Fundamental Assumptions of the Neoconservative Mind
I think Lieberman's ahead in the race between him and McCain for most despicable senator. Lieberman says amazing things, like:
When the people see suicide bombings on TV every night they get frustrated, they get angry. And what I wish they did was get angry because those suicide bombings of people signing up to be Iraqi police officers show how evil the enemy is*
This is a fundamental assumption of the pro-war crowd: only we sufficiently understand evil. And apparently, frustration with evil (as if that's going away anytime soon, Senator) is the morally courageous position whereas frustration with the entire buildup and execution of this war and the people responsible for it is unserious.
In war, ultimately there are two exit strategies. One is called victory. The other is called defeat. The President offered a proposal the other night that holds the hope of victory in a critical battle for the Iraqis and for us.
First of all, victory and defeat are not strategies, they are outcomes. Four-star generals don't get together in a room and say to eachother, "well, our strategy for this war is to win it." Winning is assumed from the start, because if you don't think you can win, then why would you go to war? But the key is that strategy is the nuts and bolts of how you achieve your goal. And as I asked below, no one has defined what that goal is. I assume the goal is something to the effect of stopping the violence in Iraq, which seems rather impossible without overwhelming force and all the negative consequences associated with it.
With all respect, the other proposals represent the beginning of a retreat. Of a defeat. And I think the consequences for the Middle East, which has been so important to our national stability over the years, and to the American people, who have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy we are fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical superpower government in Iran.
More assumptions fundamental to the pro-war crowd: The people we are fighting in Iraq are the same as those that attacked us on 9/11. This is, of course, not true unless you define your enemy as "non-state-supported violence." That category is broad enough to include Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, Saudi terrorists, and Al Qaeda, which is in conflict with the other fundamental assumption: Iran is a superpower at the center of a global Islamic jihadist movement. First of all Iran is not, repeat, not a superpower, unless Lieberman is defining "superpower" as "a radical ideology that threatens us." The beauty of this definition is that it renders irrelevant any notion of military parity and capability. Iran is not a threat to the United States precisely because they do not possess the military prowess to engage us directly. This is why Lieberman asserts that Iran is the mastermind behind global Islamic terrorism. It lets him make simpleminded and sweeping claims about various parties who each have various agendas and creates a superenemy for us to fight. I'm no expert in the Middle East but anyone who is literate can read a decent newspaper that covers international affairs and learn about the Middle East and the power struggles involved. Lieberman's brain is still shortcircuited after 9/11 into thinking this "axis of evil" bullshit is real.
I'm willing to bet that these people secretly desire nuclear obliteration of Iran but that would threaten the energy resources there (probably why the military is developing "low yield" nukes and "bunker busters"). You can't invade Iran and force regime change either (no troops) so what do you do? Apparently anything but diplomacy, which is the final fundamental assumption of the pro-war crowd: you can't negotiate with evil because all they understand is power. I'm sick of writing the word "neoconservative," which is why I've been calling them the "pro-war" crowd. But all of these fundamental assumptions are what drive the neoconservative understanding of foreign policy. They abhor international institutions precisely because they curtail sovereign states' ability to unilaterally use force. For all their talk about freedom and democracy, the neocons really believe in one thing: power. That's ironic, because foreign policy realists like Kissinger think the same thing. Power is important, but it is not the only thing that matters.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Bush administration is trying to force a war with Iran, to seek a causus belli. But that's another subject. The most important thing to note about all this is its inherent dishonesty. If this is the grand struggle of our times, with everything on the line, then why has it consistently been done on the cheap? To listen to Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Kristol, Kagan and others you would think that the very fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance. So why hasn't the whole country, indeed the whole West, been mobilized to seek an end to evil? Where is the grand Churchillian rhetoric about shared sacrifice? It's conspicuously missing because only the necons believe their own rhetoric. They were able to capitalize on a political moment--September 11, 2001-- to convince enough people for enough time that we could and would topple the dictatorships of the world and democratize them. As 9/11 fades further into memory the public's willingness to see the grand struggle has all but evaporated. That is why there is widespread disgust with Bush's "surge" plan. It looks like exactly what it is: Bush trying to salvage the centerpiece of his presidency. That is why Cheney is saying that we must show "stomach" to win in Iraq (without defining "winning"). It absolves him and his boss of responsibility and shifts it to the American people. And that is why Lieberman sounds like the Republican and the Republican sounds like the Democrat. Whether they're just trying to save their ass in 2008, or actually appalled by how far Iraq has deteriorated (I'm actually leaning towards the latter interpretation), Republicans are coming around to the fact that there is only one position on Iraq that makes sense: phased withdrawl. And those who insist on the victory "strategy" are going to find themselves irrelevant in 2008.
*Transcription of Lieberman video mine.