Neo-conservatism

Published Thursday, March 09, 2006 by Kevin Breathnach | E-mail this post

The Independent today reports that some of the most influential supporters of the war in Iraq have now admitted "they were wrong." Scott Burgess is away today, so I don't feel so bad in doing his job, and doing it poorly.

Firstly, as you can see by the frontpage image, the question is asked, "Are you listening, Mr. President?" Having apparently placed so much confidence in the advice of William Buckley Jnr, Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Francis Fukuyama and Richard Perle, it's certainly a pertinent question - kind of. Just what do the Independent want Bush to listen to? Based on the quotations given from each, and my own knowledge of the respective thinkers' position, none advocate that America withdraw from Iraq. You could, of course, argue that the good folk at the Indie are using these examples to suggest that Bush et al should acknowledge that they were, in fact, wrong to invade Iraq. Again though, this is tenuous ground. The Independent itself quotes Richard Perle, "[T]he Bush Administration] got the war right and the aftermath wrong," before explaining that

"Neither Mr Buckley nor Mr Sullivan concedes that the decision to topple Saddam was intrinsically wrong."

Currently, the White House accepts that they underestimated the challenges, acknowledges that mistakes have been made and yesterday there were even suggestions that they conceded that Iraq could fall into some form of civil war. This is not to say that I either agree or disagree with the claims, but at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much difference between what the respective thinkers have now said, and what the officials in Washington admit. Again, just what does the Independent want George Bush to listen to?

In a related article, resident dove, Rupert Cornwall writes that:

Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neo-cons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq.

This indeed does seem a valid point; but you'd expect someone of Cornwall's experience to be honest enough as to acknowledge that the American right-wing is not some homogeneous entity, but rather, a diverse group of individuals and groups - the three principle assortments being anti-government conservatives, social conservatives and, indeed, neo-conservatives. It is interesting, and contrary to Cornwell's point, to learn that leading neo-conservatives have, in some time in their lives, been social democrats, socialists and even Trotskites. So, while it may seem contradictory for the soi-disant small government party spending tax-payers money in order liberate an unrelated state, this simply is not the case as those who supported the war in the name of humanitarianism or spreading democracy were not the assertive nationalists who wanted Saddam toppled purely because they believed he posed a threat to the United States.

Irish Eagle gives his thoughts.

Neo-conservatism

E-mail this post

Previous posts

Archives

Latest Comments

Irish Blogs

A special place in my heart

'Proper' Journalism etc.

The Wireless