middle East from 1979 through 2001 other than continue to accept them with almost no reaction. Thus far, I've seen no one offer such an alternative other than 'diplomacy' and some feel-good efforts which, given the long memories and propensity for feuds in the ME would have been highly unlikely to confer even minimal success..

One can go back to the FDR and Ibn Saud conference on the return trip from Yalta and wish the US had done many things in the ME differently over the next 30 years. Not much point in that, we did what we did and the seizure of the Tehran Embassy resulted and our totally ineffectual response to that started the ball rolling. I submit diplomacy would not have stopped it. Nor will Iraq -- but Iraq did short circuit their efforts and it will have a deterrent effect provided we don't get stuck on stupid. That's far better than doing what we did from 1979 until 2001.

While no fan of Wolfotwits, Feith et.al. and while agreeing with most above on the stupidity of the Neocon ideas (and their current CYA effort -- which is pathetic but was to be expected), I've never been totally convinced that Bush adopted the Neocon mantras -- I think he realized on a gut level that it was impossible to seal the borders of the US and that something more than diplomacy was required. He simply followed some (not all) of the Neocon ideas because they made more sense than most of the alternatives. IOW, no one had a better plan.

And, five years later, I still haven't read or heard of one...

[Billy Ruffian]

It's disgusting when the rats flee a floundering ship with all their goodies securely snug in their jaws.