Reports of neoconservatism’s death greatly exaggerated?

The New Neo Posted on by

When I decided to call myself neo-neocon, I was only vaguely aware of how much hatred the term engenders. But many trolls and hate mail letters later, I’m far better informed on that score.

I’ve done my bit to explain the current state of neoconservative thought and to try to correct misunderstandings about what neocons stand for (click on the topic “neocons” on the right sidebar for the links).

I’ve been impressed by a recent effort in that direction written by Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and appearing in that well-known neocon rag Commentary. It’s long and yet succinct, packing a great deal of thoughtful information into one piece, well worth reading for anyone who retains an open mind and a serious interest in the subject.

Muravchik’s thesis could be summarized—to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous dictum on democracy—as “neoconservatism is the worst way to deal with Islamofascism, except for all the other ways that have been proposed or tried from time to time.”

Muravchik takes the long view, starting with the birth of neoconservatism and its successes against Communism and the Soviets, and segueing into a cogent analysis of the Iraq War so far (its not as good as one would have hoped, not as bad as critics say, and—more importantly—showing signs of progress if we don’t give up prematurely).

Here are Muravchik’s four tenets of neoconservatism:

(1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force…..

[A] coherent approach, essentially similar to the one by means of which we won the cold war. By contrast, liberals and realists have no coherent approach to suggest…

The extremity of the hatred of neocons has a number of origins (see this and this). It’s become a phrase that’s almost devoid of its true meaning, and used as a substitute for pejorative terms such as “Fascist” or “bigot” or “warmonger.” Agree or disagree with neocon philosophy, but at least learn what it actually is. Muravchik’s article is an excellent way to go about doing just that.

[NOTE: The title of my post comes from Mark Twain’s response to his obituary that appeared prematurely in the New York Journal.]

[ADDENDUM: The NY Times chimes in on the demonizing of “neocon,” comparing it to the process by which “liberal” became a dirty word a while back.]

Israeli Press Office: al Durah a hoax

The New Neo Posted on by

Israeli Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman has issued a statement declaring the al Durah incident to have been staged, the first such official Israeli government pronouncement.

In the al Durah incident and its aftermath, so far only Charles Enderlin and France2 have been litigious; they’ve sued private individuals who have criticized them (for my coverage of these events, please see the posts listed on the right sidebar under the category “Paris and France2 trial”).

But now Pajamas Media correspondent Nidra Poller reports that Shurat HaDin, the activist Israeli law center, is planning a lawsuit of its own: against Charles Enderlin, for damages resulting from the al Durah blood libel. And until the videotapes are released, they want the Press Office to cancel France2’s credentials to work in Israel.

This promises to be very interesting.

If Enderlin had refrained from trying to defend his august reputation by suing Karsenty and the others, would any of this have happened? Perhaps he wishes he’d let sleeping dogs lie, so that lying reporters could sleep. But perhaps in the same way that David Irving’s swollen ego drove him to sue Deborah Lipstadt for libel and the ensuing trial ended up vindicating her and exposing Irving’s own mendacity, so Enderlin may ultimately regret his own attempt to clear his name through a defamation suit.

And if he were smart, Dan Rather ought to be reconsidering his own lawsuit right about now.

Russian missile defense systems: you don’t get what you pay for

The New Neo Posted on by

The Syrians are not happy.

The details are all very hush-hush, but rumor has it in the intelligence community that earlier this month something what very wrong with the shiny new missile defense system they had recently ordered from Russia.

It seems that Israeli air strikes were able to fly over Syria unimpeded and take out what is said to have been a fledgling nuclear facility. This was not supposed to happen; the Syrians paid good money for the state-of-the-art defense system, and yet it failed abysmally.

Why, and how? I certainly have no inside information, and I’m not especially tech-savvy. But it seems to me that it’s in the nature of a graft that has not taken—at least, so far.

Notwithstanding their glorious past, Arab and Muslim cultures have not been science-friendly for many centuries. Technology is imported to these areas and used by them, to be sure, but there is little that is developed or invented there, and the creative habits of mind that would foster scientific inquiry are not only missing but often actively discouraged.

That means that high-tech weaponry is imported rather than organically developed. Training in its use also encounters other built-in barriers to a quick and effective response:

Damascus’s air defenses tend to be rigid in their doctrine and employment; air defense crews depend on higher echelons to identify and assign targets. If those echelons fail–or they’re blinded by enemy countermeasures–they leave individual fire units in an autonomous mode, an environment they’re unprepared for.

A military reflects the culture in which it is embedded. All militaries must be hierarchical, and depend to a great extent on following orders. But societies in which individualism is highly valued find a way to allow members of their armed forces to think for themselves when circumstances permit, and to be flexible, reactive, and somewhat autonomous when needed.

Russia is an interesting case. It has always straddled the line between East and West, between modernism and stagnation. The Soviets emphasized scientific development and threw vast resources into it, achieving no small measure of success.

But it was at a cost. Some say the arms race nearly bankrupted the USSR and helped lead to its downfall. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, it’s become more and more apparent that Russia is not a first world country but occupies some sort of in-between state. Its technology is for sale, but its expertise can sometimes be hard to export.

[NOTE: Some will no doubt use this argument as an excuse to ignore the threat from the Islamic totalitarian world as inconsequential. This is a fallacy, unfortunately. They don’t have to be consistently successful in order to do major damage, if they have the requisite weaponry and are willing to keep trying and correcting when errors are made.]

Whatever happened to Chechnya?

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember Chechnya? A country torn by a separatist war, terrorism, a Russian crackdown? A truly hopeless cause?

Well, guess what? When you weren’t looking, peace—albeit of a very troubled sort—came to that very troubled land.

Make no mistake about it; Chechnya has not turned into paradise. But the city of Grozny, a ruin just two short years ago, is being rebuilt. The Russians have cracked down on a Chechnya that supposedly could not be pacified, and have installed a tough man to control those who would oppose them.

MIght the cure be worse than the disease? This is a harsh place where harsh remedies have been installed. New leader Ramzan A. Mr. Kadyrov illustrates a phenomenon I wrote about here, which is that, in countries in which civil order has broken down, the choice often seems to be between two dreadful alternatives, anarchy or tyranny.

We are trying to implement another type of solution in Iraq right now: to tame the anarchy without substituting another tyranny. It is difficult and requires money, troops, commitment, will, staying power, and perhaps a touch of brilliance (which General Petraeus is attempting to provide).

But, short of that, it seems that tyranny will do in Chechnya.

The NY Times describes the paradox of Chechnya thusly:

Kadyrov’s human rights record is chilling, and allegations of his government’s patterns of brutality and impunity are widespread. Yet even his most severe critics say he has developed significant popular support, in part because of the clear changes that have accompanied his firm and fearsome rule.

The fighting is only sporadic now in a country that had, just two years ago, seemed unfixable, the violence unstoppable. The Russians had cracked down on Chechnya time and again to no avail. But now resident Zulika Aliyeva says, “I compare how we used to live, and it is like we are in a fairy tale now.”

Kadyrov’s program has featured “a two-stage formula: extraordinary violence, followed by extraordinary investment.” The violence has, paradoxically, created enough order that Kadyrov has been able to reconstruct much of the city, and attract more people to come and live there again. There’s even a fledgling effort at a tourist industry.

It sounds as though Chechnya was a nightmare before, and now it’s a different sort of nightmare. Law and order has begun to return, but at a great price.

One of the most interesting aspects of this chain of events is the fact that no one seems to have predicted it; the pundits were taken by surprise, as they often are.

[ADDENDUM: Kim Zigfield thinks the Times is far too kind to the Kadyrov regime.]

Congress the unloved

The New Neo Posted on by

Congress’s approval rating with the American public is currently at a cool 24%.

But that’s probably high compared to the contempt with which the Iraqi government and the US Embassy in Iraq seem to hold them. Congress’ latest foray into micromanaging the Iraqi government, a nonbinding resolution that it be partitioned into separate regions, isn’t too popular with anyone. Perhaps Congress should stick to managing itself.

In related news, I don’t think the anti-surge faction of Congress has yet reacted to the announcement that killings of civilians and US forces in Iraq are substantially down. It’s difficult to attribute the downturn to anything other than the effects of General Petraeus’ approach and the surge.

Did I say deaths are down? Not all of them:

Over the weekend, U.S. and Iraqi forces killed more than 60 insurgent and militia fighters in intense battles, with most of the casualties believed to have been al-Qaida militants, officials said.

Harry Reid, where are you? Back in April, Reid said, “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.” Strangely, I haven’t heard much from him about the latest statistics. If he’s so reactive to figures on violence in Iraq as a measure of how successful the surge is, one would think…

The New York Times watches Freedom Watch

The New Neo Posted on by

The front page of today’s NY Times features an article entitled “Big Coffers and a Rising Voice Lift a New Conservative Group.” It’s about the rise of Freedom Watch, formed to combat the anti-surge movement and the propaganda clout of MoveOn.

It’s a masterful demonstration of the Times’ ability to publish a piece purporting to be objective (don’t all Times articles purport to be objective?) and yet subtly shaded by what is left out more than what is put in—or the placement of whatever might be included.

Here’s the beginning of the second paragraph of the article:

Founded this summer by a dozen wealthy conservatives, the nonprofit group is set apart from most advocacy groups by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors…

If Freedom Watch was founded to counter MoveOn, the latter is one advocacy group it’s most certainly not set apart from by the immense wealth of its core group of benefactors. MoveOn has some rather deep pockets as well—the benefactor in question being George Soros, no slouch in the wealth department himself.

The Times article is a substantial one—1664 words long, according to my computer. And yet it goes on for most of its length describing the wealth of Freedom Watch’s founders and their connections to the Bush Administration (and wouldn’t it be odd if a group of wealthy Republicans with strong political interests didn’t have some sort of ties to that Administration?), hinting strongly that the group is a mere front for the nefarious Bush. At the same time, it intially describes MoveOn only as a nine-year old group “which vehemently opposes the Iraq War” and whose influence is “derived in large part from its grass-roots efforts.”

What of controversial billionaire MoveOn benefactor Soros? Well, he finally does get mentioned—about 1,100 words into the article. By that time many if not most readers have probably deserted the piece, having gotten the gist of it and Moved On, as it were.

This is the way the Times finally refers to Soros, in a single bland sentence:

Like Freedom’s Watch, MoveOn had its origins in an attempt by wealthy political donors, including George Soros, to shape the debate in Washington.

And what of that other rather cumbersome and awkward elephant in the room, the Times’ own participation in the fray—the “Petraeus Betray Us” ad placed by MoveOn in its pages, receiving a cut-rate deal (probably due, no doubt, to the poverty of the group compared to behemoths like Freedom Watch [/sarcasm off])? Well, the Times does get around to mentioning it, way way down in the article’s final paragraphs, modestly referring to itself in the third person:

Freedom’s Watch also pounced on MoveOn.org’s full-page “General Betray Us” advertisement published Sept. 10 in The New York Times. Mr. Bush called the advertisement “disgusting.” Both chambers of Congress passed resolutions condemning the advertisement. The New York Times was also embroiled in the debate after giving MoveOn a discounted price for the advertisement, which the newspaper later acknowledged was a mistake. MoveOn has since agreed to pay the difference.

All’s well that ends well, right?

Meanwhile, Freedom Watch’s founders are not going away any time soon. In a closing sentence that may strike a tiny bit of fear into the hearts of the Times editors, former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, a member and benefactor of Freedom Watch, is quoted as saying, “We will still be here after George Bush is gone.”

I wonder if the same could be said for the Times.

Revisiting—and revising—Vietnam

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a great summary of a recent symposium on Vietnam history. It was written by Cinnamon Stillwell, another “changer”—and, in the interests of full disclosure, a friend of mine.

Stillwell writes:

The significance of the Vietnam War, both from a historical and a political standpoint, cannot be emphasized enough. It was the most controversial of all America’s military ventures and it led to a rupture in American society that continues to this day. If allowed to hold sway, this rupture threatens American success in Iraq and beyond.

Speakers at a four-day symposium titled, “The Vietnam War: History and Enduring Significance,” at Hillsdale College this month came to much the same conclusion.

Some of the speakers were of the “Vietnam revisionist” variety. These historians and journalists are challenging the accepted “narrative” of Vietnam, which began to be established in the late 60s and through the 70s. This process of revisiting the recent past in the light of the passage of time is part of historical perspective, but in the case of Vietnam it threatens those with a vested interest in the earlier evaluation of the war and those who fought it.

Even on this blog, whenever the subject of Vietnam comes up, one can see how raw the feelings are and how wide and deep the divisions. The 2004 election, Kerry’s nomination, and the Swift Vet controversy also opened up many of these barely-healed wounds. And of course, as I’ve written many times, Vietnam is the template used not only to evaluate the Iraq War, but to plan the Democrats’ strategy in opposing it (see this, as well).

“Revisionist” has become a derogatory term, conjuring up the Soviet tendency to “improve” on history by making it into a fiction that reflected Soviet propaganda needs. But, as I wrote here:

But sometimes that “first draft” of history”“such as the Vietnam War as perceived in real time and told in the MSM”“cries out for revision, as in “to revise.” To look at again with fresh eyes and new information, and to question whether the standard viewpoint of the time was correct.

Critical thinking demands it.

And the difference between prison and assisted living is…

The New Neo Posted on by

Today’s a traveling day, so this will be quick. I’m driving down to NY to see my family and especially my elderly mother.

Last night I called her at around 8:15 to see how she was doing. She sounded a bit tired when she answered the phone, so I asked whether my call had woken her up. My mother used to be somewhat of a nightowl, but when she got into her eighties and now, her mid-90s, she understandably started fading a lot earlier in the evening.

But she said no, she hadn’t been asleep. As a matter of fact, she’d just gotten back to her room. Why? Because, she said, “This place is getting like a prison.”

Oh oh, doesn’t sound too good.

I asked her to elaborate, and she said “They have a new rule. We go down to dinner at five, you know (oh yes, I know; it’s the highlight of the day) and we’re not allowed back into our rooms till eight.”

I pointed out that this was actually more the opposite of a prison. After all, in prisons, they take you back to your room and lock you in, not out. Actually, it reminded me of summer camp—although a great deal less fun—with compulsory evening activities, everything in groups, and no solitude allowed.

Could she be allowed back to her room if she pled tiredness? Wanted to watch a good TV show? Read a book? Entertain a visitor? She hasn’t a clue, but I imagine I’ll find out a lot more about this new edict over the weekend.

My mother’s assisted living facility is one of the nicest possible, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. We’ve always joked about the residents being “inmates” (one of the faculties my mother most definitely has not lost is her sense of humor). But this sort of effort at control and forced socialization is ridiculous. I understand it’s not good for residents to isolate themselves, but the loss of freedom and autonomy is already profound there, simply by dint of being in such a setting. No need to add to it unnecessarily.

“Understanding” evil

The New Neo Posted on by

We may not be able to define evil, but most of us think we know it when we see it.

Unfortunately, that leads to equations such as Bush=Hitler, or the bumper sticker I saw on a car yesterday that said, “War is just terrorism with a bigger budget.”

And it also leads to the false notion that we can truly understand the genesis of evil, when sometimes it’s hard enough to simply recognize it, and to deal with it in an appropriate and timely fashion.

Hannah Arendt caused a hue and cry when she watched the Adolf Eichmann trial and described the defendant’s demeanor as showing “the banality of evil” (scroll down to #6, here). Suzanne Field’s piece on evil, in today’s Real Clear Politics, refers back to Arendt and describes instead what Field calls the “frivolity” of evil. Although I think “frivolity” is a poor choice of words, Field is making a good point nevertheless:

The devil wears many disguises, and one of them is the appearance of normality, perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon of all, because it’s a disguise unto itself.

Evil is real, but evildoers are all too human. Continue reading →

The dictator at the tea-party: if you invite, must you be polite?

The New Neo Posted on by

The Columbia/Bollinger/Ahmadinejad controversy has had several stages. First there was the shock that the university had extended the invitation. Then there was the event itself. And now there’s the reaction.

The notion of freedom of speech has come to include the idea that in order to protect it we must bend over backwards to provide a forum for enemies to promulgate their ideas. But I really can’t imagine that freedom of speech would have meant that, in the 30s, a major university would—or should—have given Hitler a similar invitation.

Of course, there’s always the argument that greater exposure to such pernicious leaders makes more people aware of their dangerousness, and thus enables us to evaluate and prepare to counter them. But that doesn’t really convince me; it’s not as though heads of state such as Ahmadinejad (or Hitler, in his day) lack the ability to speak, and for their words to be covered and spread around the wolrd by the press. There are few people with more opportunity to spread their word; we’re not talking about silenced voices here. Continue reading →

More Totten, more “getting to know you” in Iraq

The New Neo Posted on by

Michael Totten has written another fine piece on recent developments in Iraq.

He interviews Colonel Mike Silverman, whose words echo a fact that other interviewees have emphasized in a recent article of Totten’s (one I discussed in depth here): al Qaeda appears to have overplayed its sadistic hand in Sunni areas of Iraq that might otherwise have been its natural allies, and greater exposure to the US military has convinced the locals that we just might be the good guys after all.

I wonder sometimes, when I’m feeling optimistic, whether it isn’t some intrinsic characteristic of evil to always overplay its hand. This may be one of the built-in advantages to the human race of evil being so very evil.

But this doesn’t inevitably lead to its downfall. The article also makes it clear that, without the help of the US, the locals were virtually powerless to fight off the sadistic violence of what was in fact a relatively small number of frenzied and extraordinarily vicious thugs.