Neoconservatism

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4956
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostFri Dec 07, 2012 9:48 pm » by Tuor10


After reading some of the threads regarding America's involvement with Israel and the Middle East, I thought I might share some of the research i did that might elucidate some historical context, with regards to the people who helped push America towards it's recent path.

The extracts' I am presenting were written by me 5 years ago when I was at University. It was written before Obama took power, although I doubt that American foreign policy has detracted that much in the intervening period.

I hope some of the information can spark an objective debate on the subject.





‘A project for a new American century -
’ The foreign policy and defence arm of the Neo-Cons whose members include, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Irvin Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Douglas Feith, Lewis Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Eliot Abraham’s, Robert Kagan, Michael Lideen, William Kristol, Frank Gaffney jr, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

Founding Neo-Con fathers

Many of the founding neoconservative intellectuals are of a Jewish background and strongly identified themselves as Jews in a cultural and ethnic sense (although probably much less in the religious sense for most of them). Many neo-conservatives with a Jewish background were alarmed by left-wing support for radical Palestinian groups and the support given to Israel’s Arab enemies. Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the commentary magazine, a prominent establishment magazine published by the America Jewish Committee and which became the leading organ of neo-conservatism under his influence, stated that after lifelong opposition to high defence spending, he suddenly realised that the United States would not have been able to defend Israel during the 1973 Middle East war. U.S. capacity to aid the Israelis conventionally was an improbability due to the low levels of defence expenditure that he as a life long liberal had long advocated. Such considerations led him to change his views not only about defence spending and politics, but also the way in which America should use her military power for foreign policy purposes.

Contemporary views of Foreign Policy


Alexander Motyl, professor of political science and an expert on neo-conservatism, likens U.S. foreign policy to that of a country that harbours imperial ambitions.i Motyl argues that the U.S. uses coercion as a tool of control. He points to America’s policy of coercing allied governments and those under its influence – to accepting American dominance in the field of foreign affairs. America’s military presence in allied countries has limited the autonomy of America’s allies in the field of foreign affairs. As leader of the worldwide system of alliances, Motyl suggests that America’s pre-eminent economic and military preponderance is being used to control the foreign policies of the U.S. allies and influence those countries that fall under the American sphere of influence.
Michael W. Doyle, professor of international and public affairs at Colombia University makes a different distinction between U.S. hegemony and empire and defines hegemony as one polity’s control over another’s polity’s foreign policy, but not its domestic policy.ii He defines empire more restrictively then Motyl, as the first polity’s control over the second polity’s policy sectors, thus controlling the second polity’s ability to determine their own course. Some academics would argue, in keeping with Doyle’s definition, that the United States is better termed a “hegemonic power” rather then an empire.
In his book: “The Empire has no cloths: U.S. foreign policy exposed”, author Ivan Eland has argued that American imperial ambitions manifested out of a desire for security.iii American’s aggressive moves in the Middle East, according to Eland, were contrived in order to contain America’s enemies around the world. Eland’s argument correlates with neo-conservative doctrine on the projection of military power, and the creation of a girdle of security for the United States that is acquired via the use of ‘aggressive expansionism’.
The Whitehouse used the War on terror and subsequent foreign policy ventures as stimulus for significant increases in defence expenditure. Much of the equipment procured by the U.S. armed forces is only viable against major conventional opponents – and not for war against terror or an invasion against a militarily obsolete country.iv America’s pre-9/11 panoply of hi-tech weapons system was more than adequate in dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the Pentagon has spent billions since 9/11 buying weapons better designed for war against the Soviet Union. For example, the U.S. Air Force is still acquiring the overpriced F-22 Raptor fighter, which was originally designed to combat Soviet fighters. The U.S. Navy is still building SSN attack subs, even though the Russian Submarine force is a shadow of its former self.
The security through “aggressive expansionism” paradigm postulated by, Ivan Eland has connotations with a policy of containment. Eland has insinuated that America’s invasion of Iraq was undertaken in order to hem-in the U.S. other enemies in the Middle East as well as protecting the flow of oil. But could it be that America is spreading its influence in the Middle and Far East in order to contain a potential threat to American global hegemony?
China has long been viewed by the neo-cons as a potential rival to U.S. hegemony The Defence Planning Guidance drafted by, Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 calls for America to have predominance in military power over its rivals and potential rivals. The paper also calls for American power to be used in order to strangle potential challengers to U.S. hegemony by surrounding the potential rival with countries allied to America, and stationing U.S. military forces in these countries to obtain a strategic advantage.v In the Far East American already possess bases in Japan, South Korea Singapore and Thailand, and bases in the Middle East and the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Taiwan is a major ally of the U.S .in the region and the second biggest recipient of American arms after Israel. America’s Pacific Fleet is the most powerful in the U.S. navy, and operates closely to Chinese national waters, as the April 2001 incident when an American surveillance plane collided with a Chinese J-8IIM fighter, and the Chinese authorities detained the U.S. crew of 24. Such a military posture towards China could bring one to the conclusion that a cold war of sorts already exists between America and China although relations are amicable at present due to economic factors, but as China grows economically she will eventually be able challenge America military hegemony in areas where it was once deemed impossible, which is why a neo-conservative hard-line approach to protecting American world leadership has been accepted by those at the higher echelons of American power.
Kurt M. Campbell, former deputy assistant secretary of defence for East Asia and Pacific affairs in the Clinton administration, noted approvingly ”that China policy had increasingly been taken over by a new “strategic class” of academics, commentators and policy makers whose ideas help define national interests.” vi Campbell says that a new crop of military experts, of which he is a charter civilian member, is likely not to know much about China but instead to have “a background in strategic studies or international relations” and to be “watchful; for signs of China’s capacity for menace”. Such attitudes are not signs of prudent foreign policy thinkers but of militarists and defence intellectuals like Wolfowitz and Perle.


Part of my Conclusion:


Neo-conservatism offers a periodically powerful ideological boost in support of military pre-eminence. If another atrocity occurs on the model of 9/11, where fear and confusion suspends the political process, the American response is likely to be largely military rather then political, diplomatic or economic – irrespective of the party affiliation of the Whitehouse incumbent.






:peep:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 pm

PostFri Dec 07, 2012 11:16 pm » by Domeika


I don't know Touor10. I'm not really sure how labels fit but I do know that conservatism is not new. I am a conservative, probably more of a Libertarian, but if it comes down to semantics I'd say I'm a paleo-conservative....good ole fashioned stuff, but for the left I think they like to tack "neo" onto stuff so that's where that probably comes from. They tend to be a bit shallow and very thin-skinned and that is why they are so quick to call people names....because it hurts them when they are called names. For conservatives, it doesn't matter at all. The liberals think it does, but as I already stated, they cast aspersions that they themselves would find hurtful.

They just don't understand the mind of a well rounded adult.

I am comfortable in my own skin, and I am comfortable knowing that my life as it stands today is the result of my own actions and inactions. As a conservative, when I see someone with a nice house or a nice car, my first thought is wow, that's nice....how do I get one of those? For a liberal, their first thought is hatred. They don't have something and they hate whomever does. They scheme ways to take from others that do have the things they covet but curiously it never works out. It seems that in order to take things from others for the sake of "fairness", the fairness never seems to stop at your door and if it does it only does so briefly before someone deems it more fair to give what you have to someone else.

So it really comes down to this....
LIBERAL = Pot smoking sex fiend living off other people's money
CONSERVATIVE = Pot smoking sex fiend living off their own money

:banana:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4956
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostFri Dec 07, 2012 11:30 pm » by Tuor10


Domeika wrote:I don't know Touor10. I'm not really sure how labels fit but I do know that conservatism is not new. I am a conservative, probably more of a Libertarian, but if it comes down to semantics I'd say I'm a paleo-conservative....good ole fashioned stuff, but for the left I think they like to tack "neo" onto stuff so that's where that probably comes from. They tend to be a bit shallow and very thin-skinned and that is why they are so quick to call people names....because it hurts them when they are called names. For conservatives, it doesn't matter at all. The liberals think it does, but as I already stated, they cast aspersions that they themselves would find hurtful.

They just don't understand the mind of a well rounded adult.

I am comfortable in my own skin, and I am comfortable knowing that my life as it stands today is the result of my own actions and inactions. As a conservative, when I see someone with a nice house or a nice car, my first thought is wow, that's nice....how do I get one of those? For a liberal, their first thought is hatred. They don't have something and they hate whomever does. They scheme ways to take from others that do have the things they covet but curiously it never works out. It seems that in order to take things from others for the sake of "fairness", the fairness never seems to stop at your door and if it does it only does so briefly before someone deems it more fair to give what you have to someone else.

So it really comes down to this....
LIBERAL = Pot smoking sex fiend living off other people's money
CONSERVATIVE = Pot smoking sex fiend living off their own money

:banana:



What I wrote I wrote in order to appease a liberal mindset...AKA...the guy who was marking the paper. That said, I couldn't find much wrong with the information I got hold off, which was predominantly from books written by left-wing academics.

The whole issue with Israel has a direct link back to the founders of Neoconservatism; for they were Jews who wanted a strong America onside to back Israel. Israel would not act as blatant as it does without the knowledge that the U.S.A has its back.

I personally have no real political affiliation anymore. There was a time when I flirted with the whole nationalism thing; but thinking back, it had more to do with my nostalgic view of History (I have a fondness for the past you see) rather than any ideological predilection.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 pm

PostFri Dec 07, 2012 11:48 pm » by Domeika


Tour10: My flag waving days are over. And anyone with a brain should be able to see what is coming....an economic collapse. There are your family and friends, and then there is everyone else. I think that is where conservatism really kicks in because I expect no one to save me or feed me other than myself. There is no superman, or batman, or spiderman, just this plain mortal man, but that doesn't mean I give up, it just means I dig in.

Anyone that thinks otherwise will find themselves hungry if not on a spit.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4956
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostSat Dec 08, 2012 12:08 am » by Tuor10


Domeika wrote:Tour10: My flag waving days are over. And anyone with a brain should be able to see what is coming....an economic collapse. There are your family and friends, and then there is everyone else. I think that is where conservatism really kicks in because I expect no one to save me or feed me other than myself. There is no superman, or batman, or spiderman, just this plain mortal man, but that doesn't mean I give up, it just means I dig in.

Anyone that thinks otherwise will find themselves hungry if not on a spit.


Very true.
In Britain, many have become completely dependent on the state; but because of the financial state Britain finds itself in, the generous benefit tap is being turned off. So as a consequence, the state are trying to force people back to work, using various means, including making people work for nothing in order to receive their benefits - they call it the "back to work scheme". People on long-term unemployment benefit are also farmed out to private firms, who are supposed to help the unemployed back to work by providing training: basic numeracy and English skill - tying your shoe laces - that kind of thing. They also provide facilities for people to contact jobs etc.
The sum total of this scheme has been negligible to say the least. Aside from people being used as free labour, there has been a number of private companies who have been siphoning money from the tax payer, while actually providing no service.
The biggest problem is the fact that the country is fucked. There are not enough jobs available; and the working population - aided by immigration mainly from the EU - is getting bigger.

In short: Britain is a few years away from a major social meltdown.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:16 am

PostSat Dec 08, 2012 2:37 pm » by mediasorcery


good read you two, thanx, i hate labels myself, its just individuals to me, but, each to there own, liberal in some aspects, conservative in others, see.
the story of life is quicker than the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello and goodbye, until we meet again my friend.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4956
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostSat Dec 08, 2012 6:39 pm » by Tuor10


mediasorcery wrote:good read you two, thanx, i hate labels myself, its just individuals to me, but, each to there own, liberal in some aspects, conservative in others, see.


There is no real difference between mainstream political parties In Britain. I aspect the same can be said for most mainstream political parties the world over. Politicians are merely pawns who serve a higher order. They create a facade of political division in order to divide the masses; and it has worked. It has worked because a high percentage of the voting public vote one way or the other - regardless of who is running their party of choice. I know people who vote Labour because their fathers voted for them.

When all is said and done, we, the people who vote these charlatans into power, have no say what so ever.



Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook