August 12, 2011, 4:13 AM
| Comments (14) | | |
 |
| |  |
Over the past several months, a certain intolerance has crept into the rhetoric of leading neoconservative publications and writers. This intolerance has become particularly noticeable since February's neoconservative-supported overthrow of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and US President Barack Obama's neoconservative-supported decision to commit US forces to battle against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in March.
The basic concept being propounded by leading neoconservative writers and publications is that anyone who disagrees with neoconservative policies is an isolationist. A notable recent example of this tendency was a blog post published on Wednesday by Commentary Magazine's Executive Editor Jonathan Tobin regarding the emerging contours of Texas Governor Rick Perry's foreign policy views.
After listing various former Bush administration officials who are advising Perry on foreign affairs, Tobin concluded, "Perry might have more in common with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party than the isolationists."
While this is may be true, it is certainly true that the neoconservatives and the isolationists are not the only foreign policy wings in the Republican Party. Indeed, most Republicans are neither isolationists nor neoconservatives.
Isolationism broadly speaking is the notion that the US is better off withdrawing to fortress America and leaving the rest of the world's nations to fight it out among themselves. The isolationist impulse in the US is what caused the US to enter both world wars years after they began. It is what has propelled much of the anti-war sentiment on the far Left and the far Right alike since Sept.11. The far Left argues the US should withdraw from world leadership because the US is evil. And the far Right argues that the US should withdraw from world leadership because the world is evil.
Neoconservatism broadly speaking involves the adoption of a muscular US foreign policy in order to advance the cause of democracy and freedom worldwide. Wilsonian in its view of the universal nature of the human impulse to freedom, neoconservatives in recent years have wholeheartedly embraced the notion that if given a chance to make their sentiments known, most people will choose liberal democracy over any other form of government.
Former President George W. Bush is widely viewed as the first neoconservative president, due to his wholehearted embrace of this core concept of neoconservativism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Aside from their belief that if given the choice people will choose to be free, neoconservatives argue the more democratic governments there are, the safer the world will be and the safer the US will be. Therefore, broadly speaking, neoconservatives argue that the US should always side with populist forces against dictatorships.
While these ideas may be correct in theory, in practice the consequence of Bush's adoption of the neoconservative worldview was the empowerment of populist and popular jihadists and Iranian allies throughout the Middle East at the expense of US allies. Hamas won the Palestinian Authority elections in 2006. Its electoral victory paved the way for its military takeover of Gaza in 2007.
Hezbollah's participation in Lebanon's 2005 elections enabled the Iranian proxy army to hijack the Lebanese government in 2006, and violently takeover the Lebanese government in 2009.
The Muslim Brotherhood's successful parliamentary run in Egypt in 2005 strengthened the radical, anti-American, jihadist group and weakened Mubarak.
And the election of Iranian-influenced Iraqi political leaders in Iraq in 2005 exacerbated the trend of Iranian predominance in post-Saddam Iraq. It also served to instigate a gradual estrangement of Saudi Arabia from the US.
THE NEOCONSERVATIVE preference for populist forces over authoritarian ones propelled leading neoconservative thinkers and former Bush administration officials to enthusiastically support the anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo in January. And their criticism of Obama for not immediately joining the protesters and calling for Mubarak's removal from power was instrumental in convincing Obama to abandon Mubarak.
Between those who predicted a flowering liberal democracy in a post-Mubarak Egypt and those who predicted the empowerment of radical, Muslim Brotherhood aligned forces in a post-Mubarak Egypt, it is clear today that the latter were correct. Moreover, we see that the US's abandonment of its closest ally in the Arab world has all but destroyed the US's reputation as a credible, trustworthy ally throughout the region. In the wake of Mubarak's ouster, the Saudis have effectively ended their strategic alliance with the US and are seeking to replace the US with China, Russia and India.
In a similar fashion, the neoconservatives were quick to support Obama's decision to use military force to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power in March. The fact that unlike Syria's Bashar Assad and Iran's ayatollahs, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear proliferation program in 2004 was of no importance. The fact that from the outset there was evidence that al-Qaeda terrorists are members of the US-supported Libyan opposition, similarly made little impact on the neoconservatives who supported Obama's decision to set conditions that would enable "democracy" to take root in Libya. The fact that the US has no clear national interest at stake in Libya was brushed aside. The fact that Obama lacked Congressional sanction for committing US troops to battle was also largely ignored.
Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists. In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
The very notion that robust internationalists like Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that, "You're either with us or you're with the Buchanaites."
In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in the National Interest entitled, "The Jacksonian Tradition," the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model.
According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.
THE US PRESIDENT that hewed closest to these basic guidelines in recent times was former president Ronald Reagan. Popular perception that Reagan was acting in accordance with Jacksonian foreign policy principles is what kept the public support for Reagan high even as the liberal media depicted his foreign policy as simplistic and dangerous.
For instance, Reagan fought Soviet influence in Central America everywhere he could and with whomever he could find. Regan exploited every opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union in Europe. He worked with the Vatican in Poland. He deployed Pershing short-range nuclear warheads in Western Europe. He called the Soviet Union an evil empire. He began developing the Strategic Defense Initiative. And he walked away from an arms control agreement when he decided it was a bad deal for the US.
Throughout his presidency, Reagan never shied away from trumpeting American values. To the contrary, he did so regularly. However, unlike the neoconservatives, Reagan recognized that advancing those values themselves could not replace the entirety of US foreign policy. Indeed, he realized that the very notion that values trumped all represented a fundamental misunderstanding of US interests and the nature and limits of US power.
If a Jacksonian president were in charge of US foreign policy, he or she would understand that supporting elections that are likely to bring a terror group like Hamas or Hezbollah into power is not an American interest.
He or she would understand that toppling a pro-American dictator like Mubarak in favor of a mob is not sound policy if the move is likely to bring an anti-American authoritarian successor regime to power.
A Jacksonian president would understand that using US power to overthrow a largely neutered US foe like Gaddafi in favor of a suspect opposition movement is not a judicious use of US power. Indeed, a Jacksonian president would recognize that it would be far better to expend the US's power to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad -- an open and active foe of the US and so influence the identity of a post-Assad government.
For all the deficiencies of the neoconservative worldview, at least the neoconservatives act out of a deep-seated belief that the US as a force for good in the world and out of concern for maintaining America's role as the leader of the free world. In stark contrast, Obama's foreign policy is based on a fundamental anti-American view of the US and a desire to end the US's role as the leading world power. And the impact of Obama's foreign policy on US and global security has been devastating.
From Europe to Asia to Russia to Latin America to the Middle East and Africa, Obama has weakened the US and turned on its allies. He has purposely strengthened US adversaries worldwide as part of an overall strategy of divesting an unworthy America from its role as world leader. He has empowered the anti-American UN to replace the US as the arbiter of US foreign policy. And so, absent the American sheriff, US adversaries from the Taliban to Vladimir Putin to Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are empowered to attack America and its allies.
In the coming months, Republican primary voters will choose their party's candidate to challenge Obama in next year's presidential elections. With all the failings of the neoconservative foreign policy model, it is clear that Obama's foreign policy has been far more devastating for US and global security.
Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying the Republican presidential nominee was forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (14) | | |
|
Caroline, you've surpassed yourself with this assessment of US affairs viv a vis the world. What is most worrisome is the Republican party's failure until now to put forward a strong candidate to hopefully forestall Obama's reelection which together with his coterie of advisers would be a travesty for the US. Time is of the essence as disastrous decisions in the US will affect the world. Shabbat shalom.
Trying to put the blame of the US foreign policy failure entirely on one school of thinking is futile. 1°) It is evident from its sheer size that the USA are a world power.Therefore world involvement is not only required by intelligent US policy-makers but are clearly imposed upon the USA by its mere presence, the size of its economy 2°) It is futile to assign to Jacksonian school of thinking all the success. 3°) Some very big blunders have been made by the neocons , and the Iraqi quagmire is one of them, By ignoring the function of a Sunni Iraq as a barrier against shiite expansion, the USA have strengthened Iran expansion all over the middle east.It seems the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the invasion were partially engineered by listening to the web of lies that Ahmed Chalabi planted among the neocons circles.The most flagrant lie is that a populist regime ( without explaining who will dominate it ) is much better for western interest than a despotic regime.The bottom line as who will dominate the post-saddam Iraq has never been fully explored. It was wishful thinking to pretend that democracy and free market ( Paul Bremer credo) alone would cure all the arab mind pathologies.It was wishful thinking to ignore that iraqi shiites would seek revenge from 30 years of sunni oppression.It was wishful thinking to ignore that Iran would be extremely pleased with a unified Iraq under a shiite domination.It was wishful thinking to ignore that 140,000 US soldiers would be very insufficient to pacify a 22 million inhabitants country like Iraq.3°)The future of Iraq looks bleak ,As soon as the US soldiers will exit the iranians will step in forcefully, Iraq will open a highway to Iranian arms and even armies towards the next confrontation with Israel.The russians and chinese will step in to exploit the oil fields etc..The kurds in the north will again feel stranded and under the military pressure of Turkey.4°) President Bush-Dick Cheney-Runsfeld engineered a a very partial strategy, whisfully thinking that " democracy " would expand " naturally " into the mid-east following the Iraqi conquest. Wishful thinking again because they engineered a PARTIAL strategy -focused on Iraq - ignoring the other member of the Evil Axis ( Iran +Syria) and quickly renounced to implement it against the other targets.So the neocon strategy was badly conceived, and was lacking follow-through and means.4°) The current President is evidently much more inept than the previous one but that does not give an excuse to the neocons blunders.5°) Since 1982 ( the hezbollah's killing of 200 US marines in Beyrouth) there has been a continuous challenge by Iran and its proxies to show to the rest of the muslim world who is the champion of war against the USA.Actually it was a dual challenge between the shiite terror and the sunni terror ( Bin Laden ) to gain the blood contest.In this matter it would have much wiser for the USA to concentrate on the the stronger of those two evils; in my opinion the shiite terror has always concentrated on the mid-east area therefore endangering the pro-western despots and of course Israel, while the sunni terror of Bin Laden was mainly a looser network trying to expand a worldwide web of terror ( Kenya, New York , Bali, Madrid,London, etc.. bombings ) which were set to inspire muslim communities at large , but not more.Actually the Bin Laden network failed to inspire the muslims at large and survived only in remote corners like Somalia and Sahara .If you accept that the middle east area and its balance of power is the center, the crucial knot and that the rest (the aisles of Afghanistan-Pakistan, ) is less urgent then it would have been clearer to confront the shiite surge, and concentrate on Iran, and its proxies in a first stage.In the matter of Afghanistan-Pakistan, it has been obvious to many that Pakistan was playing a double game since the soviet defeat , and it has been a futile waste of time from all the US president to please the pakistan rulers.Not to mention that Pakistan is a proven purveyor of nuclear arm technology to Iran. This was exactly what the USA called dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. But the US and GB preferred to ignore it instead concentrating on framing Saddam's Iraq of such crime.5°) The next president should be aware that the two previous US administrations have totally missed the point of the shiite surge and should correct their effort towards confronting the real danger of shiite expansion inside the middle east (mashrek area).6°) With such a list of errors, blunders, failed analysis, ignorance of the mideast history it is very hard to imagine that the next administration will be knowledgeable, brighter,more courageous, more clever than ALL the previous ones since 1991 ( George Bush father ).
Caroline, thanks for your sober and insightful analysis. Many of our neoconservative writers threw caution to the wind when it came to the Arab Spring. They enthusiastically endorsed Obama's meddling into Egypt that led to Mubarak's downfall, and the intervention into Libya. These nebulous opposition groups were embraced, solely because they supported democratic reform, even though many of these groups were infiltrated by Islamists.
The Obama foreign policy is a cork being tossed by the waves. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It is surprising that many of these neoconservatives with rose-colored glasses embraced elements of this dangerous foreign policy. This foreign policy has alienated our allies and emboldened our enemies. Obama refused to meddle into the internal affairs of Iran during the uprising. His administration saw Assad of Syria as a "reformer", not the Iranian lapdog.
Last night at the Republican Debates, the candidates represented the spectrum: neoconservative, Jacksonian, and isolationist positions in regards to foreign policy. One of the most insane comments was made by Ron Paul, the isolationist. He wasn't concerned if Iran developed nuclear capabilities. The only reason he got applause is because he has a cult following like the Grateful Dead. Thankfully, Michele Bachmann gave a good retort to that craziness.
"He or she would understand that toppling a pro-American dictator like Mubarak in favor of a mob is not sound policy if the move is likely to bring an anti-American authoritarian successor regime to power."
Mubarak was a Franco-style authoritarian ruler rather than dictator (that's why he didn't butcher his people, the way Asad is doing now); what's more than likely to ultimately replace his rule is a regime much closer to a total autocracy, if not an outright Iran-style Islamic dictatorship.
this sentence appears logically incoherent could you please clarify; "The isolationist impulse in the US is what caused the US to enter both world wars years after they began."
WOW MS GLICK, How can it be that you can possess the insight lacking of the entire US media. Watch your back. Obamao has some very dangerous backers.
'From Europe to Asia to Russia to Latin America to the Middle East and Africa, Obama has weakened the US and turned on its allies.'
A repeat of recent history when another fool,P.M. Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich with a 'peace in our time' agreement on paper.
The UN Security Council resolution 1929 June 10th of last year was never implemented because Iran made it clear that boarding one of their ships would be seen as an act of war.
We are on a razor thin wire and the slightest burp will easily lead us into WWIII and nuclear conflagration.
Something is going to set off this ticking time bomb,everything seems to be coming together for a September/October window.
Iran is eager for revenge after the latest assassination of one of their nuclear scientist and the Stuxnet cyber attack.
I am paying attention and watching closely the 10 year anniversary of 9/11/2001 in the month of 9/11.
I think we're going to be unprepared with the next major Islamic(Iran) terrorist attack as we were before.
The corrupt,broken,incompetent system will fail us again.
Incompetence and stupidity are rewarded as Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder will tell you.
Don't compare the Iranian Madhi Muslims with a western mindset.This crowd wants a global conflagration and they smell weakness with not one of their ships boarded 14 months after U.N. resolution 1929,especially as they watch the impotent West in Libya and it's impotence with Syria's Assad and his five months of murder n' mayhem in the streets.
It's not hard to see that the pot on the stove is about to boil over,especially with Amadinejad's open plan and great desire for Israel.
That would be the perfect,most desirable distraction for the whole Arab and Islamic world.
Caroline,
I enjoy your posts very much, but I am completely puzzled by this one. I understand that the language is sometimes confusing, since modern "conservatives" are often closer to classical liberals than are modern "liberals." But, really, the cognative dissonance is too great. My mind won't compute. I can not conceive of Obama the modern "conservative".
Let me give an example which I believe counters your argument that Obama is similar to a neocon. If Obama is acting primarily to advance human freedom, individual rights, and free elections, why did he take the side of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, when he tried to circumvent their constitution?
I can think of other reasons than "conservativism" to explain why Obama's behavior. I understand that in Egypt, when Obama spoke there just after his inaugeration, he insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood (which was outlawed in Egypt)must be there. He apparently wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to be part of the Egyptian government. Perhaps, Obama believes in the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas.
Whether Obama is really a Christin or a Muslim within his mind, only he can know for sure. What we do know is that he has identified with his father, who came from a prominent Muslim family in Kenya. Obama has tried to convince the Muslims that he is on their side, even if he is not openly Muslim, at this time. Another factor which needs to be considered is African tribalism. Obama has been a factor in the tribal conflict, between his, tribe, the Luo, and the government of Kenya, dominated by the Kikuyu tribe.
In Lybia, Obama says he is "leading from behind." In other words, he is there because the UN wanted to go to war with Lybia, and Obama believes that the United States should be submissive to the UN. His actions do not necessarily indicate that Obama has an ideological commitment to the rebel cause.
My point is that I'm not convinced that it is possible to place Obama into one of the categories which we usually use to explain people's behavior. I think that people who wish to understand Obama's behavior need to remember that his background is much different than traditional America or Europe. That is why, for me, when you label him a "conservative" is simply does not compute.
"And the far Right argues that the US should withdraw from world leadership because the world is evil."
Not evil. Merely not our business. And frankly, for the most part rather ungrateful for the good we have done (Israel being by and large an exception to that rule). God knows we're not perfect, but I think overall we've still done more good than harm, and yet everyone constantly magnifies the bad and belittles or ignores the good. I would have thought that a Jew and/or an Israeli of all people would be able to understand how discouraging such a thing could be.
The latest report on Mubarak is that he is flat on his back awaiting a show trial. There are persistant reports that he is critically ill.
Unless you can reliably dispel the idea that Mubarak is unfit to act as some kind of leader in Egypt, then your whole thesis about the US's failed policy with Egypt is completely unhinged. If Mubarak cannot act as a power in Egypt because he is too sick to do it, there is nothing to support and the whole idea that anyone has abandoned him is utter fiction. How can Mubarak be abandoned if there is no Mubarak? And furthermore, what was the future of supporting Mubarak, if he is bound to die some day anyway? The man is 82 years old. It was better to deal with the inevitable when we had a handle on it instead of now when we clearly don't. Which is not to say that the Obama administration has anything in the US's interests in any of its Middle Eastern foreign policy. But it's too late now and pointing the finger at anyone doing anything now outside of some old anticipation is an empty exercise.
Those taking over Egypt need the myth of a vital dictator as much as anyone. If Mubarak is a feeble old man unable to rule and nobody to follow him, then their revolution is equally as feeble and unmotivated. Opportunism is an equal opportunity employer.
I also disagree that isolationism is what got the US into WWII late. Isolationism is what gave us WWII altogether. Germany should have been contained the minute we knew they were building up their military and we should never have ignored Japan's ambitions.
What an amazing summation of our disjointed and destructive foreign policy for the past decade. Buzz words like neoconservatism, idealism, and isolationism get thrown around a lot, especially during our seemingly never-ending political campaigns. Your column really helped me understand these terms and I will try to use what I have learned when I evaluate the legion of Republican and other candidates for president. It's too bad your column is not required reading for them. I can't help thinking that I was fortunate enough to read the column in an email and that it was originally published in the Jerusalem Post. I read many U.S. newspapers and periodicals each day and rarely have I encountered such clear and informative writing. Many thanks, Caroline.
Caroline,
It is clear that Obama is working against the principles of what made America "great". The big question is, is he doing it of himself, or is somebody backing him (using him as a puppet of sorts), and for what nefarious purpose? Clearly there is a lot going on in this world that is not visible to the naked eye.
As usual a thought provoking article!
In addition to echoing "Marcel", I'd like to add that it appears on the surface the current American President is either intentionally or through an amazing lack of common sense setting America up for a fall.
It used to appear that he simply resented the class and power of traditional European allies and of course Israel. I now see his actions appear to direct the downfall of the last remaining Super Power. A global leveling of the field, save for his own.
Like the mob in the streets of London, Israel or Egypt, except his mob is covert and institutional. "Power to the People", isn't that the old Chicago street level activist call?
Caroline Glick is a good writer and thinker about geopolitical issues, but she is no Navi. A real Navi is able to interpret current day events and apply counsel and diretion to what should unfold. She raises an interesting point in this article about the correctness of certain worldviews. Without the correct frame of reference all political, economic and social models are flawed. She should consider the following questions...
What is the divinely mandated vision for the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Holy Land and Middle East ?
Is the Twelfth Article of Faith real ?
Is violence innate ?
Is the universe stable, ordered, benevolent and expansive ?
Can the GDP of Planet Earth with a population of 7 billion reach $485 Trillion by 2050 ?
What is the current GDP of the State of Israel; Judea and Samaria/The West Bank; Gaza; Lebanon; Egypt; Syria; Jordan and Saudi Arabia ?
What does the term “sovereignty” really mean ?