[Op/Ed] Neocons are back!

[Surlethe]

WSJ

The other day I was asked by a writer for a mainstream French newspaper to say something about the “return” of the neoconservatives. His thesis seemed to be that the shambles of Barack Obama’s foreign policy had, after only nine months, made what was thought to be the most discredited wing of an ostensibly brain-dead conservative movement relevant again. And France—no longer straining at the sight of Michelle Obama shopping in Paris’s 6th arrondissement—is taking notice.

My answer was that the neocons are back because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Vladimir Putin never went away. A star may have shone in the east the day Barack Obama became president. But these three kings, at least, have yet to proffer the usual gifts of gold and incense and myrrh.

Instead, the presents have been of a different kind. North Korea claims to be in the final stages of building a uranium enrichment facility—its second route to an atomic bomb. Iran, again caught cheating on its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, has responded by wagging a finger at the U.S. and firing a round of missiles. Syria continues to aid and abet jihadists operating in Iraq. NATO countries have generally refused to send more troops to Afghanistan, and are all the more reluctant to do so now that the administration is itself wavering on the war.

As for Russia, its ambassador to the U.N. last week bellyached that the U.S. "continues to be a rather difficult negotiating partner"—and that was after Mr. Obama cancelled the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus does the politics of concession meet with the logic of contempt.

All this must, at some level, come as a surprise to an administration so deeply in love with itself. "I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world," Mr. Obama told the U.N.'s General Assembly last week with his usual modesty. He added that those expectations were "rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

Yet what sounds like "hope" in, say, Toronto or Barcelona tends to come across as fecklessness in Warsaw and Jerusalem. In Moscow and Tehran, it reads like credulity—and an opportunity to exploit the U.S. at a moment of economic weakness and political self-infatuation.

For those much-scorned neocons, none of this comes as a surprise. Neoconservatives generally take the view that the internal character of a regime usually predicts the nature of its foreign policy. Governments that are answerable to their own people and accountable to a rule of law tend to respect the rights of their neighbors, honor their treaty commitments, and abide by the international rules of the road. By contrast, regimes that prey on their own citizens are likely to prey on their neighbors as well. Their word is the opposite of their bond.

That's why neocons have no faith in any deals or "grand bargains" the U.S. might sign with North Korea or Iran over their nuclear programs: Cheating is in the DNA of both regimes, and the record is there to prove it. Nor do neocons put much stock in the notion that there's a "reset" button with the Kremlin. Russia is the quintessential spoiler state, seeking its advantage in America's troubles at home and abroad. Ditto for Syria, which has perfected the art of taking credit for solving problems of its own creation.

Where neocons do put their faith is in American power, not just military or economic power but also as an instrument of moral and political suasion. Disarmament? The last dictator to relinquish his nuclear program voluntarily was Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who did so immediately following Saddam Hussein's capture. Democratization? Contrary to current conventional wisdom, democracy is often imposed, or at least facilitated, by U.S. pressure—in the Philippines, in the Balkans and, yes, in Iraq. Human rights? Anwar Ibrahim, the beleaguered Malaysian opposition leader, told me last week that "the only country that can stand up" to abusive regimes is the United States. "If they know the administration is taking a soft stance [on human rights], they will go on a rampage."

None of this is to say that neoconservatism represents some kind of infallible doctrine—or that it's even a doctrine. Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public's willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.

But as the pendulum has swung to a U.S. foreign policy based on little more than the personal attractions of the president, it's little wonder that the world is casting about for an alternative. And a view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France.

Much of the usual neocon drivel - "US troubles abroad" broadly defined as "not everyone doing what the US wants", etc. I thought it was worth posting for (a) the exercise in demolishing it and (b) the veiled accusation of appeasement. It seems like a lot of neoconservative thought is based on the assumption that foreign states are always negotiating in bad faith, with no intent to follow through on their promises, so the only way to get results favorable to the United States is to unilaterally enforce American interests with the threat of force. In other words, it assumes that other states behave always as Nazi Germany, not as rational, self-interested actors. This assumption is, of course, very often false.

[Covenant]

I'm confused. The author is asserting that other nations are feeling upset that we're not bullying them? Or is Poland afraid that nuclear hellfire will rain down on them unless we put up a nuclear defense shield, and grumbling about it?

I have no idea what this article is even SAYING. It seems to be written as if it had an international perspective, but with the confusing attitude that the only way to make our self-styled enemies 'afraid' of us is to act bellicose, regardless of our ability? Nowhere is it saying that the neocon agenda actually accomplishes anything, just that we do an awful lot of forcing things on people who didn't want the version of freedom we say they need.

Is that it? I'm confused. There's no sourcing except for one guy. Seriously though, I don't think I could have expected much else from WSJ.

[Stark]

When did 'appeasement' start to mean 'talking' or 'reducing the military' or whatever? I know it's trendy to use the logic of the old simple days, but seriously that's not what it means.

Has appeasement become a term for 'any policy I don't agree with' or 'anything but big sticks'?

[Simon_Jester]

When did 'appeasement' start to mean 'talking' or 'reducing the military' or whatever? I know it's trendy to use the logic of the old simple days, but seriously that's not what it means.

Has appeasement become a term for 'any policy I don't agree with' or 'anything but big sticks'?

Pretty much. It's an example of language becoming degenerate in the physics sense of the word: multiple concepts collapsing into a single word, after which people start to lose track of which concept is which, causing a breakdown in mental discipline and gibbering idiocy in an Op-Ed piece.

[Ritterin Sophia]

When did 'appeasement' start to mean 'talking' or 'reducing the military' or whatever? I know it's trendy to use the logic of the old simple days, but seriously that's not what it means.

Has appeasement become a term for 'any policy I don't agree with' or 'anything but big sticks'?

It was shortly before Dubya indirectly attacked Obama as an appeaser. Here's a video demonstrating the conservative understanding of appeasement:

[Bounty]

This is what jumped out for me:

Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public's willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.

The author is flat-out stating that the failure of the "neocon agenda", however he wished to define it - the only failure he cares to mention - is a failure of the American people. Not of neocon ideology, not of the people who put it into practice, he doesn't even blame the failure on external influences; he blames it squarely on the US public, as if it's a monolithic bloc that couldn't muster the effort to support the neocon agenda.

Apart from the obvious scapegoating, it would have been a lousy excuse even if it were true: if your public is not on board with your ideas, and you know those ideas are sound, then you are failing to communicate them.

That is one impressive mental disconnect right there.

[Thanas]

I think it is a massive sense of entitlement. After all, their idea is obviously the right one, so how can the american people fail to be smart enough to choose it?

[Ritterin Sophia]

The author is flat-out stating that the failure of the "neocon agenda", however he wished to define it - the only failure he cares to mention - is a failure of the American people. Not of neocon ideology, not of the people who put it into practice, he doesn't even blame the failure on external influences; he blames it squarely on the US public, as if it's a monolithic bloc that couldn't muster the effort to support the neocon agenda.

Apart from the obvious scapegoating, it would have been a lousy excuse even if it were true: if your public is not on board with your ideas, and you know those ideas are sound, then you are failing to communicate them.

That is one impressive mental disconnect right there.

I'm gonna disagree with you that he's blaming only the American people. This line, "They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom", would seem to be the conservative propensity to blame the victim IE Iraqi's didn't want to not be oppressed by a dictator enough and that's one of the two reasons the Iraq War has been such a clusterfuck. He's blaming both the American people and the Iraqi people, the North Korean people, the Iranian people, and anyone else in a country that doesn't have sufficient 'freedom' for their tastes for the debacle that is the GWOT.

[Akhlut]

Where neocons do put their faith is in American power, not just military or economic power but also as an instrument of moral and political suasion. Disarmament? The last dictator to relinquish his nuclear program voluntarily was Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who did so immediately following Saddam Hussein's capture.

No other country voluntarily does so because nuclear weapons are the only deterrent in the face of a foe who has nuclear weapons and has a conventional military which both handily outclasses one's own and the other country has been proven to use it at the drop of the hat for the most shaky of reasons. What better way to at least make them think about invading if not through at least the vaporization of a few platoons of invading soldiers or the risk of MAD with other nuclear armed powers with ICBMs?

Really, the neocon insistence of use of force makes nuclear proliferation more likely, as states that feel they have nothing to lose will go through with their development because the US has proven it is more then willing to skip all other diplomatic measures and go straight to bombing and invasions. Escalation makes everyone more willing to be violent.

Democratization? Contrary to current conventional wisdom, democracy is often imposed, or at least facilitated, by U.S. pressure—in the Philippines, in the Balkans and, yes, in Iraq.

I notice the failures in bringing democracy aren't mention, though. Vietnam, Chile, and, yes, Afghanistan (1980s version) are completely ignored here. So, it would seem that just in six examples there is only a 50/50 chance for US pressure and force bringing about democracy in countries. So, why not use diplomacy first? The force option's always on the table, so why not put it in the back since it will always be there? It's hard to use diplomacy after you shoot someone.

Human rights? Anwar Ibrahim, the beleaguered Malaysian opposition leader, told me last week that "the only country that can stand up" to abusive regimes is the United States. "If they know the administration is taking a soft stance [on human rights], they will go on a rampage."

There's a difference between a soft stance and not immediately going in, guns blazing. I wish I had more time to explicate, but I'm on break and break's ending.