Obama the Neocon

Nelson

Registered
Forum Member
Dec 2, 2008
560
0
0
Neoconservatism: The Return
A new incarnation, a new name – and the same old warmongering

by Justin Raimondo, April 01, 2009

It was a neocon moment: there they were, the organizers of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the new neoconservative think-tank – Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Robert Kagan, with Clifford May, Randy Scheunemann, and junior neocon James Kirchick in tow. It was the occasion of FPI’s first public event – their Washington coming out party, so to speak – and who should show up but I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. A more fitting symbol of the neoconservative tendency in American politics – its history, its methods, and its essential criminality – could hardly be conceived.

While John McCain was ostensibly the main attraction, the real focus of the conference was a celebration of the man who defeated him. As David Weigel put it, the FPI conference turned into a "Neocons for Obama" festival, as super-hawkish foreign policy maven Fred Kagan hailed President Obama’s Af-Pak offensive as the best thing since the Iraqi "surge": "He’s definitely saying no to pulling back. It was a gutsy and correct decision." Yet all is not rosy: "Kagan worried/predicted that Obama’s base would bristle at the plan, so ‘he will be counting on some significant amount of support from his political opponents.’"

Not to worry. The brain-dead Obamaites are shamelessly eager to grant their Glorious Leader a pass, no matter what he does. So far, there is not a peep out of Obama’s liberal supporters, except a few voices raised at the Nation, even as the president mounts a major escalation of the Long War. Not only that, but his supporters are rallying around their commander in chief, now that we’re fighting the "right" war in the "right" way. And take a good look at some of his supporters…

FPI is the latest in a long line of neocon front groups, all of them – the Committee on the Present Danger, the Committee for a Free World, the Project for a New American Century [.pdf] – aimed at whipping the country into a militaristic frenzy. There is not only an ideological legacy here, but a genealogical one, as the catalytic role of a member of the Kristol family has always been instrumental in organizing these groups – Irving back in the day, his son William more recently. The one and only aim of this ideological Mafia is to conjure enemies and agitate relentlessly for a more aggressive foreign policy. The neocons may shift from Left to Right and back again when it comes to economic issues, but what they really care about – where their hottest passions lie – is in maintaining and expanding America’s overseas empire.

They are ecstatic that Obama is launching a major offensive on the Afghan-Pakistan front, and they are urging him to do more. Their latest campaign is undertaken in cooperation with the "progressives" over at the Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security, both conduits for recent and future administration appointees.

The Af-Pak popular front means an alliance of convenience between the neocons and the White House, not at all a surprising development if one knows the history of these former Scoop Jackson Democrats turned "conservative" Republicans. They can function quite well no matter which party is in power, and they always have a prominent public forum, no matter how discredited their views are in the public mind. Of one thing we can be sure: the infiltration of the Obama administration has already begun, with Dennis Ross – who signed on to more than one PNAC letter urging war with Iraq – now ensconced as a envoy dealing with Iran.

First on the program, John A. Nagl, the Center for a New American Security’s president. CNAS is enormously influential in the foreign policy councils of the Obama administration, and Nagl is a key figure among the so-called national security Democrats. He is the chief theoretician of the "nation-building" counterinsurgency doctrine espoused by Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the Iraqi "surge" that now is backfiring in our faces.

Nagl is paired with Robert Kagan, a second-generation neocon, co-founder, with Kristol the Younger, of PNAC, and a tireless cog in the War Party’s propaganda machine. The topic under discussion: "Internationalism vs. Isolationism." Yes, the "internationalists" of both parties can put aside their differences and unite against the dreaded isolationists, those fearsome, anti-social troglodytes who insist on minding their own business and wish that the American government would, too.

Moderating this anti-"isolationist" hate-fest was Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor at the Washington Post, a newspaper that serves as the voice and guardian of the bipartisan "internationalism" that rules out any real debate when it comes to foreign policy.

Rep. Jane Harman, noted Democratic hawk and chair of the House intelligence subcommittee, also spoke, alongside Republican John McHugh of New York, who was on the House floor the other day demanding that Congress "ensure the [president's Afghan-Pakistan] strategy is fully funded, resourced, and executed."

It doesn’t matter to these people that the nation is sick of war and near bankruptcy: they live inside the Washington bubble, the Imperial City, where hubris permeates the air. It doesn’t matter how many times the neocons have been repelled, they just keep bouncing back. This is a crew of respected "analysts" and policy wonks that has never been right, not about anything. From their gross overestimation of Soviet military power in the Cold War era, to the "domino theory" that kept us in Vietnam, to their willfully erroneous assumption that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," their foreign policy prognostications leave behind them a trail of uninterrupted error. It is a record unequaled in the history of ideas, yet the neocons’ influence, while it is currently waning, never disappears altogether. The neocons always make a comeback, and a well-funded one to be sure.

The innocuous-sounding Foreign Policy Initiative is just the sort of camouflage the neocons need in the age of Obama: no more proclamations of a "New American Century," but rather more sober-sounding, "pragmatic" slogans. Together with their newfound liberal and "progressive" allies, they beat the drums for more military spending, a rising confrontation with Russia, and, of course, a showdown with Iran.

Having exhausted their previous host, the GOP, the neocons have no qualms about moving on. The Democrats will do just as well. Whoever’s in power is the object of their affection. Their role is to whisper in the ear of the prince, to make sure he gets the "right" information – and then sabotage him if he fails to respond to their ministrations.

As the neocons hail Obama, their new conquering hero, the irony of all this underscores the difficulties of instituting real change in our foreign policy. The same old faces turn up no matter which party is in power, and the same old ideas – shopworn "internationalist" bromides – dominate a consensus that never questions whether an empire is good for the American people.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/03/31/neoconservatism-the-return/
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
65
Syracuse ny, usa
It's just wrong, very few of his supporters have something to say about this..... I think he's dead wrong. Said as much in the controlling the message, DTB thread... Not my idea but someone said that great leaders are not born, they have to be formed, pushed not by their opposition but by their closest supporters and allies..... LOYALISM DOES NOT WORK ...
 

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,858
1,249
113
usa
Neoconservatism: The Return
A new incarnation, a new name ? and the same old warmongering

by Justin Raimondo, April 01, 2009

It was a neocon moment: there they were, the organizers of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the new neoconservative think-tank ? Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Robert Kagan, with Clifford May, Randy Scheunemann, and junior neocon James Kirchick in tow. It was the occasion of FPI?s first public event ? their Washington coming out party, so to speak ? and who should show up but I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. A more fitting symbol of the neoconservative tendency in American politics ? its history, its methods, and its essential criminality ? could hardly be conceived.

While John McCain was ostensibly the main attraction, the real focus of the conference was a celebration of the man who defeated him. As David Weigel put it, the FPI conference turned into a "Neocons for Obama" festival, as super-hawkish foreign policy maven Fred Kagan hailed President Obama?s Af-Pak offensive as the best thing since the Iraqi "surge": "He?s definitely saying no to pulling back. It was a gutsy and correct decision." Yet all is not rosy: "Kagan worried/predicted that Obama?s base would bristle at the plan, so ?he will be counting on some significant amount of support from his political opponents.?"

Not to worry. The brain-dead Obamaites are shamelessly eager to grant their Glorious Leader a pass, no matter what he does. So far, there is not a peep out of Obama?s liberal supporters, except a few voices raised at the Nation, even as the president mounts a major escalation of the Long War. Not only that, but his supporters are rallying around their commander in chief, now that we?re fighting the "right" war in the "right" way. And take a good look at some of his supporters?

FPI is the latest in a long line of neocon front groups, all of them ? the Committee on the Present Danger, the Committee for a Free World, the Project for a New American Century [.pdf] ? aimed at whipping the country into a militaristic frenzy. There is not only an ideological legacy here, but a genealogical one, as the catalytic role of a member of the Kristol family has always been instrumental in organizing these groups ? Irving back in the day, his son William more recently. The one and only aim of this ideological Mafia is to conjure enemies and agitate relentlessly for a more aggressive foreign policy. The neocons may shift from Left to Right and back again when it comes to economic issues, but what they really care about ? where their hottest passions lie ? is in maintaining and expanding America?s overseas empire.

They are ecstatic that Obama is launching a major offensive on the Afghan-Pakistan front, and they are urging him to do more. Their latest campaign is undertaken in cooperation with the "progressives" over at the Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security, both conduits for recent and future administration appointees.

The Af-Pak popular front means an alliance of convenience between the neocons and the White House, not at all a surprising development if one knows the history of these former Scoop Jackson Democrats turned "conservative" Republicans. They can function quite well no matter which party is in power, and they always have a prominent public forum, no matter how discredited their views are in the public mind. Of one thing we can be sure: the infiltration of the Obama administration has already begun, with Dennis Ross ? who signed on to more than one PNAC letter urging war with Iraq ? now ensconced as a envoy dealing with Iran.

First on the program, John A. Nagl, the Center for a New American Security?s president. CNAS is enormously influential in the foreign policy councils of the Obama administration, and Nagl is a key figure among the so-called national security Democrats. He is the chief theoretician of the "nation-building" counterinsurgency doctrine espoused by Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the Iraqi "surge" that now is backfiring in our faces.

Nagl is paired with Robert Kagan, a second-generation neocon, co-founder, with Kristol the Younger, of PNAC, and a tireless cog in the War Party?s propaganda machine. The topic under discussion: "Internationalism vs. Isolationism." Yes, the "internationalists" of both parties can put aside their differences and unite against the dreaded isolationists, those fearsome, anti-social troglodytes who insist on minding their own business and wish that the American government would, too.

Moderating this anti-"isolationist" hate-fest was Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor at the Washington Post, a newspaper that serves as the voice and guardian of the bipartisan "internationalism" that rules out any real debate when it comes to foreign policy.

Rep. Jane Harman, noted Democratic hawk and chair of the House intelligence subcommittee, also spoke, alongside Republican John McHugh of New York, who was on the House floor the other day demanding that Congress "ensure the [president's Afghan-Pakistan] strategy is fully funded, resourced, and executed."

It doesn?t matter to these people that the nation is sick of war and near bankruptcy: they live inside the Washington bubble, the Imperial City, where hubris permeates the air. It doesn?t matter how many times the neocons have been repelled, they just keep bouncing back. This is a crew of respected "analysts" and policy wonks that has never been right, not about anything. From their gross overestimation of Soviet military power in the Cold War era, to the "domino theory" that kept us in Vietnam, to their willfully erroneous assumption that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," their foreign policy prognostications leave behind them a trail of uninterrupted error. It is a record unequaled in the history of ideas, yet the neocons? influence, while it is currently waning, never disappears altogether. The neocons always make a comeback, and a well-funded one to be sure.

The innocuous-sounding Foreign Policy Initiative is just the sort of camouflage the neocons need in the age of Obama: no more proclamations of a "New American Century," but rather more sober-sounding, "pragmatic" slogans. Together with their newfound liberal and "progressive" allies, they beat the drums for more military spending, a rising confrontation with Russia, and, of course, a showdown with Iran.

Having exhausted their previous host, the GOP, the neocons have no qualms about moving on. The Democrats will do just as well. Whoever?s in power is the object of their affection. Their role is to whisper in the ear of the prince, to make sure he gets the "right" information ? and then sabotage him if he fails to respond to their ministrations.

As the neocons hail Obama, their new conquering hero, the irony of all this underscores the difficulties of instituting real change in our foreign policy. The same old faces turn up no matter which party is in power, and the same old ideas ? shopworn "internationalist" bromides ? dominate a consensus that never questions whether an empire is good for the American people.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/03/31/neoconservatism-the-return/



sound about right
 

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,858
1,249
113
usa
More than anything else, business needs a predictable environment if it is to create jobs. Changes in the regulatory environment and the tax code make it almost impossible for businesses to make investments.

Yet President Obama seems to ignore this reality. Each day's news brings another bold and far-reaching proposal to change the fundamentals of the US economy. And each time he indulges his personal ideology with such a pronouncement, businesses all over the world cut back on their planned investment until the dust settles.



Most incredible was the fact that he chose the middle of a deep recession to announce a major tax-code overhaul.

Stressing how far-reaching the changes might be, he appointed a commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to report back by early December on what the changes should be.

Assuming Obama will need several months to figure out which of its recommendations to adopt and Congress will take several more months to enact its own version, the announcement effectively leaves business up in the air for at least 12 more months -- uncertain of the tax consequences of any potential investment.

Who in their right mind is going to invest significantly in new plant, equipment, services, personnel or anything else? How can you consider doing so, when you can't know how the tax code might penalize you?

And, in the same week, Obama announced that he'd seek to regulate nonbank institutions, including those he deems to be "too big to fail" lest their collapse injure the economy. Which businesses will be included? Nobody knows.

We may not know even when the law is passed. As companies grow or merge or acquire one another, they may step over the invisible line and become "too big," and thus subject to Obama's regulation.

How can a firm plan on expansion without knowing what increment in its size will attract regulatory scrutiny? It's hard enough to anticipate possible anti-trust complications -- and the Justice Department is at least usually willing to consult before any merger on what its attitude will be. Obama's leaving everybody guessing.

Growth demands investment, and investment demands stability. So the more Obama stirs the pot with his proposals and potential changes, the more he retards exactly the investment he needs to get the economy moving again.

At least Obama has toned down his rhetoric, no longer echoing JFK's comment that "all businessmen are SOBs." But his actions do more than his words ever did to hobble any recovery.

So why insist on pushing these "reforms" now? Because, while it might be wiser to wait until after the economy's out of recession, it may then become politically impossible to get them through Congress.

So he's determined to use the sense of panic to enact his changes now.

Again, he's putting his ideological agenda ahead of the requisites of national economic recovery. We needed a pragmatic pilot; we elected an ideologue instead.
 

Nelson

Registered
Forum Member
Dec 2, 2008
560
0
0
It's just wrong, very few of his supporters have something to say about this..... I think he's dead wrong. Said as much in the controlling the message, DTB thread... Not my idea but someone said that great leaders are not born, they have to be formed, pushed not by their opposition but by their closest supporters and allies..... LOYALISM DOES NOT WORK ...

I'm not sure what you're saying. The point of this article, to me, is that you can vote until you're blue in the face but the same inside crew is going to control the government and run it for its own profit and advantage.
 

Nelson

Registered
Forum Member
Dec 2, 2008
560
0
0
Another War Lost?

by William S. Lind

With the usual fanfare, the Obama administration has proclaimed a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. On the surface, it does not amount to much. But if a story by Bill Gertz in the March 26 Washington Times is correct, there is more to it than meets the eye. Gertz reported that

The Obama administration has conducted a vigorous internal debate over its new strategy for Afghanistan…

* According to two U.S. government sources close to the issue, senior policymakers were divided over how comprehensive to make the strategy…
* On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan…
* The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.
* The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort.
* The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state.

I have not seen similar stories in other papers, so it is possible Gertz is not correct. But if he is, the Obama administration has just made the Afghan war its own, and lost it.

Ironically, the reported decision duplicates the Bush administration’s error in Iraq, another lost war (the next phase in Iraq’s Sunni-Shiite civil war is now ramping up). The error, one that no tactical or operational successes can overcome, is setting unattainable strategic objectives.

Short of divine intervention, nothing can turn Afghanistan into a modern, prosperous, democratic state. Pigs will not only fly, they will win dogfights with F-15s before that happens. The most Afghanistan can ever be is Afghanistan: a poor, backward country, one where the state is weak and local warlords are strong, plagued with a drug-based economy and endemic low-level civil war. That is Afghanistan at its best. Just achieving that would be difficult for an occupying foreign power, whose presence assures that war will not be low-level and that no settlement will be long-term.

In fact, even the minimalist objectives reportedly urged by Vice President Biden are not attainable. We cannot deny safe haven in Afghanistan for the Taliban, because the Taliban are Afghans. They represent a substantial portion of the Pashtun population. The most we can hope to obtain in a settlement of the Afghan war is the exclusion of al Qaeda. That is a realistic strategic objective, because al Qaeda is made up of Arabs, i.e. foreigners, whom the Afghans dislike the same way they dislike other foreigners. The Taliban’s commitment to al Qaeda is ideological, and the right combination of incentives can usually break ideological commitments.

Instead of a pragmatic, realistic approach to attaining that limited objective, it seems we are committed to a Quixotic quest for the unattainable. Again, that guarantees we will lose the Afghan war. No means, military or non-military, can obtain the unattainable. The circle cannot be squared.

Here we see how little "change" the Obama administration really represents. The differences between the neo-liberals and the neo-cons are few. Both are militant believers in Brave New World, a Globalist future in which everyone on earth becomes modern. In the view of these ideologues, the fact that billions of people are willing to fight to the death against modernity is, like the river Pregel, an unimportant military obstacle. We just need to buy more Predators.

Meanwhile, the money is running out. The ancien regime syndrome looms ever larger: we not only maintain but increase foolish foreign commitments, at the same time that debt is piling up, those willing to lend become fewer and we are reduced to debasing the currency. Historians have seen it all before, many, many times. It never has a happy ending.

It appears Afghanistan will be the graveyard of yet another empire.

April 1, 2009

William Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top