Some writers and intellectuals have argued that criticism of
neoconservatism is often a euphemism for criticism of Zionist Jews,
and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize
support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J.
Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned[74]
a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign
policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-known
cabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense
intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over
on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a
product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist
movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war
with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J.
Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).
Time magazine's Joe Klein has suggested it is legitimate to look at
the religion of neoconservatives. He does not say there was a
conspiracy but says there is a case to be made for disproportionate
influence of Jewish neoconservative figures in US foreign policy, and
that several of them supported the Iraq war because of Israel's
interests, though sometimes in an unconscious contradiction to
American interests:
"I do believe that there is a group of people who got involved and had
a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy. There were people
out there in the Jewish community who saw this as a way to create a
benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies....I think
it represents a really dangerous anachronistic neocolonial
sensibility. And I think it is a very, very dangerous form of
extremism. I think it's bad for Israel and it's bad for America. And
these guys have been getting a free ride. And now these people are
backing the notion of a war with Iran and not all of them, but some of
them, are doing it because they believe that Iran is an existential
threat to Israel."[75]
David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a...
sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened
into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is
short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in
widely different circles..."[76] Barry Rubin argued that the
neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[77]
First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did
with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist
leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved
in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The
implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not
in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the
benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
On Jun 25, 11:03 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What Neocons Don't Understand About WarBy Conor Friedersdorf
> Jun 24 2011Politics shapes strategy in conflicts of choice -- which is another reason to avoid themInNational Review,The Weekly Standard, and theWashington Post, leading War on Terror hawks are expressing outrage at the timeline President Obama set for troop reductions in Afghanistan. Their complaint: politics is driving American policy. "So why September 2012?" Bill Kristol writes. "Because, one has to conclude, Election Day is November 6, 2012. The deadline will allow candidate Obama to say that he has completely withdrawn the surge forces, and that we're on our way out of Afghanistan and coming home. The timetable President Obama has set isn't based on military considerations, diplomatic strategies, or financial calculations."
> Perhaps it's time to let these guys in on a secret: elected officials are constantly playing politics. Even on matters of national security. As they wage foreign wars, they concern themselves with the mood of the American people, support for hostilities in Congress, and how troop levels might affect their prospects for being re-elected. Almost inevitably, the strategy and tactics they employ depend at least partly on all those factors, and other political considerations besides.
> Most adults know this.
> For that reason, it's wise to refrain from waging wars of choice, a label that arguably didn't apply to Afghanistan circa 2001, but certainly started applying at some point over the last decade. When our safety isn't imminently threatened, it is tempting to avoid the slaughter of our sons and daughters, especially if it saves billions of dollars. It's tempting even when it isn't militarily optimal.
> Guys like Kristol constantly urge us to undertake ever more wars of choice anyway. It's as if they're blind to the fact that the American people tire of adventures abroad on a timetable that doesn't correspond to however many decades are required to prevail in them (if in fact winning is even possible). A prudent decision-maker, weighing whether to launch or extend a foreign war, would presume the eventual war weariness of the populace, and the political nature of presidents.
> Kristol and those who trust his foreign policy judgment aren't prudent decision-makers. In their telling, the US would've prevailed if only we stuck it out longer in Vietnam. Islamist extremists wouldn't have been emboldened if only we'd stuck it out in Beirut. Iraq would've gone better if only we'd invested in a bigger military during the 1990s and sent more troops in earlier. We'd win all our wars of choice if only Americans would give neo-cons a blank check, unlimited troops, and no deadline! That the conditions they deem necessary for victory are fantastical doesn't bother them.
> It doesn't help that their desire to wage new wars causes them to mislead the American people about how long victory might take. Here's Bill Kristol on October 1, 2001: "Saddam Hussein, because of his strategic position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, surely represents a more potent challenge to the United States and its interests and principles than the weak, isolated, and we trust, soon-to-be crushed Taliban. And unlike the Taliban, Saddam Hussein may soon have at his disposal not only terrorist networks, but biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons."
> Here he is on November 26, 2001: "WITH THE TALIBAN DISLODGED and Osama bin Laden increasingly shorn of allies, the endgame seems to be in sight in Afghanistan." It's no wonder the American people are war weary and uninclined to trust the assurances of hawks that we just need to stay a little bit longer - but without any timetable for withdrawal - to assure American victory. They've been telling us for a decade that victory is just over the next hill. Why trust them now?http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/what-neocons-dont-know-about-war/240956/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
