Perhaps the most boring thing in the world ('cept for maybe having to ride shot gun with paw paw to the hardware store to fetch sump called 'Dryer Hose") is a front row seat watching two academics flail about in unconvincing debatery about diplopolititary concerns, convictions and casus coolus au courant.
1st off - the guy at Weenie Hut Juniors (and in the spirit of confrontation let it be known perhaps the 4th worst best realist apologist on earth) one of the self anointed High Priests in the sad, played, amoral corrupt Cult of Stability's 'Forever Quest" for stability and status quo (unless of course it jams up Great Satan and any of her hot league of democrazy little sisters - then, of course, he's totally hot to trot) recently kinda semi sorta made the connection betwixt those wild wascally daemoneocons, the 'Umanitaian Interventionists and R2P.
A hit piece of sorts, it painted a funny pic of neoconistas and the Progressive FoPo brainiacs being hot in the sack en flagrante delicti. It also distorts, misrepresents and offers up fictious fictions about the daemoneoconic, most correct FoPo Outlook (the truly first Made in America foreign policy meme since Pearl Harbor ended Isolationism) as only the most notorious Great AND Little Satan Hating cat can.
Dissed beyond repair and fearful that R2P could be applied to knocking out the largest Arab army in history in 20 days then sticking around to experiment with constructing a semi secular democrazy in the heart of Araby like Iraq (***SPOILER ALERT*** - it sho am can bay bee!), the Progressive Fix guy at Progressive Policy Institute launched a counter attack decrying all interventions are not the same.
One of several LOLable LOL's readily available in this titanic match amongst the Cult of Irrelevance is that both cats - either by unhappy accident or wicked designs - totally demonize the cool kids with the ever boring assetted handwringing about American Military Power, war mongers, 'got a lot of hammers - every prob looks like a nail' and how 43 ruined the world and every American principle on earth chiz, blah frakking blah, blah, blah.
Using terms like 'soft power' and 'smart power' alone are a wonderfully crunk hello to Great Satanism - after all - without hard power cruising just over the horizon - smart soft power is about as doable as finding out the absinthe pledge you just signed is actually an abstinence pledge
And.
Must.
Stay.
Awake.
The real quiz watching both cats wax fellowquent about their totally incorrect definitions and sloppy observations about neoconservia is actually shocking awful:
Are they truly soo uninformed or are they deceitfully diabolical'ing their readers are?
Rather than simply make realist calculations about what is in Great Satan's shorty short term foreign policy interest at any given instant, the demonized neoconservatives ('daemoneocons") believe there is incredible intrinsic strength in alliances among democrazies, that friendship matters in foreign policy, and that true long-term security (and stability - nicht wahr?) derives from xformative diplomacy. Human rights and individual freedom in foreign policy are a nat’l sec interest.
Add a dose of realism - about the nature of some adversaries. Far from being the Utopians as some may claim, neoconistas see adversaries pretty dang clear. While many sad proponents of realisms 'forever quest for stability' foreign policy, embrace engaging adversaries (thug hugging), and that is a dangerously tarded leap of faith in a diametrically opfor'd adversaries' sincerity.
Neoconservatives (and most Americans) refuse to accept such illusionary illusions and are hot to hook up diplomacy with military power. While neoconservatives are not trigger-happy, we totally recog a strong defense can both deter would be actor outers AND bulk up diplomacy.
Neoconservatism also provides a way more better answer to dealing with terrorist creeps than realism or progressive FoPo. Too many cats misunderestimate terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists make a cost/benefit thingy and determine if they can get away with horrific behavior while gaining diplopolitical objectives by murdering innocents.
When diplomats and academics wring hands about "root causes" and 'seek constructive engagement" (talking to you Dr. L), compromise and concession, they actually enablize and embolden terrorism and make relative costs easily bearable.
Daemoneocons (and most Americans) feel the threat of air attacks, drones gone wild and targeted assassination prove a way more better disincentive than internat’l conferences and mini-bars at 5-star resorts.
Autocrazy will pass (again a hearty LOL at Professor Mearsheimer). Despots should NOT be toasted in the West, even if they are fully crunk with oil. Diplomats, policymakers and academs shouldn't diss the totally correct ideas that ppl around the earth are hot for and deserve the benefits of democracy, like Persians and Arab Leaguers demanding freedom.
Realpolitikers (and isolationists) have caused terrible harm to innocents suffering at the hands of dictators and terrorists by goofy theory rich/fact free calls for 'engagement' that may sound cool in a climate controlled environment like a classroom – yet get ppl killed in the real world
When ordinary peeps suffer under unfree, unfun and nigh unhinged regimes, the West should implement all manner of coercions. R2P is one of several. The cost of pretending that engagement with dictators is cool, or desirable is way more higher than a broader strategy with tactical Xformative diplomacy and democratization as its goal.
Most Americans - and American Primary voters - embrace these ideals.
Pic - "Oh Bay Bee Bay Bee"
AWESOME!! Posting on my fb page. epic. stellar and uber. :)N
ReplyDeleteThere's something oddly unsettling, though amusing, about your pride in neoconservatism when the whole team of 43, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Pearle et al. completely bungled the exemplar philosophical manifestation of neocon foreign policy: Iraq. It's rather like bragging about getting fired from a job for reasons of sheer incompetence.
ReplyDeleteI know, I know. This horse is dead and I, for one, hate to wield a cudgel. But reading that '98 letter sent to Clinton by The Project for New American Century still makes me question the extent of neocon hubris and the resulting myopia that such hubris naturally produces in anybody. Someone has to own the resulting sectarian violence, and the power vacuum that was quickly filled by an emboldened Iran. Such are the offspring of unthought interdiction of other nations.
As to your point of using air attacks, drones, and targeted assassinations as deterrents to factor into the terrorists' cost-benefit analyses, I'm rather confused: you fully know that we're talking about men who've left their homes, sometimes their wives and children, to take up arms against an empire which controls satellites in the skies and can launch missiles from the seas. Of course we have to "wring our hands about 'root causes'" -- this is an ideological battle: something which cannot be won by force alone. DARPA has yet to find a device which can stop the transmission of ideas from fathers to sons.
- E. Toohey
@~E. Toohey - Just lucky maybe? Seriously - wikileaks, events au courant and common sense intuition seem to prove the daemoneoconic mindcandy is totally correct on nearly every matter of un and import.
ReplyDeleteUnlike oddly unsettling terrorist sympathy memes.
@GSG
ReplyDeleteI lol'd. Hard. There's nothing in my schema consisting of sympathy for our foes.
But let me qualify -- do I empathize and attempt to understand their motivations? Of course. And from your lit list and your previous entries I imagine that you've likewise formed a model of the adversaries. But that understanding needn't creep into compassion. The idea that pragmatism, which naturally lends itself to comprehending the systemic factors of this strife, somehow bleeds into a bromance with the adversary is hokum. And, incidentally, a common ploy of mischaracterization by muscleheads whose hands can't wait to take up spears.
I have no qualms about using hard power -- just look at my reply to your post on 3/30/11. But I fear we differ in its judicious use and, perhaps, its motivation.
- Ellsworth Toohey
K, Ellsworth - you're drifting. The Bromantic descipt in your 1st commentary is then somewhat disqualified with your 2nd.
ReplyDeleteSo which is it? The old style over substance debate?
Oh, GSG -- did you just spell amazing with a 'd' and an 'f'?
ReplyDeleteWhich is it?: as if in the animal kingdom of geopolitics only doves or hawks can fly. My answer: with regards to my two commentaries, you can say that my 2c borrows a penny from each.
Because, really, is it inconceivable that the two posts needn't be mutually exclusive?
- Ellsworth Toohey
Thanks Court. A lot. Now I have Brit's song stuck in my head the rest of the day.
ReplyDeleteOh well :)