Neocon Duet

I am amazed that a lot of things, especially the US clash with Iraq, Iran and North Korea, can be understood through logic. Ha! You might argue, what a discovery! Did you not know that before? Well, I did not. War and intimidation seems to me barbaric and illogical, beyond the grasp of the common man who would think twice before he harms even his enemy. Then why does the 'US' do it? It is a complex question, but the clever combatant seeks to understand his enemy first before taking up his weapon.

So we go back once more to the enemy camp (See the previous post). The Neocon Establishment that is in power in the Bush administration.

Question: What is the Bush administration? Is it a monolithic entity?

According to Thomas Risse (Beyond Iraq: The Crisis of the Transatlantic Security Community, Journal of International Peace and Organization, 78: 2-3, 2003) we need to distinguish between two versions of neocon thinking. It is subtle, I think, but crucial to understanding world battles.

Group A – US Vice-President Dick Cheney (the psychotic villain who makes Shakespeare's Shylock look like an angel) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

They believe in a) the dog eats dog world b) the supreme role of the US in playing God to keep the 'anarchic' countries in the international system from tearing each other (and the US) apart (meaning, if US does not play its part of supercop, the whole world will go to the North Koreans... illogical? Phew! Tough to answer). Oh, did I say 'international system'? Sorry, this is what makes them the target of disgruntled nations such as France and Germany, since both Group A and Group B do not believe in the UN which they feel 'shackles' their power! (shhhh...its a secret) More on that later...

Group B – If you think what is coming could be better, nopes. These guys are what I would call wolf in sheep's clothing. A prominent Group B member: Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (see, I told you there is a wolf in here). These neocons use US power to aggressively promote... democracy and capitalism.

Not everyone in the US admn is speaking about democracy. National Interest is primary to Group A (realist tradition of foreign policy), while Group B seeks to promote ideological causes (realist tradition again but with liberal vision). Group A is at least honest, but B trips over the self-contradictory idea of enforcing democracy.

Hmm, the familiar litany of the Chomskys and the Saids of this world comes to mind. But anyways, lets take them at their word – that they do indeed want democracy around the world (not one word about oil and multinationals!) and try to understand the positions they supposedly maintain before deconstructing them. From Bush's pathetic monologues one gets the idea that he sincerely believes he was ordained by God to bring the good news of democracy to the world's prisoners (doesn't Abu Gharaib come to mind?!) Let me finish this. To be fair to Bush, he is congenitally dumb. So, let's forget him and move on.

Now, I haven't written off one of the familiar television personalities of the Bush administration's foreign policy team. Secretary of State Colin Powell sees the world in slightly more moderate terms. He is party to the traditional conservatives who

a) are skeptical of the nation-building implications of the neocons (Iraq)
b) just as 20 years ago, they remain committed to at least taking the Europeans along with the US plans (minimal multilateralism)
c) they are the ones who pushed George W Bush to go to the UN to seek support for his Iraq policy
d) Powell's fellow conservatives at the State Department are supported by the disgruntled US military and by key players in the US Senate

There is what Risse calls a tug-of war between the Pentagon (Group A and B neocons) and the US State Department (traditional conservatives). Now we know why the US goes to the UN for approval (SD) and when its not forthcoming launches anyway into the war (Pentagon). (lolz)

This accommodation can be seen even in the controversial US document – National Security Strategy (NSS 2002) which is in many ways a compromise between the neoconservative unilateralists and traditional conservatives.

Several dichotomies in the administration's policies can be explained this way. In short, there is internal conflict over the who, why, where, what and hows.

To gain further insight into the Neocons refer to their inside journal which gained ideological influence under the editorships of Iriving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, two of neoconservatism's founding fathers: Commentary

A popular traditional conservative journal: The National Interest

Neoconservative Quiz

I just took a quiz to see where I stood in terms of the neoconservative paradigm... happily, i turned out to be liberal, but Im not sure I should be that easily dismissed politically. Hence the attempt to browse for the best political party that suits my general stand on issues. Let's see what will come up....
Meanwhile take a look at the four dominant foreign policy theories possible...

To which one do YOU belong, mmm?

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.Isolationists…
Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge
Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Liberal

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

Realist

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Neoconservative

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

Want to know more about the dominant neocon figures? Go Here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

As a malayalee Indian on study in Europe, well, like so many of us, I believe that malayalam should be made a global language cos we are, com'n so many of us out there. You know about the malayalee tea shop on the moon...! And now that we've had a chance to put up one of us as UN Secretary General nominee, we might want to stay actively involved in world politics. This is a site for anyone who feels bewildered in the global arena of fight-it-out politicians and their political agendas, of living in twin cultures, of living in the 21st century with, as in our professor's words, 'a locker-room identity'. Don't worry, world affairs is tough business, but then thats why it is rightly our business. Here I ask the stupidest of questions on behalf of the rest of us. I 'pose' the questions to my beloved colleagues, professors and well, to those 'in the know'. Stay tuned as I follow the likes of new generation global agenda setters Tao from Vietnam, Rose from Philippines, Cliff from Germany, Chuan Fen from Taiwan and Al from Thailand, Angela from Canada and ...well, we are well-represented, just be prepared for the most bizzarely sane answers. Impressions from all over Europe at your doorstep ladies and gentlemen, as we move from one country to the other. Marhaban to the idiot's guide to Erasmus Mundus Masters in Journalism and Globalisation.