First off I want to congratulate you... and not meaning this in a condescending way... for moving forward on this topic in a real way.
So what is the neocon agenda? I believe their primary agenda is on foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs.
I agree with this, though it should be added that the mechanisms they favor have impacts on nonforeign policy issues.
I don’t believe the full ramifications of 911 are understood by most people, especially in Europe. It changed how many people in the US, the powerful and the not so powerful, view the world. It is a shift in perception. A changed self image of our country. I would consider it a failure on the part of President Bush and the Republican party if the platform had not changed between 2000 and 2004.
Great. Although I disagree with your assessment of what the ramifications are, who they were correctly understood by, and whether Bush should have changed, at least you do have the basis for an interesting discussion on why traditional policies are no longer the accepted ones.
Clearly for you 911 meant that foreign policy itself had been mistaken up to that point, rather than there simply being practical failures within an overall correct strategy.
My inherent reaction to the above would have been to say "so 911 meant that the Dems had been right all along", but you added in some differentiation...
The difference is that these Presidents never went so far as to announce pre-emption as a stated US foreign policy.
I'm going to have to mull over whether than is really enough of a difference to avoid the direct conclusion that 911 proved Dems were right about foreign policy. After all this does not change what the effects are, which is what Reps criticized, and in fact makes the actions mandatory and more frequent which will make the effects that were supposed to be "bad" more frequent.
The neocons have been advocating pre-emptive military force for a long time. I don’t believe there was a sudden rise of the neocons after 911 as you suggest. It’s just that they were in a position to say I-told-you-so regarding the effect of not dealing directly with terrorist threats.
I actually do not see a difference between those two things. All you have done is describe the "why" or "how" they rose after 911. Before 911 they did not have as much power or significance, and after 911 minute portions of what they said appeared to be some sort of revelation they must be right about other things and so Bush put more stock in their way of thinking.
One might note that a lot of people were in a position to say I-told-you-so regarding foreign policy and how we handled terrorism after 911. I think it is a mistake to believe that the neocons were proven right by any stretch of the imagination, and that the resultant abandonment of key principles which we will have incurred to follow their ideas, will prove them wrong in the long run.
You cannot defend against terrorism because you can’t defend at every place at every time against every technique. You have to go after them. You have to take it to them, and that means you have to preempt them.
This is so vague as to be acceptable to just about everyone. I certainly agree that terrorism is so amorphous in its methods and organization that one cannot inherently set out to defend against a terrorist attack.
One can however be prepared to defend against general targets or mechanisms which might be employed. Thus defence should not be abandoned entirely as pointless.
There is also the problem of what "taking it to them" means. There are so many kinds of terrorist orgs and they are usually dispersed over many areas which precludes identifying a place where "the terrorists" are. Thus taking it the fight to them is not so much about attacking a location, but specific entities or organs of any specific organization.
One might note that there are other quotes by Rumsfeld regarding terrorism and asymmetric warfare which were also true and have been abandoned, most especially to argue for new policies and rhetoric. The concept of Iraq being a "front" that can possibly protect us is absurd and wholly inconistent with Rumsfeld's earlier positions (though post 911) on fighting terrorism.
I don’t necessarily like this attitude, its scary especially to those of you on the left, but I am forced to admit Rumsfeld is correct. It is impossible to defend against terrorism. Whether you agree or disagree with the US policy of pre-emptive military action, that policy is going to be around for a long time regardless who occupies the White House.
Once again I am forced to remind you that I am not necessarily "left". Though I certainly have some liberal concepts or leanings, I also have some very standard conservative ones. I have no problems with the military or using it as a mechanism where needed.
I have very little problem with pre-emption if what one is in fact doing is pre-emption. International law recognizes that right of nations.
The problem is you are trying to equate neocon strategies of positioning the US higher than other nations using military force to influence countries as pre-emption. Or should I say you are accepting that cover which was given to Iraq.
Remember it was originally called pre-emption, but before the war even began that had been proven false and was then called pre-pre-emption. I am thoroughly against that. Worse still, it was not attacking the terrorist threat we were facing. One has to be sure to remember that agreement with policy may not be the same as execution. I could agree with everything said about fighting terrorism, then simply point out Iraq has little to nothing to do with that.
While what Rumsfeld said does not scare me, and indeed you may still be able to find the EvC thread where I am debating what is the proper nature of our "taking it to them" (I was for more of a paramilitary/intel/legal approach), I am dismayed and disappointed and disgusted with the "Bush doctrine". I have never seen cowardice advanced as bravery so clearly in a gov't document before.
We would not accept that doctrine to be announced or practiced by anyone else. It does nothing to protect us and instead gives other nations a reason to be afraid of us. Given that our main enemies are terrorists and not nations, that is extra pointless.
Just because neocons were right that we will be attacked by terrorists at some point, did not mean that going into hock to attack nations with no ties to the main terrorist organization threatening us was a good idea. Just because Rumsfeld was accurate that it is hard to predict and so defend against a terrorist organization, does not mean we are allowed to attack any and all countries as we deem that they could become capable of matching our military strength or in some way impede a national interest.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
