[belcherboy]

This is the latest article from a friend of mine. If you ever get a chance, check out www.Northstarwriters.com. They have a pretty good balance of liberal and conservative writers (although it does lean more conservative).

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc293.htm

2009: The Year of Triumph for Bush’s Neoconservatism



Regardless of whether the current Iranian regime survives the uprising it provoked with its sham election, the events in Tehran are the latest affirmation of a pretty darn happy fact:



The first year of the post-Bush era is turning out to be a triumphant one for neoconservatism.



It is deliciously ironic that a doctrine America supposedly rejected, even though few really knew what it was, has emerged as a set of principles no one seriously questions as the world evolves to prove its wisdom. Indeed, in order to escape the political firestorm that nearly engulfed him this week, President Obama had to finally give in and talk like a neocon.



To understand this phenomenon, you need to first understand what neoconservatism really is, as well as understanding what so many people thought it was.



We’ll start with the latter: It was widely believed that neoconservatism was a wildly idealistic notion that urged the United States to invade any country it choose, imposing democracy at the barrel of a gun. This definition also held that the neocons were only too happy to trash civil liberties in the name of national security, even as they assailed the sovereignty of other nations in the pursuit of empire.



Pundits of the liberal, libertarian and paleoconservative persuasions constantly denounced this caricature. Then, when they were convinced they had done so sufficiently, they began to inform us of how thoroughly the American people had rejected this failed and disastrous notion.



You probably heard about that version of neoconservatism. Now let’s deal with the one actually pursued by the administration of George W. Bush with the support of publications like The Weekly Standard and Commentary. The real neoconservatism simply held that the United States should support the advance of freedom and liberty throughout the world, wherever it can. It further posited that freedom and liberty are the God-given birthright of all people, and that – given the opportunity – people will always choose to be free. It further posited that when people become free, others see it, envy it and want it too.



The primary action for the United States in all this is to support democratic movements. Somewhere along the line, critics came to conflate this with the U.S. invading other countries and forcing them to accept our form of government. In fact, the two invasions that occurred during the Bush Administration were exceptions to the rule of how neoconservative goals are best achieved. We invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks because the people who ruled that nation were harboring our attackers. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement of 1991, and the United Nations sure as hell wasn’t going to do anything about it.



The preferred model for achieving neocon goals was exemplified in Eastern Europe during the 1980s, and is on display in Iran today.



While Eastern Europe suffered under the grip of communist domination, the U.S. and its allies worked to apply economic and strategic pressure, even as we did what we could inside those nations to support democratic movements like Poland’s Solidarity. We didn’t invade Eastern Europe, nor could we have done so. But we did everything we could to weaken the communist overlords – and it turned out we could do a lot – while we equipped and empowered the people of those countries to rise up and take back their freedom when the situation was ready for it.



The events in Iran also represent neoconservatism on glorious display. The Iranian people know full well that their neighbors in Iraq now have the freedom to choose their own government. They want the same thing in Iran, and they will no longer accept a fraudulent, rigged election as a substitute. The Iranian people may not topple the mullahs this week or this month, but they are now in a stronger position than ever to apply pressure to their rulers, and the best way to help them succeed is to apply economic and strategic pressure while supporting pro-democracy forces on the ground.



From the recent success of pro-Western candidates in Lebanon to the voices of European leaders in support of Iran’s pro-democracy demonstrators, the real-life principles of neoconservatism are not only winning the day in fact, they are also being embraced rhetorically in many of the same European nations we supposedly alienated with this line of thinking.



That’s because it is impossible to honestly oppose. It is too just, too moral and too right. Neoconservatism was highly popular just after 9/11 because America had been given a stark reminder of what reality actually looks like. For a short time, it was impossible for people to delude themselves about the true nature of the world, no matter how much they may have wanted to do so. Over time, those who were threatened politically by this fact came to misrepresent the neocons in accordance with the mischaracterization described above, and they prevailed rhetorically.



Thankfully, neoconservatism is now prevailing substantively – and truth is vindicated, as it usually is.

[GoUNCA]

I don't buy this for a second. The idea that Neoconservatism brought Iran to where they are today is absurd. Economic sanctions against Iran are certainly part of what helped bring about the current upheaval, but to say that is some idea neoconservatives came up with is dumb. It would be just as absurd to say that Obama or Clinton had anything to do with it either, especially if you were to say the "Cairo" effect.

Iran is suffering from a bad economy, a lot of social upheaval from a changing age demographic, and a corrupt government. Those are among other things, but I think those are the major things. Only economic sanctions are the only influenced from the outside, but those have been going on for many years under many different western political regimes/party rule. I would say that "hope" or "jealousness" of freedom would be outside influenced, but freedom also around when they overthrew the Shah in 1979 (and at the time of the beginning of Islamist thought), so I imagine that is minimal at best.

I agree with the author that many people confuse neoconservatism with the policies of the Bush Doctrine, in that the Bush Doctrine is an extreme interventionist position within neoconservatism. But I'll let the paleocons and the neocons fight about semantics. The big problem for the author is that he says it is a triumph for the Bush Doctrine in the title...which makes the brain hurt when you think about how he was trying to separate neoconservatism and the Bush docrine. Right hemisphere says to the left hemisphere, "I'm just going to go take a nap." The author is basically arguing with himself.

I don't agree with how the author frames neoconservatives as those who think "... the United States should support the advance of freedom and liberty throughout the world, wherever it can. It further posited that freedom and liberty are the God-given birthright of all people, and that – given the opportunity – people will always choose to be free." That is pretty much a United States foreign policy position, not a liberal vs conservative position. Arguably, the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives on foreign policy is the use of international agencies. Trying to frame this as a "neoconservative" idea is silly. It is an ideal of liberalism (in the broad sense of the word, as in the enlightenment).

[NJLibertyboy]

So, let me get this straight. Is this the third different reason I have heard for the invasion of Iraq? How about we stick with one. First, it was about the invisible Weapons of Mass Distruction and their unproven ties to Al-Quida. Then, it was the cause of freedom. Now, its the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement of 1991. Cut me a break. They need to get all the pro-war people together and agree on which one it really is, because you all keep changing it on me and I am getting confused.

The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement was no reason to invade a sovereign nation, take it over, and tell its people to be Democratic. Sorry. Bomb Baghdad for a few days until they let us in to take a look around. It was a pretty predictable process up to the Bush invasion, it usually worked and resulted in a small number of American Casualties and was a heck of alot cheaper.

By the way, this neo-con model of the 1980s that is barely discussed. Is this the same model that gave weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight off the Soviets? The same weapons he is killing our people with today? And then, when the Soviets leave, we let their government fall into total disarray by not fulfilling our promises to help them afterwards. This term is coined "blowback". Our efforts not only led to their total government collapse, but the rise of the Taliban, which in-turn harbored the terrorists of 9/11.

I just find it hilarious that neocons like to point out successes, but forget to mention all the times their efforts have caused more problems. Cold-war Afghanistan is an example, so is Iraq. It seems to me that neocons love pushing their agenda only if there is something in it for America. Like, taking out a common enemy, getting some oil or finishing daddy's job.

The other problem I have with this article is that is gives neocons all the credit for this freedom movement. Freedom is not an neocon doctrine, as stated before. Neocons just love to think that they are responsible for freedom and virtually take credit for any rise of freedom as if it is their doctrine. This could not be farther from the truth. Freedom, as our founding fathers put it, is self-evident, given to man-kind by God, not the neocons.

[LUconn]

I don't consider myself "neo-conservative", but, What?

So, let me get this straight. Is this the third different reason I have heard for the invasion of Iraq? How about we stick with one. First, it was about the invisible Weapons of Mass Distruction and their unproven ties to Al-Quida. Then, it was the cause of freedom. Now, its the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement of 1991. Cut me a break. They need to get all the pro-war people together and agree on which one it really is, because you all keep changing it on me and I am getting confused.

Does this even matter at this point? We're there. Unless you're looking to prosecute someone, and good luck with that, you probably need to just let this go.

I just find it hilarious that neocons like to point out successes, but forget to mention all the times their efforts have caused more problems.

I'm not sure what you're expecting here.

It seems to me that neocons love pushing their agenda only if there is something in it for America.

Again, what do you expect? These are american "neocons". When should they want their agenda to be pushed? When there's something in it for Guatemala?

[ALUmnus]

You sure do love throwing around the term "neocon", but do you really even know what it refers to?

[NJLibertyboy]

I am referring to the more flattering version of "neocon" mentioned in the article.

[NJLibertyboy]

LUConn, I am merely stating my opinion to the article.

Does this even matter at this point? We're there. Unless you're looking to prosecute someone, and good luck with that, you probably need to just let this go.

I think this is relevant because it proves the articles major flaws from the get-go. That is why I mentioned it.

I also mention how neocons like to point out their efforts and how "successful" they are by countering it with instances where it hasn't worked. What I am expecting? Nothing, I am just speaking in opposition to the article.

In regards to the opposition only pushing their agenda if there is something in it for America, that was a mistake on my part. I was referring to special interest groups or their own self-serving goals.