Dubstepforum.com

I've just finished a book called "The War Over Iraq" written by a couple of right-wing journalists (one of them works for Fox News). I decided to read it just to inform myself of exactly where these crazy neo-cons are coming from. Almost every page filled me with rage, these guys live in some kind of alternate reality. Below is a quote from the book. Believe me there is plenty, plenty more where that came from.

*************

What upholds today's world order is America's benevolent influence - nurtured, to be sure, by American power, but also by emulation and the recognition around the world that American ideals are genuinely universal. Were we - through humility, self abnegation or a narrow conception of the national interest - to retreat from the position that history has bequeathed us, the turmoil that would soon fall would surely reach our shores.

A humane future, then, will require an American foreign policy that is unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well funded. America must not only be the world's policeman, it must be its beacon and guide. The alternative to the American leadership is a chaotic world where there is no authority to thwart aggression, ensure peace and security or enforce international norms. It is shortsighted to imagine that a policy of humility is either safer or less expensive than a policy that aims to preclude and deter the emergence of new threats, that has the United States arriving quickly at the scene of potential trouble before it has fully erupted, that addresses threats to the national interest before they develop into full blown crises. Senator K. Bailey Hutchison expressed the common but mistaken view when she wrote a few years ago that "a superpower is more credible and effective when it maintains a measured distance from all regional conflicts". In fact, this is precisely the way for a superpower to cease being a superpower. The message we should be sending to potential foes is: "Don't even think about it".

The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there. Were the United States to retreat after victory into complacency and self-absorption, as it did at the last time it went to war in Iraq, new dangers would soon arise. Preventing this outcome will be a burden, of which the war in Iraq represents but the first instalment. But America cannot escape its responsibility for maintaining a decent world order. The answer to this challenge is the American idea itself, and behind it the unparalleled military and economic strength of its custodian. Duly armed, the United States can act to secure its safety and to advance the cause of liberty - in Baghdad and beyond.

Quote from "The War over Iraq" by Kaplan and Kristol

***********

It's more the way they phrase stuff and the American angle than the actual content, isn't it though? Most Brits are rabid anti-Americans, and this Kristol et al play right into that, but the notion of US foreign policy actually having a moral dimension is quite novel actually, and infinitely preferable to what has gone before.

Once you get your head round the American primacy stuff it's not really that bad, especially if you consider the most realistic alternative would be Chinese primacy or some kind of US/Chinese political and economic stand off. Now that would be scary.

I'm not sure. Saudi Arabia, for example, where America has trained and armed a brutal state police who's job it is to crush any dissent against the non-elected government. Not much morality there, but plenty oil contracts that benifit US companies.

Yeah but that's not a neo-con policy, that's what the US has done for decades.

you know, by your standard, almost americans are "rabidly" anti-american as well.

Paulie

It can be argued that the neo-conservative agenda has underpinned "what the US has done for decades"; it's not a new phenomenon, although it took a backseat during the Clinton era. Many of the main characters that drove the agenda for regime change in Iraq, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, were entirely willing to turn a blind eye to Iraq's earlier misdemeanours - using chemical weapons against Iran and the Iraqi Kurds for example. Again, where is this morality that you talk about?

"The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there."

Thats what we're afraid of.

Joseph-J wrote:"The mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there."

Thats what we're afraid of.

Wouldn't worry about it too much, they can't afford another war - throwing threats around is like the guy on probation that knows he's gonna get banged up if he so much as taps someone.

I actually have a few US friends, so I'm not rabidly anti-american, but I do think their leaders are lying, shifty bastards out to make a few dollars under the guise of "helping out" the poor and oppressed of the world.

They'll all be making us cheap t-shirts in a few years when China gets big, so don't worry too much, if the planet's not too fucked by then (cross fingers). Actually, I imagine we'll probably be joining them if we don't get chummy with the fast-developing countries sharpish.

always good to read things from the other perspective, you can learn a lot, even if it does make you want to bite your hand off

the two interviews i've read with thomas ricks on his book "fiasco" are excellent. they are about internal military wrangling about strategy, execution, and screw-ups in iraq.

they are not "rabid" or predictable leftist critiques at all, but a very sober and humanizing look at the strictly military angle to the war, as opposed to the ideological/rhetorical side.

Paulie wrote:It's more the way they phrase stuff and the American angle than the actual content, isn't it though? Most Brits are rabid anti-Americans, and this Kristol et al play right into that, but the notion of US foreign policy actually having a moral dimension is quite novel actually, and infinitely preferable to what has gone before.

It's not really novel at all. In fact, I'd think most countries would "officially" believe that their policies are guided by a moral compass. The realities, however, often come to contradict....particularly when acting "morally" isn't in your best interest.

And when it comes to a world of vastly different beliefs and ethical perceptions, whose morality are we talking about?

Once you get your head round the American primacy stuff it's not really that bad, especially if you consider the most realistic alternative would be Chinese primacy or some kind of US/Chinese political and economic stand off. Now that would be scary.

The biggest problem w/ American primacy is the belief that it must remain unchanged and unchallenged. This policy creates a world where the destiny of other countries can then only go so far until it brushes against American hegemony. It's an amazing amount of hubris on Kristal & co. to believe that without the devine guidance of the US, the world would go to hell in a handbasket (as if things were so peachy-keen already)