Neocons never seem to learn. Even after the Somalia disaster and the dubious win against Serbia, their first 
recommended response to 9/11 was to attack Iraq. Public opinion required them to delay things for a while–in spite of a vigorous debate–but after a short and ineffectual campaign in Afghanistan, they finally go their wish. We’re still in Iraq, and we’re also plodding around Afghanistan, Iran is stronger, and this is all in the name of spreading democracy as the antidote to terrorism. None of these campaigns is a great showpiece of neoconservative strategic thinking.
So, this week, Charles Krauthammer, perhaps the most bellicose neocon, has suggested the US should be invading Libya and arming the rebels. Similar sentiments were uttered by his fellow travelers regarding Egypt. Worse, some Republicans mindlessly pile on Obama’s leadership deficit in this arena, even though his leadership problem is not his caution regarding a military response, but rather his rhetorical invitations for rebellions among strange and unpredictable peoples coupled with his estrangement of longterm and reliable partners. Who are these rebels? What do they stand for? Can we do any good for them or ourselves? If we intervene, how long will we be there? Do we really want democracy among people shouting Allah Akbar? I don’t want Obama’s “leadership” here, especially if it means we’ll be putting our troops into harms way without a clear idea of what we’re trying to accomplish.
Qadaffi is a dirtbag, terrorist supporter, whom I haven’t heard much from since Reagan sorted him out in 1986. But even a nutcase who keeps a lid on things is preferable to anarchy. What I don’t understand, or rather what I understand and have great contempt for, is the continued call by neoconservatives for mindless, hubristic US interventions after what has gone down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse still is the Pavlovian Obama-hatred among many conservatives that cannot see when, in spite of himself, he is doing something useful, in this case by not doing very much. Conservatives have been easily manipulated into supporting wars that serve no American interest whatsoever; it is time conservatives woke up, returned to their nationalist roots, and rejected the Wilsonian “global cop” role once and for all.
Subscribe To This Feed
…their first response to 9/11 was to attack Iraq.
Krauthammer and other neocons, who were part of the Project for the New American Century, famously wrote a letter to Bush nine days after 9-11 to advise him on his actions. Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan received 2 sentences in that letter. Iraq and Hezbollah received more ink than Bin Laden. And this was 9 days after 9-11! Why people still listen to these guys is beyond me. People should take a look at the signatories to that letter, and take what they say in op-ed pieces and tv appearances with a big grain of salt.
On almost everything domestic, Dr. K. has it right, though. Agree that on foreign policy we should not be listening to anyone who has ever agreed with Bill Kristol.
Don’t worry, soon these same people will be telling us to bite the bullet and vote for an establishment Republican like Romney (who used to think killing babies was ok and socialized medicine grand).
Nice post.
Lockerbie was after Reagan’s strike in 1986, I think it was in 88 or 89.
Good post. I am curious why you’d cite Somalia as neocon-ish, however.
Somalia, and I assume you mean the Aidid fiasco, was less about geopoliticizing democracy afar than it was about supporting a half-assed UN effort to foreclose on clan wars that were Aidid inspired. Had Aidid not backstabbed us and the UN, we’d never have been there.
Only after the UN got its head handed to it by the Somalian clans did we (ordered by Clinton, hardly a neocon) directly indulge the battle of Mogadishu, where Aidid’s leadership was hanging out. But Clinton didn’t exactly unleash the dogs of war and the Fifth Fleet; recall, his SecDef later packed it in for his piss-poor, under-manned handling of Mogadishu.
In any case, you larger point is compelling and ought to be a steady refrain in 1) conservative circles and 2) especially the Tea Party if it wants to be taken seriously.
Indeed, why there isn’t a louder associative cry to get the hell of that cesspool of Afghanistan, where nothing of any import exists to concern us anyore, makes no sense.
-resh