The Republicans and the neocons
Maureen Dowd is not wrong in some of what she says in the column to which Daniel Greenfield is answering. Dowd writes:
After 9/11, the neocons captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world. Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejune about the world.
[Dan] Senor [the U.S. press spokesman in Iraq, the pronunciation of whose name is still unknown] is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East—trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost—because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We’re still stumbling in the dark. We not only don’t know who our allies and enemies are, we don’t know who our allies’ and enemies’ allies and enemies are.
As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress.
“Off the record, Paris is burning,” Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. “On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.”
The Dowd column has some points we would agree with, but it’s a hopeless mess, not only with her standard leftist Bush-bashing, but with too many angles jumbled together to make sense of them.
What she says in that excerpt I sent has a lot of truth, and those points have never been answered by the neocons to my knowledge.
I acknowledged that she made points we would agree with. But I repeat, using Dowd as an entry into this issue is not helpful. We need to have our own understanding of it. We don’t need her.
- end of initial entry -
The key thing is this: For many years, the Republicans, and now the Romney team, have had no thoughts on foreign policy. They are either silent or passive, or they mimic the neocons. To the extent they have any ideas, it is simply the neocon ideas. It is a total disgrace.
Daniel S. writes:
Forget the useless liberal hack Maureen Dowd. How many of us traditionalists have for almost a decade been declaring that neoconservatism is a bankrupt ideology that was doomed to failure? How many of us were surprised at what has happened, nay, how many of us foretold the sort of events that are now playing out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Libya? It is only now that many mainstream conservatives are starting to have second thoughts about the neoconservative project of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Yet we have been warning about this all along.
Michael D. writes:
Here are my observations from watching the cable news last night. MSNBC: Mitt Romneys’ taxes, CNN: Mitt Romneys’ taxes, FOXNEWS: John Bolton (blow up Iran now), followed by Newt (Catholic Newt) selling some stupid book, Karl Rove discussing the electoral map, then my favorite, Donald Trump.
Why do they interview these people when what is needed is an explanation of what Romney will fix: DHS, TSA, EPA, tax code, Black Panthers, Eric Holder, illegal immigration, etc. I’ve yet to hear what he will do about these things, nothing. Yes, we need to be aware of the Muslim Brothers, but our deepest problems are internal and they need to be addressed clearly. Lack of doing this is the reason Romney is behind and will probably lose. Remember the Tea Party of 2010? Where did all that energy go? Romney and the Republican/neocon establishment are squandering a huge gift. My take: Romney loses, Dems keep the Senate, Repubublicans keep Congress.
While I agree with your overall drift, I don’t agree with your implication that the Iran nuclear weapons issue does not matter.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 22, 2012 01:53 PM | Send