The Liberal Hawks’ Neoconservative Allies
The problem with President Barack Obama’s foreign policy is not that it is "too pragmatic," as recently alleged. The problem is that Obama combines the broad ideological assumptions of liberal interventionists with a leadership style that allows people more doctrinaire than he to dominate the internal debate and decision-making process. Libya is the product of his disinclination to reject interventionism in principle, and his simultaneous inability to oppose the liberal hawks in practice.
The result is not pragmatism but muddle in the face of an unholy neoliberal-neoconservative alliance. There is precious little to choose between the scary triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power on the “left,” and the AEI-Weekly Standard lumens on the “right.” When the Project for the New American Century proclaims that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle,” it is using the same arguments with which the liberal hawks have prevailed in recent weeks over Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. The end-result is yet another war with no clearly defined American interest, no exit strategy in sight, and weak guarantees against escalation.
The neolib-neocon alliance is unsurprising, considering the two camps’ shared Marxist origins. The neoconservatives’ roots are somewhat older of the two, in the anti-Stalinist far left of the World War II era. The liberal hawks are the heirs of 1968 and the Frankfurt School. They share the dualist outlook that translates in policy terms into geopolitical militarism and inverted socialist internationalism. Leonid Brezhnev’s Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty is different from that of liberal intervention only in the former’s more limited geographic scope.
Both the Clinton-Rice-Power clique and their neocon counterparts share an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The former would stress the importance of “multilateralism,” of course, but only as a propagandistic tool of providing their decisions with a veneer of quasilegality. They are not opposed in principle to a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears resemblance to the New European Order of seven decades ago, or to the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. The Kristols and Kagans are merely more frank on who should call the shots. Both are statists par excellence who believe that society can be and should be managed by the state, i.e. themselves. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America.
Both neolibs and neocons believe that their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas should not be bound by constitutional restraints. Hillary Clinton’s mentor Madeleine Albright declared, back in the ‘90s, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” The neocon-dominated Bush administration then proclaimed, a decade ago, that such use of force is exempt from legislative control or oversight: “no statute can place any limits on the President’s determinations” because “these decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.” The same spirit was triumphantly flaunted by Hillary Clinton when she told the House of Representatives that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.”
In November 2008, eight weeks before Obama’s inauguration, I noted here that Mrs. Clinton’s appointment belied the President-elect's rhetoric of “change.” There will be shifts, cultural and moral, at home, I wrote, but the established premises of an imperial presidency—which in world affairs translates into the quest for dominance and justification for interventionism—will not be challenged: “With Obama at the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton at State, America is less likely than ever to rediscover a world in which she will be secure and free, and will not threaten security and freedom of others. Those goals are inseparable from the preservation of our identity and our liberty at home.” The events of these past few weeks indicate that such fears were amply founded.
Entries(RSS)
The Neos combine the worst of all worlds. They lecture everyone from their high horses, meddle everywhere, intervene miltarily wherever possible but gain nothing of value for the nation. Taking oil or bases for our trouble would merely be crass. For them, blood and treasure are a small price to pay to attain the dream of One Benevolent World (run by them). That is the goal of globalism/multilateralism. What are lives compared to that? If these warmongers were to engage in unabashed power politics, one could respect that even though opposing it: taking what we wish at the point of gun without apology has undoubted appeal. At least this policy would befit a great power. But the ideology of the Neos will lead only to national ruin. Anf that is part of the goal.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over always expecting the result to be different. Our putative leaders still think they can win Afghanistan. I suppose since they never played Risk -- even in geography class, meaning that they cannot be taught the most elementary global lessons.
But surely they would have learned about groupthink in communications class. I guess also they must have been awarded their diplomas from the Wizard of Oz. There can be no other explanation. How we got stuck with such clowns as bosses and party members reminds me of Aleksandr Zinoviev's horrific city of Ibansk, in his masterwork, The Yawning Heights.
The neolibs and neocons are not the enemy within, but are oligarchs who seized power by hook or by crook, by similes disguising their guiles, by out witting the witless, by pandering bread and circus to the masses and debilitating every sacred and venerable institution that could have withstood their wily, deceitful agenda. These oligarchs are piloting the good ship America into oblivion. Dr. Trifkovic’s article should be archived as an (one of many) obituary for the USA.
Here’s my contribution to the obituary. During my school years during the 1950s we were taught that America is the best nation that the world has seen and political officials must always be venerated. The best nation of the world could function on overdrive. I am not debunking love of nation, but this type of indoctrination could easily induce citizens to become too trusting or oblivious to the self-serving interest of politicians and other magnates of power. History recorded numerous examples of the fatality of an over zealous patriotism.
One thing that disgusts me about these Zionist wars of aggression and the latest interventionism is that the neocons and their ilk on the putative left are almost to a man among the class of Americans least willing and likely to defend this nation by serving in the military. I served in combat with a recon team, no big deal, and at the time I had no clue that the higher ups were first and foremost costumed bureaucrats who themselves never saw close-up combat except for a photo op, and, when you come right down to it, get on their knees to lick the boots of these odious women and emasculated weasels destroying our country.
Dr.Goebbels taught the essence of state propganda is to offer a seeming diversity of political opinion as a facade for only one doctrine. I think Dr. Trifkovic has outlined the one foreign policy doctrine of the duopoly quite well. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain... it doesn't matter. As Pat Buchanan reminded his readers before Gulf War I over 20 years ago, once we go over there we will either stay or keep going back. We left to fight in 1990 and have been there or preapring to go back ever since.
Wayne Madsen has something interesting to say on the subject.
A great article by Dr. Trifkovic that clearly, concisely describes the lawless nature of our government. A constitution is worthless because it is useless without statesmen and a like-minded people who understand and demand pursuit of only our national interests. Does that mean that a nation of laws is not possible, only a nation of men?
In the end, the problem is not what to choose to call them but what they do.
What we choose to call them depends on what their intentions are, but since we can't read minds, we can just look at the actions and their results and stop there.
French Neo-con Bernard Henri-Levy claims Bengazi was within minutes of a massacre when the UN vote occurred, which would explain the abstaining of Russia and China on the UN Security Council. Several weeks later, it is obvious the Libyan Harabi tribe rebels are less proficient than the Army of South Vietnam. Their best leaders are former Af-Pak jihadists, like the commander of Darnah named Hasidi. David Cameron does not want to admit partition seems to be the only solution and came out with a bizarre and extremely inaccurate statement today pushing affirmative action at Oxford.
Radio Free Europe (Free of what, truth?) has been Serb-baiting on Libya, saying Serb radicals are supporting Qaddafi, with a photo of an elderly lady from 2007. RFE claims Serbs do not know about the shelling of Dubrovnik or who won the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885. Comments from Serbia in English rip the continued anti-Serb bias and are quite entertaining. You would think Boris Tadic genuflecting to the EU would be sufficient to end the Congressionaly funded attacks.
Lévy is like an intelligent Bill Kristol: He never tells the truth and unlike the stopped clock he is never right about anything..
Raimondo called BHL the "Pepe Le Pew of the War Party". There has to be more than the French oil company Total replacing the Italian ENI for the oil of Brega and Ras Lunuf. The war is a farce between two incompetents; Saddam Hussain was able to shoot down 6 British Tornados 20 years ago. The British are keeping 4 brand new British Typhoons in the Falklands, because Cristina de Fernandez Kirchner gave a big speech on April 2 on how the "Malvinas are forever Argentine and she will never cease in her claim!"
'The war is a farce between two incompetents; Saddam Hussain was able to shoot down 6 British Tornados 20 years ago.'
Richard,
Over a hundred combat aircraft have been war casualties in Afghanistan. If we stay long enough in Libya there will be more grist for the mill! It isn't rocket science to fire shoulder launched missiles at routine patroles. And after ten or twelve years all patroles become "routine.". You are right about the farce part but not the incompetent part. Only one side is militarily incompetent.(Afterall, We don't establish no fly zones in North Korea or Pakistan) The only solution for defenseless incompetents is to keep plying them with more democracy!! Where have you been for the last twenty years mate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan
The scholar's focus on Clinton and her bombing bee is quite correct. Obama has been exposed as neither particularly interested nor even modestly qualified for any executive job and is openly disengaged from any and all policy making from the budget to the bombing. I guess I could be grateful our clean and pleasant "affirmative action" Prez is grateful for the title without much desire for any responsibility. He's running for student council again. This is Hilary's "kinectic military activity" and she'll declare victory in her memoirs. If Rice or Powers gets upped when Hilary exits, another relatively weak country with a typical human rights "crisis", no threat to any cognizable American interests and no important allies or nukes is going to get a good rinse and bombing. Are there enough buildings left in Port-au-Prince to blow up?
Why not state the obvious and call Hilary Clinton, Susan Rice ad Samantha Powers war criminals. They should be sent off to the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
"With Obama at the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton at State, America is less likely than ever to rediscover a world in which she will be secure and free, and will not threaten security and freedom of others. Those goals are inseparable from the preservation of our identity and our liberty at home.”
No truer words spoken. The aftermath of the primary battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008 came with real consequences. Hilary Clinon and her crew was going to have to be brought into the government in some way to keep them close to Obama so there was "we're all in this together" motive which would prevent Clinton from becoming an Obama critic (much the same way Lincoln took his Republican rivals Seward and Chase into his cabinet). The bombing of Libya is a direct consequence of this.
Our new Al-Qaeda friends in Bengazi are beheading Qadaffi soldiers, after their surrender.
Revolutionary ferver always looks to the guillotine or decapitation for satisfaction while Puritans seem to prefer the dunk tank or water-board. Catholics are old enough, or should be, to know that none of them work very well in discovering the truth. It is difficult to know what a man would be willing to say or admit in order to relieve the tension.Dick Cheney and George Bush swear that it saved lives but I am skeptical. I am not that enthusiastic about it, although I have spent a lifetime listening to historians reference it as an example of how evil the Church has been at times.
Alan Dershowitz thinks it a good thing under certain circumstances, so that should settle the matter for civil rights types.
An interesting fact discovered and documented by journalist Alexander Coburn was that there were post-it-notes (POST-IT-NOTES!) put up and *signed* by Donald Rumsfeld on images of torture. In his handwriting was writen, "Make sure this happens!!!" Exact number of commas.
I found it rather strange and disturbing that Rumsfeld personally ensured drowning naked men in feces.
The duopoly of the two party system is an underlying cause of the power grab by the elites and why we will be offered two sides of the same coin - Obama vs. Romney, Palin, et. al. in next year's elections. America will not change until a viable third party emerges to contest the prevailing ethos and actions of the globalists. In my congressional district in San Diego for instance the voters will be offered the choice between an ex-Marine officer (pro militarism, pro drug war, pro 'free trade' and pro-life) against any number of democrats who are all (pro militarism, pro drug war, pro 'free trade' and pro-abortion). The election will be focused on 'social issues' but whatever the outcome the globalists and elites will have their guy (or gal) in Washington voting for their interests.
Patrick,
So true. I suppose Mr. Trump has been placed in the mix for a reason as well. The repubicans usually like to have one like him that will rid them of "the little people" --- Some person willing to play the fool who doesn't mind being insulted while remaining defenseless. (As in, "you can run Mr. Buchanan but you will not be allowed to debate in any public forums reserved for our guys" )For years Pat Buchanan served that purpose, the last election it was Palin (But the high pitch screech to her voice that gained octaves without gaining gravitas finally became just too much)
The democrats too may be behind Trump as a set man. The man who sets the straw men that will later be destroyed by "the grand conqueror and leader of the free world." I prefer to think, however,that he is the GOP rabbit they often send ahead so their real candidate can come roaring back down the stretch like the old race horse, Silky Sullivan, to win by a length. There are endless variations on this theme but the certainty is as you say, when the dust settles it will be duopoly candidate A?, or duopoly candidate B? The choice is all yours, folks!!!
You appear to be a seasoned veteran or perhaps a frequent Chronicles reader? In any event, your post reminded me of the words of General Patton after defeating Rommell in North Africa, "Rommell, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!""