[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Neo-Confusion Reigns In The Republican Party I recently wrote of how the so-called “Minnesota Twins” are helping to fuel the movement to have our governor enter the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. That’s not all Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty are doing. The current congresswoman and former governor also are combining to finish off — once and for all — that theory of foreign policy known as “neoconservatism.” The theory reached its zenith with George W. Bush’s declaration, during his second inaugural address, that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” No one has ever expressed the core belief of the neoconservatives better. Yet few of them really believe it. When the people of Egypt ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak, the neocons rose virtually as one to blast President Obama for failing to prop up our longtime ally. And consider the neocon line on the present-day popular rebellion in Syria. There isn’t one. The Assad regime may be dreadful, but the popular will of the Syrian people could turn out to be even worse for the interests of America and its allies than the continuation of that tyranny. But that is not the biggest flaw in the profoundly misnamed “neo” conservative philosophy. The biggest flaw is that the sort of micromanagement of foreign relations it requires cannot be carried out by those naive enough to still believe in it. Consider the gaffe Pawlenty committed recently when asked by a reporter about his views on Iran. “Yeah, well, I think the situation now in Iran is such that Secretary Gates is negotiating whether the United States military will be there beyond the end of this year,” he said. “And they’re looking to the Iranians to see if they invite the Americans to stay, invite us to stay.” When the reporter pointed out that the country where we have troops is Iraq, not Iran, Pawlenty responded, “I’m sorry, Iraq, yes, yes. You said, did you say Iran or Iraq?” As for Bachmann, she has proven herself equally ignorant of the most basic facts about the Mideast. Back in 2007, she went on TV to give one of those stream-of-consciousness rants for which she is famous. “Iran is the troublemaker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out,” she said. “And you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq.” Anyone who knows anything about the region knows the last thing the Iranian Shia would want to do is carve out a chunk of Iraq for their Sunni rivals. Yet there was Bachmann insisting that “half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called the Iraq State of Islam, something like that.” In the old days of the Grand Old Party, the author of such gaffes would never have made it out of Minnesota. But these two are top contenders. You can see why Chris Christie keeps getting calls. Last time around, the only candidate questioning the neocon verities was Texas congressman Ron Paul. But when former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman joined the race the other day, he came down on the same side of the debate as the man who was ostracized as a heretic four years ago. The mainstream candidates have assailed President Obama for announcing plans to pull out troops, but Huntsman said he would “definitely get our troops out faster” from Afghanistan than Obama is planning to do. That got Huntsman slammed by unsuccessful 2008 GOP presidential nominee John McCain for failing to recognize that “we are the world’s leader.” Back in ’08, however, McCain failed to recognize just who was fighting whom in Iraq. His gaffes in that regard were as bad as Bachmann’s and Pawlenty’s. Huntsman is a minor candidate, but he’s not a stupid candidate — or a poor candidate. If a well-funded candidate like Huntsman figures the winning position to take in this race is to reject the neocon orthodoxy, then you can safely assume that so-called “neo” conservatism is getting old. And you can also assume the Republican primary debate on foreign policy is going to have two sides to it this time around.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Brian S, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#0)
Iraq, Iran it's all the same to the neo-libs and neo-cons. They want to conquer the world, and kill people. That's why they like democracy, the minority always end up getting killed by the majority.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|