-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The crisis in Egypt has exposed the divisions that separate neoconservatives from other hawkish conservatives (I’m not exactly sure which label to put on this latter group). People often confuse these two groups as one in the same, because they both are generally supportive of aggressive military action, skeptical of international institutions that undermine U.S. interests, strong defenders of Israel, often advocates of regime change, and so forth. But this other group is much more skeptical of democracy promotion.
A perfect way to demonstrate this divide is to look at John Bolton, who has often been misidentified as a neoconservative because he supported many of the same policies, but he has always eschewed this label – in Iraq, for instance, he’s said we should have toppled Saddam and then pulled out once we captured him. He was not on board with the nation building part. Not surprisingly, when it comes to Egypt, as many neoconservatives are cheerleading the protesters, Bolton has said:
I don’t think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, “one person, one vote, one time.” The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t care about democracy, if they get into power you’re not going to have free and fair elections either….
Let’s be clear what the stakes are for the United States. We have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally. We don’t know at this point what the real alternatives are.
He also said that the U.S. “better advised to remain silent” on Egypt.
I find myself more in agreement with Bolton on this one. Sure, it would be great if somehow a new, Western-style democratic government emerged that was friendly to the United States, but that’s only one of many possible outcomes stemming from the current chaos, and probably the least likely. Other possible outcomes are that the Muslim Brotherhood gains power as Hamas did in Gaza, or, at least attains more influence than it had under Hosni Mubarak. No matter what happens, there’s a good chance that the resulting government will be less friendly to the U.S. And the very minimum we can say is that we don’t really know how this will all turn out, and whether it would be good or bad for the U.S. is very much in doubt.
I differ from neoconservatives in two important respects – I’m not going to cheer the protests for the sake of cheering any groups that rise up against a despot without knowing what the result will be, and I don’t think that there’s much – if anything – America can or should do at this point to ensure a more favorable outcome. It was mind-boggling this week when I asked Sen. John McCain about the prospects of the Muslim Brotherhood being included in the government, and he said to me, “I think the United States should take every step to make sure there is a free and fair and open and transparent election, and that won’t happen.” So, not only is America going to ensure free and fair elections, but if we do so, the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood is going to suddenly disappear.
The neoconservative view is that U.S. support for tyrants in the Middle East has fueled resentment of America among the people, and that by encouraging democracy – even with force if necessary – we can reverse this trend, and have friendly, free governments in the region. It’s nice to believe that this could be the case, and I understand the temptation – I was taken in by the idea after the invasion of Iraq. But I think it’s too oversimplified.
Right now, many are saying that the chaos in Egypt shows that we can’t support autocrats, because in the end, they aren’t a source of stability. It may be true that Mubarak is no longer a source of stability, but for 30 years, he’s led the most important Arab nation (which controls the oil-transporting Suez Canal) and has kept its government about as friendly to the United States as can be hoped for in that region, he’s helped us in the war against terrorism, provided a check on Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and has maintained the peace treaty with Israel (the two countries were at war in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973). Now, certainly, his record on human rights is atrocious, so I’m not going to defend him on that front or root for him to brutally crack down on peaceful protesters. But at the same time, I’m not going to cheer for the protesters just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy especially when the result of the protests could quite conceivably be a government that’s still autocratic, but also anti-American. And one that helps support terrorism rather than fight it.
With Iran, I was actively cheering on the protesters, because that regime is already autocratic, anti-American, and Islamist and it sponsors terrorism – it’s hard to imagine how things could possibly get worse. But with regards to Egypt, there’s not much to do right now other than sit back and hope for the best.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/04/john-bolton-and-the-neoconhawk
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.4.11 @ 12:18PM
Philip,
I only have one gripe. You are very glib throwing labels around such as neo-con etc.
Neo-con has become a curse word for many, yet there is a wide assortment of conservatives who support Israel's right to exist.
Philip Klein| 2.4.11 @ 12:47PM
Point taken. I always try to be careful with labels, but sometimes it's difficult to avoid them when writing.
Red Phillips | 2.4.11 @ 2:03PM
Ken, neoconservatism is a real, identifiable, definable (perhaps not easily) things. Just ask Irving Kristol. That doesn't mean it hasn't been mis and over used, but that also doesn't mean it can't be used correctly.
Quartermaster| 2.4.11 @ 6:20PM
Klein's position is entirely consistent with the Neocons. perhaps that's because is a neocon, regardless of his protest to the contrary.
McCain, OTH, is not a Neocon. He's just a leftist moron that masquerades as a conservative.
ncatty| 2.4.11 @ 12:30PM
I wonder if the new regime will stay "friendly" if we keep sending them $1.3 billion every year.
Too Many Tims| 2.4.11 @ 1:17PM
We call it "foreign Aid" but it is really just bribe money. Just like "foreign policy" is mostly threats.
Liberal Reader| 2.4.11 @ 1:48PM
We also sell them billions in weapons, an incentive they certainly prize more than this aid.
Rufus Choate | 2.4.11 @ 12:42PM
I with you and Bolton on Egypt and Iran essentially in light of Iraq and Afghnaistan. Islam and liberal democracy are not compatible. Democracy should used as a weapon to destroy our enemies and to strengthen our friends in very small doses.
Liberal Reader| 2.4.11 @ 1:01PM
One question I have is this:
What the hell is going on at Fox News?
Why are they circulating conspiracy theories that border on the insane?
Egypt is a complicated mess. No president could be handling an explosive situation like this all that well.
But Murdoch -- the owner of the Wall Street Journal, an excellent newspaper -- is tolerating sheer lunacy to substitute for responsible competent analysis of what is going on in Cairo.
I'm sure there's plenty of conservative criticism due the White House. There always is. But arguing that Obama and George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush are engaged in a conspiracy to install a communist Islamic caliphate in the Middle East is just ludicrous, and this is exactly what Beck has been promulgating this week. Hannity and others have engaged in similar fear-mongering and conspiracy-mongering.
Bolton's rash declarations on Iran are hardly new, but one wonders why they're being given so much airtime. There are plenty of conservatives who have prudent analysis to offer.
I thought Fox News was trying to be a responsible, conservatively-biased news agency.
Too Many Tims| 2.4.11 @ 1:17PM
You obviously watch a LOT more Fox than I do. You should be worried.
JPM| 2.4.11 @ 5:33PM
I have no idea what's on Fox nor do I care. That said, somebody should certainly be pointing out that the same President who can't be bothered to encourage an uprising against an Islamist government (Iran) breaks out the pom poms for an uprising which, if successful, is likely to empower an Islamist government in Egypt. The contrast between BHO's reaction to the Green Revolution and his bleating about events in Cairo tells you everything you need to know about Obama and the left. He is actively working against US interests in the Middle East and promoting the interests of our deadly enemies. That's the sort of thing that demands a bit of publicity, don't you think?
Liberal Reader| 2.4.11 @ 6:00PM
Well, if you want to publicize it, go right ahead.
But consider this:
THE worst, the absolute worst, thing that could happen to a democracy movement in Iran would be that it people get the idea it was hatched in Langley.
Iranians are -- understandably, you will admit -- sensitive about the US meddling in their country. They are proud, nationalist people -- including the people agitating for more democracy.
Obama did the right thing quietly encouraging it, just as Bush or Clinton or HW Bush or Reagan or any other president would have done.
Quartermaster| 2.4.11 @ 6:22PM
You see things as the Shah's son does. He wants our support, but does not want us involved. I'm a strong conservative, and I agree totally with him on that.
Cameron| 2.4.11 @ 7:02PM
Beck's getting to you Marxists, isn't he? I love it. Cockroaches like you abhor the light of truth.
Try refuting his assiduously researched analysis instead of just whining about it.
GO GLENN GO!!
Liberal Reader| 2.7.11 @ 1:35PM
"Beck's getting to your Marxists, isn't he?"
Well, Cameron, this is a little like me asking you if you enjoy beating your wife, isn't it.
I'm not a Marxist. I don't know many Marxists. I'm not sure what you mean by Beck "getting to me." I think Beck is an idiot, and I pretty much think anyone who takes him seriously is probably an idiot. Does that qualify with him "getting to" me?
My post wasn't really about Beck. It was about Fox News. They've been protesting about the low esteem in which their news division is held by other journalists, arguing that they keep news and opinion separate. But I think insofar as Beck is promulgating bizarre and completely baseless theories about a world wide caliphate, Fox is getting near being capsized by such obvious lunacy, and I'm curious when the actual journalists who do work there will do something about it.
Steviec| 2.4.11 @ 1:18PM
"The neoconservative view is that U.S. support for tyrants in the Middle East has fueled resentment of America among the people, and that by encouraging democracy – even with force if necessary – we can reverse this trend, and have friendly, free governments in the region."
Really? When did that happen? The neoconservatives cut their teeth in the Cold War, and believe they brought about the end of the Soviet Union under Reagan. So all these PhDs got their egos together and thought they could change the strategically vital Middle East by removing Saddam's regime, we'd have another friend in the region, and the dominos of democracy would fall. The problem is there was never a pro democracy program except a bit of rhetoric. Mubarak, Saleh, the al Sauds, King Abdullah, Bashir, Israeli occupation, even Gaddafi (not to mention questionable regimes the UAE, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait) - there has never been any push for democratic reforms in these countries. We backed these guys, ignored history, were too cosy with Israel at all times in every situation, and oil is just too vital to us. Save Syria and Iran, we have loads of allies in the region. It's just that they all have governments contrary to our professed ideals. So in Egypt, cheer or be silent, we made our bed and now we have to lie in it. I'm confident that a regime will come to power in Cairo that Washington will be dissatisfied with, and that will, to a certain extent, be Washington's fault.
Quartermaster| 2.4.11 @ 6:26PM
The neocons cut their teeth on the cold war while they were the hawkish wing of the Democrat party. Do a little research on who they worked for up through the mid 70s. Richard Perle, for example, was on Sen. Henry Jackson's staff. Jackson, if you will recall, was a social and fiscal liberal who loved the military. he called the military the most important social program we have. The history of the rest that ilk is pretty much the same. That's why they're all for us spending ourselves bankrupt, as long as we keep funding the military.
steviec| 2.5.11 @ 6:00AM
Well I dont really give a toss what party they were in, as both over several decades have doe little for democratic reform in the region besides vague rhetoric and some toothless prodding. But to your point you dug up one example - Richard Perle was a Democrat in the 70s. I think you'll find that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, and Elliot Abrams were not on Henry Jackson's, or any other Democrat's staff - and they shaped GOP foreign policy vis a vis Iraq. So the history of the rest is quite different. And any implication that the Democratic Party is somehow more culpable in USG defense spending is pretty rich.
steviec| 2.5.11 @ 6:04AM
I spoke too soon! Abrams was (was) a Dem in the 70s. I stand corrected on thet one.
Red Phillips | 2.4.11 @ 1:57PM
I am glad Philip has pointed out this neocon vs. other hawks divide. I have called this other group "safety and security" hawks. They're driven primarily by safety and security concerns rather than democracy promotion. Although in this particular case, not all neocons are siding with the protestors. So the divide here is between what I have called the "democracy fetishists" and those who still allow some degree of realism to restrain their ideological commitments.
Red Phillips | 2.4.11 @ 2:35PM
Daniel Larison pointed out this Bolton/neoconservative distinction recently.
"she cites John Bolton’s sovereignty arguments against international agreements and institutions. Despite being perpetually wrong and obnoxious about major national security issues, and despite being a former high-ranking Bush administration official, John Bolton is not really a neoconservative if we want to use the word properly. He is a hawkish unilateralist nationalist, and he and many neoconservatives would typically agree on most foreign policy issues, but it is still a mistake to call him a neoconservative or assume that neoconservatives are as attached to a particular understanding of national sovereignty as he is. To the extent that deploying pro-sovereignty arguments enhances American power, neoconservatives would have no problem using them, but they more than happy to exploit international institutions and their regulations as pretexts for infringing on other states’ sovereignty. Mistakenly identifying Bolton as a neoconservative creates no end of confusion about what neoconservatives’ views on national sovereignty are."
http://www.amconmag.com/lariso.....vereignty/
cali| 2.5.11 @ 12:52AM
If the current admin had supported the true 'green revolution' in Iran rather then ignoring them to curry favor with Khomeni, the Eqypt issue would have arrived on another level, and purpose.
the current one is not a revolution, it's a community organiser uprising to start trouble led by communist supporters.
Darrell Dolley| 2.5.11 @ 11:54PM
I did not realize that John Bolton was an expert on the politics of Egypt--what is his academic background on Egyptology???? And has he ever visited or lived in Egypt--may be visited as a tourist???? And I think his knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt dates back to what it was 40 years ago. The current day Egypt Brotherhood is certainly not the terrorist organization of yesterday. And since it does form a part of the Egyptian populace it certainly deserves to participate in any protester negotiation with the Mubarak dynasty--not that I want them to be designated president or prime minister, but I do think they deserve to be on the ballot for parlimentary elections.
SeekingRationalThought| 2.6.11 @ 3:47PM
These comments remind me that we often get too tied to labels, especially in foreign policy. This isn't to say that labels are not useful or necessary. The US has an ideological and moral bias in favor of democracy. We can also use it as a foreign policy tool in specific instances. In the end, however, we need to be an international player that is predictable and rational. All things being equal, we should follow our moral compass. But all things are not always equal. Our ultimate interest lies in our own survival. While our actions should be informed by our morals and ideology, we shouldn't let them lead us toward materially damaging ourselves or others regardless of the consequences. If we engage in morality based actions that lead to thousands of deaths or make things worse for the people of countries like Egypt, are we really acting morally? Do we look at the long-term or the short term in evaluating a policy?
These are incredibly complex situations and decisions and their results cannot be properly evaluated for years after they are made. Therefore, it gets us nowhere to use labels as wedges or curse words. All it does is distract us from a discussion of the several options available and the probabilities of their success or failure. The sad fact is that none of them are assured of success and they all may fail. Name calling is a sign of a small mind that refuses to address the difficult and often sad realities we face.
jimbo| 2.7.11 @ 2:11PM
If america does not support the democratic movement in egypt and allows the regime to stay, if even a fraction of the 2- 4 million protesters decide they will try more militant ways to get their freedom, we lose. Autocratic regimes are propped up by spreading fear, paranoia and false propoganda. It is a lot easier to turn those tables against the U.S. then to have a democratic government in egypt turn against the U.S. Unfortunately, this is all about Isreal and the worry of what will happen to Isreal. My stance on this, is if egypt is a bit tougher and the U.S. is a bit tougher on Isreali policy, I think the chances for peace will be significantly higher.
Harris| 2.12.11 @ 9:15PM
I would call the Bolton group the "Jacksonians". I think that's actually a Walter Russell Mead appellation, but it makes sense. Bolton is keen on quoting Jeanne Kirkpatrick, author of the widely read "Dicatorships and Double Standards"--the true architect of Reagan's foreign policy. To be honest, I didn't believe this rift actually existed. I thought the neocons were basically Kirkpatrick clones who embraced democractic slogans for their own purposes. To their credit, their convictions are actually convictions. Both ideologies have merit: you can't support democracy in places where it isn't workable. The rub is in determining where it is "workable"--and how it is brought about. The neocons clearly failed in that regard with Iraq (even though it might get better in the future, it's looking like another Lebanon as a result of the neocon delusion). The organic character of the Egypt developments clearly distinguishes it. Further, there is nothing we can do to stop whatever happens. Both of these groups (Jacksonians and neocons) seem to believe that America is all-powerful. This is their mutual flaw. Obama's primary foreign policy insight is that America isn't all powerful, especially through words. He further recognizes that our words are often detrimental to democratic movements. There appears to be a rift between Obama and the more "Jacksonian" State/Defense Depts.: he recognizes our lack of influence, and acts accordingly. They attempt to maintain the status quo. The ONLY thing America can do at this point is salvage our image with the street and encourage the Egyptian military to do what it must to prevent an allout collapse of the regime. The Pentagon seems to think that it can engineer a soft military coup with a repeated artifice of democracy. In spite of the strong Egyptian motivation for stability (i.e., deriving from the tourism industry, Suez traffic, etc.), the younger generation is burgeoning rapidly with little prospect of gainful employment. As Kris Kristofferson enlightened us, "freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose". There is no turning back. Mitigation of harm is the only option, and that harm is currently incomplete.
J McHugh| 3.28.11 @ 11:09AM
Yaron Brook is a great example of a "hawk" who most certainly not a neocon. Read: "Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy" in the Objective Standard,or, his book : "Neoconservatism an Obituary for an Idea" (with C. Bradley Thompson.)