Are The Neocons Back?
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Bret Stephens claims that they are, and as evidence for this claim he offers an anecdote about an anonymous French writer who has found Obama’s foreign policy underwhelming and has somehow concluded that neoconservatives have “returned.” It is worth noting that this anecdote is all that Stephens has to back up his argument that “the world” finds Obama’s approach wanting and is “casting around for an alternative.”
It is not at all clear that neoconservatives have “returned” in any way, and it seems highly unlikely that many people overseas are now craving the firm smack of incompetent warmongering that the neocons can offer. To a large extent, the neocons never went anywhere in domestic policy and political debates. This is because there has not been any accountability in either the foreign policy community or the conservative movement for their colossal failures and misjudgments. That said, they are not exactly riding high, either. Neocons continue to be taken far too seriously and they continue to have access to a great many media outlets, but for the most part they have been leading the Republican Party’s charge into spluttering irrelevance on foreign policy. Having destroyed the party’s political fortunes with the war in Iraq, they seem intent on sinking the party even deeper into the ditch into which it has crashed. If this is a “return,” I wonder what decline looks like.
One of the problems the GOP and the conservative movement has had over the last several years is the retreat inside their own echo chambers, in which they keep repeating the same nonsense to themselves and reinforcing all of their false assumptions. The foreign policy cocooning seems the worst to me, but the stagnation and persistence in error we see in most Republican foreign policy arguments are functions of the larger intellectual collapse on the right. Stephens’ op-ed is one example of this. The world is not looking for an alternative to Obama at the moment, but Stephens simply asserts that it is because a foreigner (a Frenchman, no less!) pitched a counterintuitive idea for a column to him. This assertion is similar to the repeated claims made by Iraq hawks throughout 2006 and after that the public had not turned against the war when it clearly had. It is understandable that ideologues feel compelled to ignore reality, because it almost never fits their predetermined schemes, but when they are reduced to making things up out of thin air they have reached a new depth of desperation.
So Stephens claims that the world is turning against Obama at a time when it is doing no such thing. Just days before this Republican hawks were outraged at what a warm reception Obama had the U.N. Aziz has noticed the incoherence:
One need only look at Republican bastion Redstate.com for evidence that the GOP is unserious on foreign policy, such as this typically incoherent argument that wanting America to be respected around the world is a “leftist delusion” while simultaneously blaming Obama for a loss of that respect… in Russia, where earlier they were hyperventilating about Obama’s “cave” on the missile defense issue, on the anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland. The ideological whiplash about Russia is nicely instructive of the complete lack of any principle of actual national security, just recycled cold-war rhetoric. It’s embarassing.
What is remarkable is that Republican hawks are not embarrassed by it, and they are now so far out of it that they think they are winning the debate. They imagine that they have already become credible leaders on foreign policy, and they think that the rest of the world is now moving their way. That is what Stephens means when he says that neocons are “back,” and he could not be more wrong.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
The incoherence of the neocons is manifest. To them, we are a declining hegemon in search of an enemy, and it’s always Groundhog Day 1938.
However, there is no more coherence anywhere else. Our President is charming and eloquent, but goofy. Suddenly discovering a “secret” installation we’ve known about for years, making a chest-beating show of concern, and then nothing at all. Denouncing as a “coup” a fairly legalistic set of events in Honduras. Dithering on Afpak (admittedly a situation with no good options), but flying off to the Tivoli Gardens for the Chicago Olympics. Trying to pressure Netanyahu but applying no pressure, and then caving in exchange for a photo-op.
There are a few astute observers among the realists and the paleocons, including your honorable self, but no politically significant opposition program. It appears that Obama is fading as a leader sooner rather than later, but even then, will the country really replace him with a dimwit? If it does, guess who’s advising the dimwits.
Meanwhile the crazy Zionists seem to have concluded that Obama will not follow Brzezinski’s advice and scramble US planes when the IAF crosses Iraq. The Taliban are building their IEDs and biding their time.
We are doomed to live in interesting times.
Speaking of neo-conservatism, Sarah Palin has shown how utterly clueless she is on Islam:
In other words more of the “small minority of extremists hijacking a great world religion” canard and the discredited Thomas Friedman thesis of a “war within Islam”, rather then a war between Islam and the West. This is essentially the same nonsense peddled by the Bush administration for eight years which was used to justify the “liberation” of Iraq.
“firm smack of incompetent warmongering”
this is hilarious
Virgil, your comment puzzles me. Palin’s statement about Islam is remarkable because it explicitly rejects a militarist solution. Did you read the whole transcript?
(Im not a fan of Palin but I found that speech to be quite intriguing.)
Mr. Larison, what do you think of Deepti Choubey’s take on Iran’s obligations, below?
Question: When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies that Iran broke the law regarding construction of the nuclear facility at Qom, what is the legal basis for his argument and does it hold water?
Deepti Choubey: Ahmadinejad is trying to argue that Iran is not bound by a modified Code 3.1 that Iran agreed to with the IAEA in February 2003. He is saying that Iran is bound to a previous Subsidiary Agreement where Iran would have to inform the IAEA of a new facility 180 days before fissile material is introduced to it. He is also asserting that the Majlis never ratified the modified Code 3.1. These arguments are false. The modified Code 3.1 does not require ratification. Instead, they are done through an exchange of letters. Iran tried to unilaterally break the agreement in 2007 and the IAEA said they could not do that.
The IAEA stated that both parties need to agree to terminate the agreement. A key issue for the upcoming inspection is whether the secret facility was constructed before Iran tried to terminate the modified 3.1 agreement. That would make it even more clear that Iran has violated its Subsidiary Agreement with the IAEA.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=23903&prog=zgp&proj=znpp
Nailed it! (and Stephens!)
I’m curious about the accountability. How would that work? My guess is that the infrastructure of the right wing think tank machine is just too solid for any part to collapse. With jobs, book sales, radio and tv shills all guaranteed and co-dependent, just who is going to hold them to account? On the flip side, what would happen if this colossal misjudgment happened on the left? I think they are making progress (intended) on building a competing operation, but they aren’t there yet.
Finally, excuse me, but I can’t resist asking for help with an embedded spreadsheet of the PNAC Iraq letters signatories I put together. Any corrections or additional sources of neocon lists would be much appreciated.
Those are great questions Norwegian Shooter. What would happen on the left is, first, a panicked flight from anything to do with the discredited faction by the politicians (see, e.g., ACORN), a total ban from television (hard to notice, given the almost complete ban on any true left voices on TV already), and about 40 years of apologies (see, neoliberalism, generally, and endless trauma about George McGovern specifically), who incidentally was pretty much right about everything he campaigned on.
John McCain showed up on my tv last week once again. How often did we hear from John Kerry after his loss? How often have we heard from him since? Leftist losers disappear, rightest losers have endless comebacks, as if they ever go away.
Though in fairness, that’s not the real right, not the neocons. The neocons, in this one respect like the poor, we have with us always.
“The neocons, in this one respect like the poor, we have with us always.”
Like lupus or diabetes.
Thanks, Little Boots. I just saw a George McGovern reference yesterday. Another point, if a lefty loser then achieves anything outside of electoral politics, either it is ignored or the awards received are denigrated. Either way, the lefty loser is told to shut up.
GOM, that’s awful grumpy.
From Grumpy, as an example of Obama’s incoherence:
Really, isn’t this an example of the critic’s incoherence? So, we’ve known of the facility for years; may I assume it wasn’t discovered by Obama’s senate staff, but by US intelligence agencies? And kept secret by two administrations because neither necessarily publishes every intelligence discovery it makes? Once public, he acknowledged our knowledge; and joined other international leaders urging further action v. Iran. And, gee, in the ensuing two weeks, hasn’t forced Iran to give up it’s entire nuclear program, nor started the bombing campaign!!!
The stupid is strong in this example, as so many others.
@les
We’ve known about this for years. It’s not open yet and not very big. Why have a media circus NOW? Why act surprised? Is this some kind of game-changer?
If it’s just a bit of trilateral chest-pounding preparation for the negotiations, fine, but it all seems rather silly and contrived. I keep having visions of Louis Jourdain, “Shocked. Shocked.” But what are our winnings from this event?
As to my comment seeming to reflect impatience, the critic has a point. Diplomacy is slow, and slow diplomatic muddling through, posturing and all, is preferable to precipitate action.
Still aa publicity stunt rather than a strategy, it seems to me.
We’ve known about this for years. It’s not open yet and not very big. Why have a media circus NOW? Why act surprised? Is this some kind of game-changer?
Umm, gee, because some third party put it in the public eye? I haven’t seen Obama act surprised–as noted, he said we’ve known for some time. Of course it’s not a game changer, nor has the admin. said it is; Obama and allies have used it to focus attention and build support, which it appears to be doing. What would constitute coherence to you–resolute silence? Denial that the facility exists? Denial that the facility is part of the issue? As an attack on Obama’s foreign policy or Iran policy, your statements/positions seem, well, incoherent.
@les
Although it could perhaps be a bit bolder in terms of a regional realignment, I think Obama’s Iran policy is relatively sound–engagement and rapprochement rather than demonization and (God forbid!) military action.
The Viewing With Alarm about this non-discovery seemed a bit much to me, and I feared it was the beginning of a saber-rattling phase, to be followed by something worse. I’m guardedly hopeful that we’ve made a bit of progress.
Grumpy: “I’m guardedly hopeful that we’ve made a bit of progress.”
From your lips to your deity of choice; there’s been all too little of that “progress” stuff around, for all too long.