This logical confusion is compounded by the problem of political realities, a term Democrats love to throw around when referring to Iraq. If the American people are already weary of a war effort for ideals and security interests, it is inconceivable that they'd be gung-ho about fighting for ideals alone in a conflict that poses no tangible security threats to the U.S. or its allies. If Obama does decide to go ahead with this kind of intervention at the expense of Iraq, he will likely find public opinion precluding him from taking any meaningful action, with the end result akin to Clinton's Mogadishu.
While Obama's focus on Afghanistan is laudable, the lengths he is willing to take are unnecessary. If we are to learn anything about counter-insurgency from Iraq, it is that securing populations, making them feel safe, and facilitating their meaningful reconstruction is the key to defeating rogue insurgents and terrorist elements. If Obama is worried about the troop strength available to do this kind of job, the solution need not be Iraqi redeployment. Instead, he can move American troops, who are currently focused on hunting al-Qaeda operatives at the expense of grave collateral Afghani damage, away from the Pakistani border and integrate them with ISAF forces in the Afghani heartland. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban become effectively marginalized if they are unable to penetrate any Afghan cities and take them over, as they did in Iraq, and are forced over time to reckon with a burgeoning Afghani military.
Obama's latest remarks are also telling. His threat to Musharaff that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will" is disturbing. Philosophically, these remarks are compatible with the neoconservative tenet that pre-emption is justified and preferrable in times of grave danger. Yet, part of the neoconservative persuasion is the belief that the war on terrorism is a larger war against jihad that is complicated, large-scale, and global. It is about winning hearts and minds with more than just nice talk and diplomatic initiatives, but with funding and support that actually strengthen dysfunctional Muslim societies. Moreover, many neoconservatives who have been accused of "distracting" the U.S. from the "real" threat of Bin Laden have stressed that the war is more than just al-Qaeda. So it is reckless when Obama proposes that we unilaterally invade an ally, with many societally destabilizing effects no less, in order to capture just a few al-Qaeda operatives. It smacks of the myopia that is so popular on the left these days.
Of-course, the real threats, at least as perceived by neoconservatives, are given carte-blanche by Obama to continue murdering American soldiers in Iraq with 'explosively formed penetrators' and Hezbollah militants, and to black-mail the world for nuclear weapons or annexation of Lebanon, as in the case of Iran and Syria. Not only that, Obama wants to issue significant diplomatic overtures to these nations at a time when the precise punishment for such intransigence, for want of meaningful economic sanctions, is diplomatic isolation. In fact, these suggestions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the motives of these countries and run counter to any neoconservative ideology.
Article comments
1 - handyguy
I am astonished to hear that neocon Kagan has praised Obama. What's the world coming to? I'm afraid Mr. Kagan will be very disappointed if Obama actually becomes president and begins to carry out a foreign policy that is extremely unlikely to be neocon in practice.
Are you sure 'endorsed' is the right word for John Podhoretz's very back-handed compliments for Hillary Clinton? I can't find any such endorsement on the web. Bill Kristol also paid her some condescending praise as "the responsible Democrat" [meaning less anti-war than Obama].
2 - bliffle
Well, it's a wonder that anyone listens to what mssrs. Kagan, Podhoretz or Kristol ever say anymore since they've been shown to be so wrong in the past. It doesn't matter whether they were lying or had poor judgement, they were wrong.
As it happens I saw Kristol on TV the other day and my first reaction was "nothing this guy says has any value".
3 - Dave Nalle
Kristol has always been smarmy and unconvincing to me. I'm surprised it took people this long to catch on.
The article does skirt a very important point. Philosophically the neocons are really more compatible with somne of the more hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman than they are with most of the Republicans.
I think that if a democrat gets elected it would be wise to keep an eye out for neocon infiltration of his or her administration.
Dave
4 - JustOneMan
Why must we drone on about Obama? The only reason that he is a contender is because he is black! If he were some inexperienced white guy with 18 months in the senate and the same misguided polices we would never have heard of him...
JOM
5 - combymax
Jom, your comment smacks ignorance and foolishness. I think most of you are just jealous of Mr Obama's intellect. He has all that any American would desire in life and it's special if not exceptional. I would advice that if you have nothing meaningful enough to contribute in a discussion of this nature then keep yourself where you belong rather than showing off your poor understanding, lack of common-sense, and bad judgement to other people. You don't fly around with rhethorics on experience unless you have any actionalised judgement to show for it.
6 - JustOneMan
Comby...please lets not let your ignorance take over...Obama's ONLY claim to fame is that, as Joe Biden stated, "a clean articulate black"...other than that he is just another Dumbocrat hack making a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth...so you attack my opionin because you cannot defend Obama..the guy is a light weight at best...
Funny...abandoned by his black father..raised by his white mothers RICH white family..yet he denounces his whiteness...so much for racial diversity...
JOM
7 - Booma
I am with JustOneMan although I am JustOneWo/Man.
If Obama was not Anglo-Saxon-African, he would not be a controversial topic. The fact is that this country has lost respect for the Caucasions due to the fact that this country has a Color Spectrum Unrepresented people from all continents. The racism which is so evident in the White House is astounding. I mean, common, how did Conda Lisa get her job? She is a token. She does what she is told - period.
I recall that signs from the African American picketing of the President, "Conda Lisa is not my Sister!" a sign held by African American Women. Common, Obama does not represent Civil Rights. He is nothing like Martin Luther King, Jr. and those people who have a dream that all races are equal.
When he made jokes about being "Black enough" he was really making a really pointient point. When he wants to be "Black he is black." When does he want to be White? He wants to be White when the racial issue is not an issue so he does not have to say that he is a privledged man.
I mean stop acting like he knows what being Have-Not means.
Obama needs to come off his Black Horse.
8 - Dr Dreadful
as Joe Biden stated, "a clean articulate black"...
Oh, JustOneMan, you're absolutely priceless...
In support of your opinion you cite Senator Biden - who on another thread, because of that very same quote, you dismissed as "an international embarrassment... how can anyone take this guy seriously?"
That the Joe Biden we're talking about?
[Enough now with the comedy namechanges please, Doc. The Comments Editor]
9 - Christopher Rose
I just can't help myself; Booma, The Caucasions, weren't they a spinoff from The Temptations?
and Conda Lisa? I thought she was known as Condo Lisa on account of being born in an apartment block?
Rimshot!
Doc, enough now with the name spinning...
10 - Dr Dreadful
Doc, enough now with the name spinning...
I'm done. Ruvy picked up the ball and is off and running with it...
11 - JustOneMan
Dread..you prove my point Biden is an asshole! He represents the real racism in the Dumbocratic party...what dont you get!!
Boom...you are right their is a "Color Spectrum" There are some - NOT ALL - people of color and/or too lazy to learn the English language that think they deserve and/or are entitled to the same things that a hard working "caucasion" has earned for no reason other than race....pretty pathetic..
Gee I guess Dr. Rice is too educated for you and your sistas...I guess you would rather have some slut rapper as a role model..make sense to me!
JOM
12 - Dr Dreadful
JOM, I don't know what I'm more amused by: you trying to use Biden to prove a point about Obama when on the other thread you used the exact same quote to argue against taking Biden seriously; or the fact that you now seem to have decided I'm Black. I don't know where you got that from...
But, in order not to overstretch your microscopic intellect, let's lay out the basic points of your scintillating logic:
1. "Biden is irrelevant. Just look at what he said about Obama..."
2. "Obama is irrelevant. Just look at what Biden said about him..."
Just keep talking, q'un homme. You're doing a fine job of highlighting the idiocy of the Right.
13 - Mark Thompson
I have a question, which is pretty stridently absent from alot of what happens in the neoconservative line of inquiry.
Why is there a near complete absence of discussion regarding the consequences with regard to attempting to attain a hegemony over some larger percentage of the resources of the planet?
Furthermore, considering that the constraint based marketplace will compel people to become educated with respect to the policy positions - such as the hegemonic advocacy of the neoconservative punditry, presuming then that this is one of a few alternatives available, and in consideration of the decidedly destructive outcomes and negative economic consequences of the implementation of the regime change mandate as put forth in such seminal documents as "Securing the Realm" et al, leaves one inexorably to question the very fundamental principles that form the cornerstone of neoconservativism.
What compelling argument, then, therefore exists which passes not just the test of fiscal or military responsibility as a republic.