My position has been quite consistent over the years, and I will summarize and simplify it by saying that I have never supported the US forcibly toppling dictators around the world in order to advance democracy (nor do a lot of neocons, although some come close to that). I reluctantly supported the war in Iraq because of the particular danger Saddam Hussein appeared to represent in terms of aggressiveness and WMDs (or intent to make WMDs), and I always believed the reconstruction would be long and hard and very risky, and would require a great deal of us. No way that could be done often.

I did (and still do) support encouraging by non-violent (and sometimes clandestine) means the growth of forces that favor secular non-leftist democracy in those countries. That is a huge and difficult task, one that might not succeed, because the mindset of many in the region are very strongly against it. One of the very worst things to do is what Obama did: to encourage the toppling of dictators friendly to us and just let the chips fall where they may, and/or to arm and support the forces of Islamicist theocracy. Most of these countries are at the point where “democracy” will be a sham, as it was in Iran after the Shah fell.

This is a post that summarizes some of my positions on Iraq, and how they relate to the whole question of democracy in the Middle East. It was written in 2007, and today I would put even more emphasis on the tendency of Islamicists to rush in to fill the vacuum.

nn: You’re not paying attention. Here’s what I wrote: “I don’t recall you rejecting W’s call to revolutionary action.” I provided a link to that call to global revolution. It’s from W the Conqueror’s second inaugural.

So I ask again: Why didn’t you renounce the Neocon regime’s call to global democratic revolution if you now claim to not supporting it now that it’s an obvious disaster?

And, to nn and Gary Rosen: Accusing your opponent of “racism” and “anti-Semitism” is a tired, old leftist dodge. If your ignorance of the Trotskyite roots of Neoconservatism is real, however, that can be cured. Click on the following link and do your own research to verify this analysis:

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=818

The reason for Obama’s foreign policy failure is simple.

Obama’s foreign policy ends are carried over from Bush’s foreign policy ends, while the Bush foreign policy MEANS that have been loudly rejected and derided by the Obama administration were the logically necessary applications to achieve Bush’s foreign policy ends.

So, Obama’s foreign policy has been fatally handicapped by depriving it of the means that are logically necessary to carry out Obama’s foreign policy successfully.

When challenged on this contradiction, the Democrats will reply with some version of, ‘Well, you don’t want another Iraq, do you?’. Period, no more discussion.

And that’s why Obama’s foreign policy record is such a mess. His administration dogmatically and reflexively avoids the appearance of an Iraq mission or ‘Bush doctrine, when that is what is logically necessary to carry out Obama’s foreign policy.

Old Rebel, I never considered myself a neocon per se, and some of us who had lived in Third World cesspools were more than just a little apprehensive at what knocking off the dictators would unleash, and said so. But the alternative–propping them up indefinitely–had also become untenable, especially post-9/11. And Sergey is right, Arab culture, and others, view power as a zero-sum game, and compromise as weakness. What’s the answer? Supporting tyrants loathed by their own people may work in the short term, but all tyrants fall eventually. Knuckling under to Muslim extremists doesn’t do much for us either, and only ensures that the extremists will raise their demands. Arab “liberals”, for lack of a better word, tend to be more comfortable in Paris or New York than in the villages or slums of their own countries and have no “street cred” with their own people. Brother, if you have ideas that would work, I think we’d love to hear them. And maybe somebody at Foggy Bottom or at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue would listen, too, although I’m doubtful on that score.

You left out “hook-nosed wire-pulling Zionist cosmopolitans”.

Steve,
Your blame on lefties for nation building is luck of understanding what went wrong in Iraq.
You are missing many elements why US failed in her efforts of nation building in Iraq.
After US invasion, Iraq became power vacuum, all his neighbours took the opportunities to do their homework, while US busy arranging her homework those neighbours they run faster to stop nation building and democratization of Iraq, that was lost opportunity for US to put it an example in ME like what US done in Germany, many element that Iraqis had have can make them capable to hold and inspire US project in ME sadly that opportunity lost.
here that lost was share responsibilities, the neighbours who fought for their survival, as a democratic Iraq means in the region the end of those corrupted hard fist regimes, the walk-Cake was seduced each one to run for his own share to grab.
The other part was Paul Bremer incompetent administration, who selected those Iraqi looser folks from Galabi, Ja’afri with others who don’t have such support and love from mainstream Iraqis, his ethnic division CPA made harder to implement any nation building principles ignoring many Iraqi voices from many Iraqi wise men to change his course to boost the nation building instead he move closer to those corrupt dishonest and lunatic folks who are clear by now they are Iran folks than Iraq.
Iraq was opened to all terrorist from around the world, Saudi regime sent those diehard terrorists to Iraq, the regime found it’s an opportunity to get rid of them as they are danger their fist, Iran, Kuwaitis, Jordan, Libya, and Morocco the follow was vast for different reasons.
So Iraq became all sort a land of terrorists, which US lost its direction for nation Building and democratic Iraq fighting those bunch of all sort of diehard terrorists.

It was lost of opportunity in the needs now US need to come back to clean the miss aftermath…..

Yeah, yeah, sure… just, when they open their mouths about how “America’s policies are making Muslims hate her,” instead of internalizing the lesson of the Danish Cartoons Riots, that Muslims are adherents of an imperialist ideology that wants to force itself on all of humanity, and that’s the only real reason behind their hate, you realize paleoconservatives are no different than your run-on-the-mill Marxist on Common Dreams in blaming their own country for Islamic aggression against it.

I’m an isolationist myself, and a true one at that. You, paleocons, are no isolationists, only appeasers of Islamic imperialist aggression pretending to be such. Exactly like the Leftists you think yourselves the opposite of. Neoconservatism is naive folly, but paleocon and Marxist appeasement of Islam is no better.