Jane Bovary

I've been hearing alot lately about these neo-conservatives surrounding President Bush. It is their ambitious vision for the world which appears to be driving the current political shift in US foreign policy.

But who are they and what shaped them...?

It seems they originally sprung from the left wing of the Democratic party and steadily moved right...very right, over a period of time, the most obvious shift over occuring during the 60's. Thus the term "neo".

The most influential of the neo-cons are Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. They are ultra anti-communist and passionately pro-Israel and their vision is to do whatever it takes, including the unfettered use of military power, to spread the American democratic ideal. They are contemptuous of International law and traditional diplomacy...and perceive attempts at peaceful resolutions as weak and ineffectual.

The neo-conservatives were almost all Jews whose parents had emigrated from Eastern Europe. Nazi Germany and in particular the holocaust, loom large in their background, most of Paul Wolfowitz's extended family perished in the death camps. As journalist Jim Lobe notes:

Their history often reduces itself to Munich and the Holocaust, with Munich being the cause and the Holocaust being the result. They see every conflict, in a sense, as a test similar to the test that Chamberlain faced and failed at Munich in 1938. And that therefore, the potential result is this...a second Holocaust which they feel has to be avoided at all costs.


These are the people who "educated" the President on world affairs even before his entry to the Whitehouse and filled the relatively vacant block of his head with shaky high-rise ideals. Ideals that house the aggressive vision of American political grandeur in evidence today. Bush, a perfect choice for the moulding of a President and backed by his own personal sense of spiritual certainty, seems to have taken to his role with a strange sense of inevitability, as though swept up in a tide of destiny he seems powerless to resist.


If the obsessive political drive of the neo-conservatives has its germinal roots in the holocaust then it's worth noting, as we hurtle toward war, how the consequences of that heinous act are still reverberating around the world today. Part of Hitlers legacy is his hand in shaping the politics of the new breed of conservatives. As the spectre of the holocaust nips permanently at their heels, the neo-cons firmly believe they are fighting the dragon of evil. They see the protection of Israel and the spread of US brand democracy as the primary directive and pervert their own ideals of freedom with the fanatical righteousness of their campaign.

One wonders at the breadth and ambition of their "master plan" to transform the world to their own vision. I also marvel that this does not remind them of another master plan to shape the world to a singular vision...that of Adolf Hitler himself. Though the agenda of course was vastly different and more malevolent and any comparison in ideology would be erroneous, the insanity lay not just in the vision itself, but in the burning desire to impose it on the world through a ruthless aggression. I can't help thinking of Nietzsche's by now cliched, but still apt maxim, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.".

If what is said of the neo-cons is true and the current push for war in Iraq can be put down to one overiding cause, it would not be a desire for disarmament, not pre-emptive self-defence, not oil, not revenge nor even strictly self-interest, but something more far reaching, more historically familiar and more dangerous...

That is...Idealism gone mad.

Ruy Lopez

If what is said of the neo-cons is true and the current push for war in Iraq can be put down to one overiding cause, it would not be a desire for disarmament, not pre-emptive self-defence, not oil, not revenge nor even strictly self-interest, but something more far reaching, more historically familiar and more dangerous...

That is...Idealism gone mad.

Very well written and expressed Jane; I find myself agreeing. Have a slight difference to register. The Iraq plan satisfies many varying interests across US leaders and groups; therein lies its attractiveness or support. Neo-Likudniks alone probably won't explain the plan's support among 50-60%of Americans.

Jane Bovary

Thanks Ruy...and I'd agree with your added comments.

Zar

Jane,

I think your points are basically valid. There are auxiliary benefits to be had from some other perspectives, but it does seem like extreme ideological blindness rules the nation supreme at this point.

I haven't heard many conservatives dispute the main thrust of these comments, whether made by me, by you, Ruy Lopez or anyone else. I wish they would say something. And I wish they would also dispute this with the White House and amongst themselves. How can naked empire and a naked Israel-first policy be what your average conservative wants? This seems like something only the extremist minority would desire. Is half the U.S. population truly in sync with this clan, or are they just not realizing what they have gotten into bed with?

Jane Bovary

Is half the U.S. population truly in sync with this clan, or are they just not realizing what they have gotten into bed with?

Well that's what I'd like to know. I suspect the latter...

Ion

As I try to understand the dementia of the US leadership going to war against a local dictator by murdering the dictator's population, shutting down international consulting and wrecking economy and cultures, this is the best explanation of the dementia.

Henry-Finland

The problem is that the bed is growing bigger and bigger.
And many has to sleep in it without even the remotest chance to do anything about it.

Henry

JerryM

The only valid reason for war with Iraq would be if Saddam Hussein's government was actively supporting, financing, equipping, or otherwise enabling terrorist attacks against the U.S. No one would argue with military action in this case. But Sept. 11 so unhinged everyone, that now we would consider war with an unfriendly government that might be capable of supporting terrorism, even without any definite proof that they really are doing so. If a majority of the public would support a war, I think this is the reason. But what a terrible precedent. We have so many enemies around the world. Any or all could support terrorism. Are we going to go after all of them?

HaysooChreesto!

Protocals of the Elders of Zion anyone? It's the DAMN JEWS!

I understand that there's a new breed of psychotropic MAOA inhibitors to help with the devastating effects of clinical paranoia.

Edited to add: At first I almost didn't post this reply, but after re-reading the OP, I had to.
What's being put forth as probability is so outlandish that it seems that any critical thinking skills about it have gone out the window. With no sources to back your outrageous conjecture... I don't know what to say. The words "whole cloth" keep coming to mind.
Comparisons to Hitler's Germany have once again come up.
You do know that if this war is as unpopular as many think it to be that Dubbya will no longer be president in less than two years? Forgive me if I'm forgetful, but who did Hitler run against in the Chancellorship elections every four years?

Zar

JerryM,

I think you are talking about a pretext not a reason. Since the public is not identical to the ruling elite, who are the ones who actually set and execute policy, there is first off no necessary connection between public sentiments and those of the White House. And, in fact, there is ample evidence that the goals and purposes of the White House are at great variance with public opinion. In other words, most of the public does not really understand what the leaders have in mind and have actually swallowed the pretexts, not the reasons.