Pax Americana? or Pox Neocona?

Okay, fromtheright, here's my reply:

[T]he ideology of American empire...regards America as founded on universal principles

I think the point is that the principles that these United States were founded on are not universally adhered in the world.

Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric.

I think the author is merely pointing out a fact. It does not necessarily flow from pointing out the fact that one is saying it is a bad thing.

They demand, among other things, ‘‘moral clarity’’ in dealing with [the Soviet Union]

would have been an excellent paraphrase of Ronald Reagan.

I agree.

They see themselves as champions of "virtue".

Again, simply a statement of fact.


There are similarities between the advocates of the ideology of American empire and the ideologues who inspired and led the French Revolution of 1789.

The point is that our Founding Fathers did not have global ambitions of using force to spread democracy. The neocons do.

The Jacobins, too, claimed to represent universal principles which they summed up in the slogan "liberte, e'galite', et fraternite."

Again, American ideals are not universally adopted throughout the world.

The dominant Jacobins also wanted greater economic freedom. They thought of themselves as fighting on the side of good against evil...

Again, simply a statement of fact.

Similarly, foreign policy expert Robert Kagan writes of his fellow Americans: ‘‘As good children of the Enlightenment, Americans believe in human perfectibility.

I don't think that neocons are monolithic.

those principles as ‘‘rational and everywhere applicable’’ and thus as monopolistic. Greater dedication to ‘‘American principles’’ would by definition increase, not reduce, the wish to dictate terms to others.

The neocons certainly do wish to "dictate terms to others".

As Soviet communism was crumbling, it seemed to people of this orientation increasingly realistic to expect an era in which the United States would be able to dominate the world on behalf of universal principles.

I would argue that as the one superpower we should be in an even better position to follow President Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements.

Behind the argument that the United States and its values are models for all peoples lurked the will to power, which was sometimes barely able to keep up ideological appearances.

As neocon, Ben Wattenberg, said, "A unipolar world is fine, if America is the uni." If you agree with this, fine, but don't try to make it sound altruistic.

‘‘Where our cause is just and interests are threatened, we should act—even if . . . we must act unilaterally.’’ A quote Ryn attributed to Charles Krauthammer.

And we see what kinds of problems acting unilaterally is causing us in Iraq now.

 

Okay, fromtheright, here is my further reply:

President Bush’s rhetoric began to take on a neo-Jacobin coloring, as when he spoke of the ‘‘axis of evil,’’ a phrase coined by neoconservative David Frum.

Personally, I have no problem with the term.

The U.S. Congress should, Kagan insisted, declare war immediately on the terrorists and any nation that might have assisted them.

I agree. I wish the Congress would follow the federal constitution and do so. Also, no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida has been proven.

The situation required that America act with ‘‘moral clarity and courage as our grandfathers did [responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor]. Not by asking what we have done to bring on the wrath of inhuman murderers. Not by figuring out ways to reason with, or try to appease those who have spilled our blood.’’

I agree.

[President Bush] has presided over a massive push for a vastly more intrusive role for government in the daily lives of U.S. citizens.

www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/nov/14/111410400.html

In fairness to a politician who is not also an intellectual and a historian, war has its own logic, and it may be premature to draw definitive conclusions about the [P]resident’s statements and actions in the wake of 9/11, which was an act of war.

The voters will have reveal their conclusions in November 2004.

In mid-September 2002, President Bush sent to the U.S. Congress the [P]resident’s annual statement on strategy, the National Security Strategy, which gave clear evidence that he was abandoning his earlier calls for a more ‘‘humble’’ U.S. foreign policy.

The author is referring to George W. Bush's campaign rhetoric of 2000.

The report calls for possessing such overwhelming military power as to discourage any other power from challenging American hegemony or developing weapons of mass destruction.

Well, if we are going to follow this idea, then I guess we'll have to watch out for Pakistan, India, North Korea, Great Britain, France, Russia, and Israel(and maybe some others) in the area of nuclear weapons.

But I certainly have no problem with us having a superior military to any other country.

It overturns the old doctrines of deterrence and containment.

The Reagan administration didn't invade the old Soviet Union. We built up our military power from the Carter years and the Soviet Union had become so emaciated from 70 years of extreme socialism that it couldn't keep up, and then crumbled.

In explaining the report [ National Security Strategy of the United States of America ], a senior administration official said that besides leading the world in the war against terrorists and ‘‘aggressive regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction,’’ the United States should preserve the peace, ‘‘extend the benefits of liberty and prosperity through the spread of American values,’’ and promote ‘‘good governance.’’

We have no business trying to spread democracy at the point of a gun on countries that are not democracy material. Every country is not ripe for democratization. There usually has to be some major economic progress made before democracy can take hold.

But neither president followed any sustained, consistent strategy. By contrast, the Bush Doctrine as set forth in the National Security Strategy

I have no problem with a consistent strategy. Our argument is over what the strategy should be.

Reservations expressed in Europe and elsewhere about American unilateralism and global aspirations

International relations is quite complicated. As long as we act within our own borders, it doesn't matter what other nations think. But if we are going to be a player on the world stage, it is a mistake to think we can always act alone. Just look at the mess now in Iraq where we can't get other major nations to help us in defeating the resistance there. Also, terrorism is worldwide and we need other nations to help us in stopping the flow of funds to terrorists through the world banking system.

It seems to the proponents of the ideology of American empire that, surely, America the virtuous is entitled to dominate the world.

If we are in that position, then we should be true to our founding principles and refuse to do so. The defeat of worldwide terror will require a worldwide effort that we can certainly lead but should not diss the other democracies in the world in carrying out this effort.

As Ronald Reagan preached, the idealistic utopians and the well meaning are responsible for some of the world’s worst evils. Self-righteousness blinds one to one’s own sins.

I think a word of caution that we don't get too big-headed in foreign policy is needed. Just look at the mess in Iraq now caused by such big-headedness.

 

Nice response, fromtheright. I am glad we can have an amicable discussion on this. I'll just let your response wrap it up, for now at least. I have to get ready for dog agility trials next weekend so I doubt I'll be here on the BaptistBoard much through next weekend.

 

Pretty good article. Definitely confirms my fears that the neocons want to establish an American Empire instead of simply following the federal Constitution and defending the United States' territorial integrity. Perhaps that it why they appear to more interested in what happens in Iraq than in defending the borders of these United States from illegal immigrants.

 

You got that right.

 

I was all gung ho for the war until about July when it became apparent that President Bush had deceived me(he might have been deceived by the neocons himself) about invading Iraq because it had WMDs when no WMDs had(or have) been found. That's when I quit supporting the war(but still supporting the troops).

 

I am totally, 100% opposed to that doctrine. That idea is very, very easy to misuse. We may believe that we would never misuse the doctrine but if we can use it as justification for attacking another country, all other countries could use the idea as well. And I don't think we want to open that can of worms.