|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The Empire Builders: Leftover Leftists Rationalizing War? Diane Alden The pre-emptive-war doctrine Bush has been pushing is not original to him. It is part of the mental disorder embraced by certain elements inside and outside government in the last 15 years, but more particularly since 9/11. The short list includes: Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Thomas Barnett, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Douglas Feith, Richard Haas, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, William Bennett, Michael Novak, James Woolsey and smaller-fish newbies like Jonah Goldberg and Fred Barnes. It also consists of a few "scholars" and "experts" at AEI [American Enterprise Institute]. Like everything else in life, neocons often disagree with libertarian conservatives and business types. But the nasty leftist technique of name-calling they reserve for traditional conservatives is legendary. Usually bad plans or "visions" have an architect or supporters. The doctrine of pre-emptive war has them as well. A major blueprint in the "new world order" exists. Thomas Barnett is a notable Bush/Rumsfeld adviser in the foreign and military policy field. Barnett was added to the policymaking loop by Bill Clinton back in the early '90s: That should tell you something right there. The new bad "plan" he and others came up with to accomplish the dreams of benevolent empire are outlined in Barnett's book, "The New Pentagon Map." The tome was all the rage among the Beltway Iron Triangle set for quite some time. I believe it still serves as a blueprint for US foreign policy. Overconfidence and defective thinking are on display in his thesis; in fact, I HATE mentioning the book lest one of our intelligent NewsMax readers buys it. In any event, "New Map" lists 27 nations that are on a hit list for U.S. invasion ("regime change"). This "regime change" will take place in the name of "democracy and capitalism." Iraq was only the first of many "regime changes" they have in mind. Afghanistan was a defensive operation; Iraq is "regime change." The idea is to MAKE these nations play nice with others by "giving" them some form of what works in the West. Many in the D.C. power elite see absolutely nothing wrong with going to war without end if the ends are GOOD. They fail to comprehend that the ends do not justify the means and that the United States does not have all the power and resources of GOD. But you would be surprised how many inside and outside the Beltway think Barnett's ideas are just fine. Who cares about that "piece of paper" – the U.S. Constitution – that tells them they'd better think again!
Story Continues Below
Around the Bend What drove me around the bend on Barnett's theories was that he refers to the U.S. military as our "security commodity." It breaks my heart that so many, like Barnett with his bad theories and worse advice, have never served in the U.S. military. It makes me angry that he refers to the brave men and women in uniform as a COMMODITY, as if they were on a par with oil, silver, gold or pork bellies. In addition, he states unequivocally: "The boys are NEVER coming home." Which means that, for the foreseeable future, our nation's sons and daughters will be in one police action, war, dustup, shootout, regime change or attempt to bring Kentucky Fried Chicken to the world's malcontents from now till the Second Coming. The reasons Barnett offers for perpetual warfare: Warfare and the imposition of managerial bureaucracy or "democracy" on backward nations will bring "stability" to the world and the world economy. Commerce and commercial interests are at the CORE of much of the thinking that Barnett and other neocons exhibit. Unfortunately, that thinking fits well with the establishment figures now controlling the nation and the Republican Party. The Republican Party is now controlled by those with a tendency to give international corporate and financial interests whatever they want. Throw both parties in the mix, come to think of it, and also most of Congress, regardless of political party. Surprise, surprise – commerce and commercial interests and their well being are at the CORE of ‘globalization' as well. Barnett's theories about the use of the military and "regime change" are only nominally based on even a passing idea about individual freedom. The neocon and corporate-collective fail on issues of U.S. sovereignty: Immigration and trade policy come to mind.
Their fantasy is a faulty version of democracy encompassing the idea that economic stability and "globalization" trump everything. Think of China, which has an abominable human rights record but is "stable" economically. Stability, regardless of the type of government, is the end game. Think of Russia, which seems to be headed back to the bad old days. Meantime, the neocons and their subsets are willing to take on smaller nations with little military might but not those that actually might fight back and WIN. The plan to attack Iran and Iraq, overturn or somehow pre-empt other governments in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America, and Asia if they don't toe some neocon line regarding "stability" and "democracy" is deranged. So it goes; they are happy with the idea of creating "stability," ergo utopia, in our lifetime. Corporate interests are happy, and the collective has new worlds to turn upside down and individuals to regulate and harass. A marriage made in hell. Golden Theories Can Kill The Sojourner, another intellectual Christian magazine, occasionally expounds on the foreign policy train wreck coming our way. "The Political Theology of George W. Bush" is interesting analysis, and the open-minded will give it a little thought: "The military victory in Iraq seems to have confirmed a new world order," Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, wrote recently in The Washington Post. "Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others. Indeed, the word 'empire' has come out of the closet."Sojourner also recounts the thinking of one of the founders of the Project for a New American Century, the neocon "group" of policy wonks and political insiders: the intellectual hothouse whence many Bush administration policy ideas come. William Kristol, editor of the influential Weekly Standard, admits the aspiration to empire. "If people want to say we're an imperial power, fine," Kristol wrote. Kristol is chair of the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative political figures that began in 1997 to chart a much more aggressive American foreign policy. The Project's papers lay out the vision of an "American peace" based on "unquestioned U.S. military pre-eminence." These imperial visionaries write, "America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It is imperative, in their view, for the United States to "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." That, indeed, is empire. This reckless mindset compels me to ask: Whatever happened to humility? Did limited government and circumspect use of power granted by the Constitution to the various branches of government disappear while I was having my tires rotated? When did corporate and collective interests take over the destiny and policy of the United States? Why are the morons we elect to office, the mainstream media and good people NOT screaming bloody murder about this attempt to redefine who we are and what kind of nation we want to be? Why aren't MORE thoughtful people asking, When did it become our duty or RIGHT to charge around the world bringing "regime change" for any reason? Who in God's name thinks in terms of people as "commodities" to be used by rulers and governments for whatever purpose? I know for a fact that before George W. Bush became president and not subject to the influence of Dick Cheney and the other power groupies at the Project for a New American Century, he had some sensible ideas concerning the limits of power and how power should be used. In an October 2000 presidential debate, candidate Bush warned against an overactive American foreign policy and the negative reception it would receive around the world. Bush cautioned restraint. "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us," he said. "If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." The thought patterns and philosophy of neocons like Dick Cheney, William Kristol and Thomas Barnett and the rest of that bunch are alarming, to say the least. Their faulty reasoning and resulting policy disasters reveal a cataclysmic presumption on the part of these "thinkers." They are purveyors of "golden theories" that should be ignored before they kill again. Diane may be heard Wednesdays on WNDB-AM on "The Marc Bernier Show," from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern time in Bristol, Tenn. (10 a.m. to noon local time), and 3 to 7 p.m. in Daytona Beach, Fla.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |