posted 12-29-2003 03:02 PM            

Neocon quiz

Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.

1. Which best describes your attitude about US efforts to secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians. By working with regional partners, the US can help bring about a secure Israel and a free state of Palestine. US efforts in the Mideast help its diplomatic standing in the world immensely.

It's an arrogant fantasy to think the US can "bring peace" to the Mideast. US reliance on foreign oil has embroiled it in crisis after crisis there. The people of the Middle East must set their own course.

Recent history shows that Arab countries respect power, not paper treaties that purport to trade "land for peace." In many ways, the road to peace in Jerusalem had to pass through Baghdad. In the wake of America's victory over Saddam Hussein, US negotiators have new leverage to demand steps toward peace. But the US can never tolerate terror. There will be no compromise on Israel's borders or security.

The US is morally obligated to stop Mideast violence. It's clear there is no military solution to the conflict. In order to broker the peace, the US must be more neutral. This means stop giving billions in aid to Israel, and start condemning its preemptive assassinations of Palestinian leaders.

2. The US campaign in Vietnam was...

A disaster. What threat did Vietnam pose to American security? More than 50,000 US troops died in support of a theory about "dominoes."

A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally bankrupt.

A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war.

A hard-won victory. US forces paid a high - but necessary - price to contain Communism in Southeast Asia.

3. What type of relationship should the US form with China?

The US must hedge China's rise to great-power status. The policy of preemption includes China, and US military leaders must strategically contain China's armed forces, while US policymakers maintain America's economic preeminence. Above all else, China must not be encouraged to think it can challenge America's superpower status.

China's bullying - of Tibet, Falun Gong, and Taiwan - is atrocious. America's "normalization" of trade with China has allowed it to continue its human rights abuses, while costing countless American jobs. The US must not sacrifice its moral high ground at the altar of trade.

China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. While the US must affirm China's progressive steps and opening economy, it cannot ignore its repressive human rights behavior, trade violations, and bullying of Taiwan. Ultimately, opening China to American goods and services spreads American values that will influence China for the better.

The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.

4. How should the US approach relations with Iran?

The US must remember its history with Iran. Pro-West reform efforts - including the 1953 CIA coup that installed the Shah - incited the Islamic Revolution. US-led regime change would once again empower the most backward and hardline elements of radical Islam. The people of Iran must set their own course for freedom. Meanwhile, the US must turn to its EU partners to push for stricter inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The US is simply not positioned to stop Iran's seemingly inevitable drive to acquire nuclear weapons. But as it did with the Soviet Union and China before, America can contain and deter Iran's mullahs and their nuclear leverage. Hard-line Islamic rule in Iran is bankrupt and doomed to failure - democratic reformers will eventually seize the day. Patience and pressure, not preemptive war should guide America's approach toward Iran.

Iran's hardline Islamic regime, proven connections to terrorists networks, and obvious desire for nuclear weapons make it a particularly dangerous threat. The mullahs who run Iran have repressed freedom at every turn, and show no evidence of ending ties to terrorism. To ensure that Iran does not threaten US security, American forces must be prepared to do to Tehran what they did to Baghdad.

Iran presents a serious foreign policy challenge. Most Iranians clearly embrace democratic reform, but its hardline Islamic government seems intractable. Aggressive support for reformer efforts may be unwise at this time. The US must make a concerted effort with its European and regional allies to pressure Iran's regime to cease its nuclear ambitions.

5. How should the US deal with the North Korea nuclear threat?

Seattle or Pyongyang? At some point soon, President Bush must decide which city he values more. The N. Korea nuclear threat is for real, and even tough negotiations with the US, China, Japan, and South Korea won't deter Kim Jong Il. The unpleasant, but only, option the US has is to prepare to launch a preemptive strike against select N. Korean targets.

The nature of the North Korea crisis makes the Bush doctrine inoperative. The region is such a tinderbox that military action taken against N. Korea could lead to a full-blown conflagration. However, China, Japan, and South Korea - working together - can apply enough pressure on Kim Jong Il to contain the nuclear threat he poses. For now, the US must rely on multilateral talks while it repositions US forces in the peninsula to make them less vulnerable.

The US has a moral obligation to battle both the starvation of North Korea's people and deter Kim Jong Il's nuclear threats. There's no easy solution, but the US can make progress with a carrot-and-stick approach of foreign aid and tough diplomacy. The US must work with the UN to keep Pyongyang in check.

US policy in the Korean peninsula is outdated. Why should US troops be sitting ducks for Kim Jong Il's million-man army and nuclear threats? After 50 years, it's time South Korea protected itself. There's no point in "talking" with N. Korea, and all-out war is unthinkable. The US must move its troops out of the demilitarized zone.

6. The war against Saddam Hussein's regime was...

Not America's finest hour of diplomacy, but a necessary and righteous action.

A political and intelligence farce, a diplomatic disaster, a human tragedy, and now, a growing quagmire.

Another example of America's costly imperial aims.

Long overdue. Bringing democracy to Iraq is the first great step in democratizing the Middle East.

7. What do you think of America's superpower status?

Unrivaled US power is crucial to America's defense. But using power to "Americanize" the world, act as policeman in the far corners of the globe, or to leverage trade agreements is sheer imperialism.

US superpower status was key to warding off Soviet aggression during the cold war. Today, however, that power is increasingly a liability. 9/11 was a vicious blowback to the US bullying around the world, especially its trampling on the Middle East.

American power was vital to the victory of freedom over totalitarianism. In the post-cold war world, American power is equally necessary to preserve peace, foster freedom, and expand global trade. To be effective, this power must be used selectively, with clear, pragmatic aims, and carry the weight of allied consensus.

American power can spread peace and democracy across the globe. The world can't put its faith in the United Nations to thwart terrorists and tyrants. Diplomatic history shows that all regimes recognize power. Only unrivaled US power, and the demonstrated willingness to use it, can create the conditions that allow peace and prosperity to flourish.

8. How should the US approach alliances with foreign powers?

When the US leads, the world follows. The world is too full of danger for the US to take its foreign policy cues from the UN Security Council, or even the consensus of European allies. American security and interests must not be compromised to mollycoddle US allies unwilling or unable to face up to evil threats.

To preserve this country's sacred sovereignty, Americans must heed President George Washington's warning against "entangling alliances." Washington knew then, and we must understand now, that ceding control to foreign nations, let alone a world bureaucracy like the UN, chips away at the essence of the American Republic.

The US needs its allies now more than ever. The UN may not be perfect, but it remains humanity's best hope of creating world peace. America's unilateral actions are hurting vital relationships with traditional allies in Europe, Asia, and across the globe.

The US must march to the beat of its own drum, but its power is sapped when it marches alone. Healthy multilateral relations are vital to effective US diplomacy. America may not always agree with UN policy or even its best allies, but it can't afford to act alone.

9. How can the US win the war on terrorism?

American hypocrisy and hubris led to the Sept. 11 attacks. To answer the question "Why do they hate us?" Americans must question the "might makes right" approach of US foreign policy. To win the war against terrorism, US leaders must remove the conditions that breed anti-American hatred.

Terrorists can't be negotiated with. They must be killed or captured. "They hate us" because they - Muslim extremists - hate freedom. In the post-9/11 world, the US cannot wait for "imminent" threats. It must aggressively - even preemptively and unilaterally, if necessary - wipe out terrorist networks and the governments that support them. At the same time, the US can work to emasculate terrorism by aggressively promoting the cause of freedom and democracy around the world.

As 9/11 so viciously illustrates, terrorism knows no boundaries. To win the war against terrorism, the US must lead a truly global effort to root out terror networks and compel broad-based reform for regimes that harbor terrorists.

The US should not apologize for spreading American values around the globe, but its imperial behavior helped inspire the terrible Sept. 11 attacks. The US must relentlessly prosecute terrorists and work to undercut regimes that support them, but to prevent another Sept. 11, the US must stay truer to its founding as a republic by protecting the American people and staying out of other nations' business.

10. Does the US have the right balance between foreign and domestic priorities?

posted 12-29-2003 03:49 PM            

Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.

1. Which best describes your attitude about US efforts to secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

The US is morally obligated to stop Mideast violence. It's clear there is no military solution to the conflict. In order to broker the peace, the US must be more neutral. This means stop giving billions in aid to Israel, and start condemning its preemptive assassinations of Palestinian leaders.

2. The US campaign in Vietnam was...

A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally bankrupt.

3. What type of relationship should the US form with China?

The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.

4. How should the US approach relations with Iran?

The US must remember its history with Iran. Pro-West reform efforts - including the 1953 CIA coup that installed the Shah - incited the Islamic Revolution. US-led regime change would once again empower the most backward and hardline elements of radical Islam. The people of Iran must set their own course for freedom. Meanwhile, the US must turn to its EU partners to push for stricter inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

5. How should the US deal with the North Korea nuclear threat?

The US has a moral obligation to battle both the starvation of North Korea's people and deter Kim Jong Il's nuclear threats. There's no easy solution, but the US can make progress with a carrot-and-stick approach of foreign aid and tough diplomacy. The US must work with the UN to keep Pyongyang in check.

6. The war against Saddam Hussein's regime was...

A political and intelligence farce, a diplomatic disaster, a human tragedy, and now, a growing quagmire.

7. What do you think of America's superpower status?

Unrivaled US power is crucial to America's defense. But using power to "Americanize" the world, act as policeman in the far corners of the globe, or to leverage trade agreements is sheer imperialism.

8. How should the US approach alliances with foreign powers?

The US needs its allies now more than ever. The UN may not be perfect, but it remains humanity's best hope of creating world peace. America's unilateral actions are hurting vital relationships with traditional allies in Europe, Asia, and across the globe.

9. How can the US win the war on terrorism?

American hypocrisy and hubris led to the Sept. 11 attacks. To answer the question "Why do they hate us?" Americans must question the "might makes right" approach of US foreign policy. To win the war against terrorism, US leaders must remove the conditions that breed anti-American hatred.

(This is the best, I feel, of what was offered, but I wouldn't have started it in this way because I do believe that 9/11 was either allowed or actually orchestrated to full-fill foreign policy agendas. This does not negate, however, the existance of terrorists by any means.)

10. Does the US have the right balance between foreign and domestic priorities?

The billions spent on homeland security and far-flung bombing campaigns haven't made the US any safer. With the money it wastes killing civilians abroad and chipping away at civil liberties at home, the US government could provide health insurance to all Americans.

_________________

Neocon quiz results

Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective.

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Liberal

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

Realist

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

posted 12-29-2003 05:57 PM            

A collection of quotes by neoconservatives.

"A neoconservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who's been mugged by reality but has refused to press charges."

- Irving Kristol

"Change - above all violent change - is the essence of human history."

- Michael Ledeen

"Ultimately, this WTC/Pentagon attack is anchored to a terror network embedded in Saudi royal politics. I don't think we will win this war if we do not begin to honestly examine the full nature of Saudi politics and behavior. This is truly the key issue."

- David Wurmser

"American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles."

- William Kristol

"The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."

- Richard Perle

"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world."

- Robert Kagan

"Iraq is just one battle in a larger war, bringing down the regime in Iran is the central act, because Iran is the world's most dangerous terrorist country."

- Michael Ledeen

"On the outcome of the confrontation with Tehran, more than any other, rests the future of the Bush Doctrine - and, quite possibly, the Bush presidency - and prospects for a safer world."

- William Kristol

"Republicans are good at wielding power, but they're not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they're not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I'm in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party."

- Robert Kagan

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us."

posted 12-29-2003 06:08 PM            

1. Which best describes your attitude about US efforts to secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

My answer: The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians. By working with regional partners, the US can help bring about a secure Israel and a free state of Palestine. US efforts in the Mideast help its diplomatic standing in the world immensely.

Caveat: I think an "honest broker" includes calling a spade a spade, and if we're going to condemn or impede certain Israeli actions, we should also condemn and impede Palestinian actions when so required..

2. The US campaign in Vietnam was...

My answer: A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war.

3. What type of relationship should the US form with China?

My answer: The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.

Caveat: I favor free trade. I don't believe we should revoke preferential trade with China or erect trade barriers to protect American jobs, but I agree with the rest of what this answer says.

4. How should the US approach relations with Iran?

My answer: Iran presents a serious foreign policy challenge. Most Iranians clearly embrace democratic reform, but its hardline Islamic government seems intractable. Aggressive support for reformer efforts may be unwise at this time. The US must make a concerted effort with its European and regional allies to pressure Iran's regime to cease its nuclear ambitions.

Caveat: I agree with all of the above, but I would not reject the possibility of military action being necessary if efforts to convince Iran to cease its nuclear ambitions failed. I do think multilateral diplomatic pressure is the very route to take, however.

5. How should the US deal with the North Korea nuclear threat?

My answer: The nature of the North Korea crisis makes the Bush doctrine inoperative. The region is such a tinderbox that military action taken against N. Korea could lead to a full-blown conflagration. However, China, Japan, and South Korea - working together - can apply enough pressure on Kim Jong Il to contain the nuclear threat he poses. For now, the US must rely on multilateral talks while it repositions US forces in the peninsula to make them less vulnerable.

Caveat: This was the question that really didn't have an answer I was happy with. I agree with this answer except the first two sentences. I agree the current multi-lateral regional approach is the correct approach but, as is the case with Iran, we must be fully prepared to use our military if the current approach doesn't work out.

6. The war against Saddam Hussein's regime was...

My answer: Not America's finest hour of diplomacy, but a necessary and righteous action.

7. What do you think of America's superpower status?

My answer: Unrivaled US power is crucial to America's defense. But using power to "Americanize" the world, act as policeman in the far corners of the globe, or to leverage trade agreements is sheer imperialism.

8. How should the US approach alliances with foreign powers?

My answer: To preserve this country's sacred sovereignty, Americans must heed President George Washington's warning against "entangling alliances." Washington knew then, and we must understand now, that ceding control to foreign nations, let alone a world bureaucracy like the UN, chips away at the essence of the American Republic.

9. How can the US win the war on terrorism?

My answer: As 9/11 so viciously illustrates, terrorism knows no boundaries. To win the war against terrorism, the US must lead a truly global effort to root out terror networks and compel broad-based reform for regimes that harbor terrorists.

Caveat: As long as "compel" can mean "force" if/when global diplomatic pressure isn't working.

10. Does the US have the right balance between foreign and domestic priorities?

My answer: President George W. Bush rightly made the nation's security his No. 1 priority after 9/11. The growing deficit is unfortunate, but increased spending is certainly justified. The US didn't start the war on terrorism, but it will finish it, even if that moves some domestic concerns to the back burner.

Caveat: I disagree that we have to move some domestic concerns to the back burner. I also am not fond with some of the reactions to 9/11, such as the Patriot Act, but still--this is the answer that most closely reflects my view.

quote:

---

Neocon quiz results: Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal

---

Whoa! Liberal?? I may be a lot of things, but I've never been called a liberal!

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy

Well, I agree it's good to avoid this.

Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.

Not really. I mean, yes, everything is intertwined and previous US foreign policies that were reacting to other situations obviously affected people in ways that caused people to hate us. I don't blame past administrations for those decisions, though. I recognize they did what made sense at the time even though it had negative side effects later on (now).

Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions

When a political solutions is possible, yes.

Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises

I disagree. I believe we should intervene where our national interests are at stake.

Oppose American imperialism

Despite what some may think, I agree.

Support international law, alliances, and agreements

Generally speaking, yes. But I do not hold any of these to be above the U.S. Constitution.

Encourage US participation in the UN

Well, we're a country. We might as well be there. I'm not a fan of the U.N. though and think it mostly amounts to a lot of pointless talking.

Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

That's a side effect of promoting our own economic intersts by implementing free trade.

That said, and looking at the other possible "types," I'd say I'm definitely a realist. I agree with every point of being a realist:

1. Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
2. Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
3. Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
4. Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
5. Weigh the political costs of foreign action
6. Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

posted 12-30-2003 12:01 AM            

Surprise!

May I ask you how old you are, Letxa? I'm so curious and I imagine you to be at least 20 years my junior! You go first!

posted 12-30-2003 10:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Ouch, huh? Surprise!

---

Yes, it was a surprise. I don't know why the test classified me as a liberal. According to their possible "types" I'm 100% a realist. Oh well.

quote:

---

May I ask you how old you are, Letxa? I'm so curious and I imagine you to be at least 20 years my junior! You go first!

---

posted 12-30-2003 04:05 PM            

I was actually raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale. Born in S.F., though. We moved here in '76, to the Springs, raised our two sons, just about! One still in college!

I love the Mexican culture and its people, very gentle and religious folk. I was raised in a largely Hispanic area, Santa Clara Valley, and studied Spanish for tres anos in la escuela y could read, write, and speak it quite fluently and then lost it over the years! Actually I'm only 20 years your senior!

No biggy, just curious!

You're definately not a conservative nor a neocon, according to this test! We shall see, though, heh? Littleton is nice! Our oldest son lives in Denver, just married.

bc

posted 12-31-2003 01:11 PM            

Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique
4 years before 9/11, plan was set
By WILLIAM BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com

THE WAR CABINET

It was 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, and rescue crews were still scouring the ravaged section of the Pentagon that hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had destroyed just five hours earlier.
On the other side of the still-smoldering Pentagon complex, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was poring through incoming intelligence reports and jotting down notes. Although most Americans were still shell-shocked, Rumsfeld's thoughts had already turned to a longstanding foe.

Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

"S.H.," of course, is Saddam Hussein. The White House has long insisted its strategy for a war against Saddam's Iraq - a war that could now begin in a matter of days - arose from the rubble of the deadly attack that day.

But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.

An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.

"We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world," stated the letter to Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." (For full text of the letter, see www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

The saga of Project for the New American Century may help answer some of the questions being asked both across the nation and around the world as Bush seems increasingly likely to call for military action to remove Saddam from power.

Why does the Bush administration seem hell-bent on war in the Middle East when key world powers and U.S. allies - such as France, Germany, Russia and China - don't support it right now? Or when most Americans say they don't want war, either, as long as the United Nations won't endorse one?

Why the rush, and why now, when Saddam seems weakened by a decade of economic sanctions?

The answers are complicated, but most arise from the concept - endorsed by many of the key players in the Bush administration - that America, as the world's lone superpower, should be putting that power to use.

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire," says the PNAC's statement of principles. "The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert, calls the Cheney-Rumsfeld group "a cabal" - a band of conservative ideologues whose grand notions of American unilateral military might are out of touch and dangerous.

"What happened was 9/11, which had nothing to do with Iraq but produced an enormous amount of political capital which allowed the government to do anything it wanted as long as they could relate it to national security and the Middle East," Lustick said.

Gary Schmitt, the executive director of PNAC, laughs at the notion that his group is a secretive force driving U.S. policy, even as he acknowledges that the current plan for ousting Saddam differs little from what the group proposed in early 1998.

"We're not the puppeteer behind it all," said Schmitt, noting that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration had adopted the moderate policies on Iraq favored by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Policy draft on U.S. power

Still, the most hawkish members of the Bush administration, who are clearly in the driver's seat, have ties to PNAC. Their ideas about the aggressive use of American clout and military force arose more than a decade ago, in the wake of the collapse of communism and victory in the Persian Gulf War.

U.S./Iraq History:
A timeline
When the United States routed Saddam's occupying army from Kuwait in March 1991, most aides - including Cheney - approved of the senior Bush's decision to not push forward to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

Cheney asked at a May 1992 briefing: "How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."

Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.

The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.

But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.

"They wanted revenge - they felt humiliated," said Penn's Lustick. He recalled the now infamous 1983 picture of Rumsfeld as an American envoy shaking hands with Saddam, at a time when U.S. officials had thought the secular dictator to be a "moderating" force in the Arab world.

At the same time, the heady years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the notion that the removal of Saddam and the establishment of an Arab-run, pro-American democracy might have a kind of "domino effect" in the Middle East, influencing neighbors like Saudi Arabia or Syria.

At the United Nations last November, Bush said that if Iraqis are liberated, "they can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."

'Remove Saddam'

The neo-conservative ideas about Iraq began to come together around the time that PNAC was formed, in spring 1997. Although the group's overriding goal was expanding the U.S. military and American influence around the globe, the group placed a strong early emphasis on Iraq.

In addition to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, early backers of the group included Jeb Bush, the president's brother; Richard Armitage, now deputy secretary of state; Robert Zoellick, now U.S. trade commissioner; I. Lewis Libby, now Cheney's top aide; and Zalmay Khalilzad, now America's special envoy to Afghanistan.

In addition to Clinton, the group lobbied GOP leaders in Congress to push for Saddam's removal - by force if necessary.

"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power," the group wrote to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998.

Many of the best-known supporters have ties to the oil industry - most notably Cheney, who at the time was CEO of Halliburton, which makes oil-field equipment and would likely profit from the need to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. Lustick, while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.

"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."

Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel - an idea he scoffs at.

Both supporters and opponents of a war in Iraq agree on one thing: That the events of Sept. 11 were the trigger that finally put the theory in action.

"That pulled the shades off the president's eyes very quickly," said Schmitt, who'd been unhappy with Bush's initial policies. "He came to the conclusion that the meaning of 9/11 was broader than a particular group of terrorists striking a particular group of cities."

The fact that many U.S. allies, particularly in western Europe, and millions of American citizens haven't reached the same conclusion seems to matter little as the war plan pushes forward.

A frustrated Lustick sees the war plan as the triumph of a simple ideology over the messy realities of global politics.

"This is not a war on fanatics," he said. "This is a war of fanatics - our fanatics."

____________________

Interesting older piece mentioning PNAC and the neocon agenda. Right on, as far as I can see, even in retrospect and completely confirmed through retrospect!

posted 12-31-2003 01:21 PM            

Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

posted 12-31-2003 04:09 PM            

Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

The last three sentences support what I've always thought of the post-9/11 reaction. They wanted to go after the one directly responsible and also other threats once and for all.

An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.

The extra commentary about "obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group" is certainly biased and casts a negative tone on the group before any evidence has even been presented.

Yes, they pushed Clinton to take a stronger stance against Saddam and, in the circumstances of 1998, I believe they were right. At that time, most of the world would have supported the move, too. This was not a radical idea in 1998. But Clinton literally wimped out and let Saddam continue to ignore the U.N. and the U.S.

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire," says the PNAC's statement of principles. "The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

The key part here--and what I do agree with--is contained primarily in the first sentence. Nip problems in the bud, don't wait until they explode into WWII-size conflicts that cost much more lives in the long-run. I do agree with that.

Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert, calls the Cheney-Rumsfeld group "a cabal" - a band of conservative ideologues whose grand notions of American unilateral military might are out of touch and dangerous.

That they are "out of touch and dangerous" is his opinion.

Yet shortly before that, in February 1992, staffers for Wolfowitz - who was deputy defense secretary under Cheney at the time - drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to aggressively use its military might. The draft made no mention of a role for the United Nations.

The proposed policy urged the United States to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." The draft caused an outcry and was not adopted by Cheney and Wolfowitz.

As written, the idea was rejected.

But in the years immediately following Bush's election defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, Saddam's tight grip on power in Iraq, and his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, began to grate on the former Bush aides.

"They wanted revenge - they felt humiliated," said Penn's Lustick. He recalled the now infamous 1983 picture of Rumsfeld as an American envoy shaking hands with Saddam, at a time when U.S. officials had thought the secular dictator to be a "moderating" force in the Arab world.

This illustrates why we were originally friendly with Iraq--because we thought (past-tense) that they'd be a moderating factor.

That said, I think the conclusion in these paragraphs that they felt "humuliated" as if it was something personal is simply rediculous and certainly not proven.

The neo-conservative ideas about Iraq began to come together around the time that PNAC was formed, in spring 1997. Although the group's overriding goal was expanding the U.S. military and American influence around the globe, the group placed a strong early emphasis on Iraq.

This was also about the time that the Iraq/U.N. Arms inspectors crisis of 1998 was unfolding and their viewpoint of taking firm action against Iraq was not radical at all. It also wasn't preemptive--it would have been a valid response under U.N. resolutions to Saddam Hussein's failure to comply. And in 1998 most of the world would have supported it.

"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power," the group wrote to Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Trent Lott in May 1998.

That we should have a presence in the Middle East just makes common sense. And in May 1998, as I've said, taking out Saddam Hussein was not a radical idea.

While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force.

Thank you! At least we can put to rest the "blood for oil" cry we so often see in war protestsors, etc.

"I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption."

Bingo!

Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel - an idea he scoffs at.

This man has written a number of books on the subject of Israel. He may be right, he may be wrong--but at this point his ideas are as firmly planted and not open to negotiation as the necons.

"That pulled the shades off the president's eyes very quickly," said Schmitt, who'd been unhappy with Bush's initial policies. "He came to the conclusion that the meaning of 9/11 was broader than a particular group of terrorists striking a particular group of cities."

And this is a valid conclusion. You might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean there' a neocon conspiracy. If I get bitten by a poisonous spider in my house I'm not going to just kill that spider, I'm going to sweep my house for any other spiders that might present a problem in the future.

The fact that many U.S. allies, particularly in western Europe, and millions of American citizens haven't reached the same conclusion seems to matter little as the war plan pushes forward.

It's a cliche, but doing what is right isn't always what is popular. We will all have an opportunity to vote in 2004. In the meantime, I personally respect Bush for taking the action he believes is right even in the face of a potential backlash in 2004. That contrasts to Clinton who never risked anything in his presidency, listened to opinion polls constantly, and really accomplished nothing in 8 years.

---

posted 12-31-2003 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world.

---

I tend to agree with this, as long as it is only used where our interests are at stake.

quote:

---

Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

---

It's hard to argue that this is wrong, with the possible exception that some people may not agree with the portion that follows the comma.

quote:

---

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

---

This is also hard to deny. Whether or not we spent enough on defense, we really didn't confront threats during the Clinton decade. Sadadm, seeing our weakness in terms of willingness to act, ignored U.N. demands.

quote:

---

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

---

I agree with all of the above. I symptahize more with Israel than the Palestinians--and yes, I'm aware of the transgressions on both sides. But am I to be expected to want to see authoriatarian dictators prevail in the Middle East, or a democratic Israel? I prefer democracy.

I also do not see evidence that the U.N. can really accomplish anything more than talk. I feel it's a good place for nations to communicate with each other, although even that isn't as important anymore now that the Internet allows instant communication between everyone. But when it comes to the real hard work, it's the U.S. that has always done the dirty work, not the U.N.

quote:

---

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

---

The article states that their calls for regime change in Iraq were considered "provocative and extremist" by the political mainstream, but I don't remember that being the case at all. The option was ignored by the Clinton camp, of course, but it wasn't at all extreme.

quote:

---

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

---

Again, I have a hard time finding fault in this--except that the U.S. necessarily be the one to provide democracy to everyone--then again, who else could it be? But their assumptions that a democratic Middle East instead of a authoritrarian one would tend to reduce the breeding ground for terrorists makes a lot of sense.

I also agree that in reality, peace does require the credible threat of force, not weak treaties that any tyrant can ignore.

quote:

---

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained.

---

If they are hostile, fine. If they could pose a threat, I agree. Confront them.

---

posted 12-31-2003 04:36 PM            

According to the poll...I'm an "isolationist"

posted 01-02-2004 02:40 PM            

Wednesday 31 December 2003

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

http://www.truthout.com
-------

posted 01-02-2004 05:11 PM            

The results will put you in a category as follows:

Centrist – Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.

Conservative – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Left-libertarian – The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.

Liberal – Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.

Libertarian – A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.

Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

Paleoconservative – "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.

Paleo-libertarian – Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.

Radical – Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

Third-way – More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

posted 01-02-2004 07:14 PM            

Radical, heh? Watch out, they're after you!

Hehehe!

Cool!

posted 01-03-2004 01:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Boomer Chick: I thought you'd appreciate this one - since we both seem to like tests. I ran across this Neocon test totally by accident today (scan down a little to answer 20 quick questions).

---

This test seemed to peg me a bit better than the Christian Scientist test.

I got:

1-Centrist
2-Conservative
3-Neoconservative
4-Libertarian
10-Liberal

posted 01-03-2004 04:27 PM            

Truth is good! But change is better! Hehehe!

posted 01-03-2004 08:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
There were only 24 questions, JBE, but it was fun! I tested 1.liberal 2. third way ....

Radical, heh? Watch out, they're after you!

---

posted 01-03-2004 08:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Now THESE results I can believe.

---

posted 01-03-2004 09:24 PM            

However
1. radical

libertarian

In the CS quiz, there just were 'no correct answers listed' for many questions.

posted 01-03-2004 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Loaded questions.

However
1. radical

libertarian

---

You bad boy! I see I'm in good company!