I’ll grant you that I am not the most up to date in current political news, but isn’t that basically a riff on the domino theory from the 60s?
I think the Domino Theory was somewhat more credible. At least there they were trying to bolster existing governments that happened to share some common interests. Here, advocates are trying to build foreign governments that reflect our values.
Alstein
6144
Hillary is not a Neocon, but Obama was too non-interventionist IMO, some of that I think was being hamstrung by the Bush disaster.
Sanders would probably be like Obama, Hillary is probably better on foreign policy, but not by much and it’s only a minor point to me.
Webb would have been my preference.
vyshka
6145
He has already said multiple times that they aren’t living up to their end of the agreement.
It’s too late for him to register as an independent, but I don’t think that makes things any easier for the GOP. A brokered convention would destroy whatever remains of party unity. And besides, who would they run … Rubio?
They were using military power (mostly not American in the former case) in an existing situation to tilt the outcome to one that they thought would be friendlier to the US.
Again, that’s “Neocon” only if you assume that ANY foreign military action that the US takes is “Neocon”, at which time it pretty much becomes synonymous with “interventionist”. But for me, a military act in the US’ best interests (eg encouraging the removal of Assad) is not the same thing as “nation-building” like what the Neocons attempted in Iraq.
In Libya and certainly in Syria I get the impression that there was not really any expectation that the resulting governments (if any) would be democratic; we were pretty much just assuming that whatever came after Gaddafi and Assad would be better. I mean, I assume the State Department or whomever probably had a hastily-assembled aftermath plan to influence the resulting scrum, but I’m not certain that “democratic government” was their goal.
I would argue that they wanted to facilitate (not create) friendlier, more American governments in the wake of the Arab Spring, not create. I also think that the Arab Spring movement was something that the Administration had to support (or at least not put down), as it was a complete unknown and was at least in theory much more aligned with American ideals, if not foreign policy strategies/economic/military goals (which are frequently at very cross purposes with american ideals), and also had the potential to be aligned with those goals. They got co-opted by the hardcore religious zealots, but that also pretty much happened in Iraq. On the good news side, Qaddafi probably deserved it more than Saddam, IMHO.
Mitt Romney is giving a speech on Thursday about the state of the 2016 presidential race.
It’s probably just going to be a “If drafted, I will not run” statement or “Can’t we Republicans just get along?” party unity plea. And it’s too late for him to put his hat into the ring for the GOP primaries. But it’s fun to think about the other possibilities:
- “I’m running in the general as an Independent. Hey, I didn’t sign any pledge.”
- “This party sucks. I’m becoming a Democrat.”
- “The Republican Party is now disbanded. Starting tomorrow, we will begin the process of interviewing candidates for our new party, which we are tentatively calling, ‘the Avengers.’ Captain America will be making the final selections.”
JD
6150
Bad Lip Reading had already covered some of the previous debates, but their take on Ted Cruz’s campaign ad is pretty great. It’s not just that typical BLR moment-to-moment randomness - the editing on some of the sections is really neat.
wahoo
6151
I would prefer to think she is a neocon. Neocons have a plan that is just dumb.
Your version is worse because it is advocating for the U.S. to destabilize a country with no next plan. Not even a dumb neocon plan. State thought they could take out a country’s leadership and then see improvement? That is scary dumb to given regional history and current events.
Timex
6152
Donald Gay Trump
Someone dubbed Trump’s voice with a stereotypical “Gay voice”.
Agreed. It’s tough to have nuanced discussions of American politics. Well, it’s always been tough, since, um, about Washington’s second term.
Removing Assad necessitates nation building though, no?
What else are we supposed to do with the ensuing power vacuum?
I don’t think so at the time. The Arab spring appeared to be a largely peaceful protest by educated young people in the region looking to replace the dictator with democracy. The US is often involved either directly on indirectly in the action, and on balance, there is more success than failures in the last 50 years or so. In Europe, Poland, East German, the Baltic state, Rumania, Czech, Ukraine (a couple of times), Georgia, somewhat successful in the Balkans. In Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma, and several island nations. Central and South America, Panama, Haiti, Dominica Republic, Argentia, Chile and probably I few I forget.
Now the track record in Africa and the Middle East has been considerable worse, only Tunisia is a success the last 5 years. But I think it is arrogant on our part to assume that we can develop a plan about what form of government will take in another country. But I also think throwing up our hands and saying we shouldn’t help people attempt to overthrow brutal dictators, just because we don’t know the end state is even worse. At some point you just have to play the odds, yes ISIS is worse than Qaddafi and Saddam or the Taliban, but ISIS wasn’t a factor at the start of the Arab Spring.
Sorry guys. I didn’t mean to get everyone wrapped around the axle about the term neocon. I do often use it as shorthand for interventionism and general mucking about with the affairs of other countries (with an air of knowing what’s best for them). The generic definition at Wikipedia works okay I guess.
If you prefer to reserve it for the most extreme and aggressive neocons then that’s fine with me.
Liberal hawk appears to be the more precise term.
While people made that argument, I don’t think it was ever a tenable position. These governments weren’t repressive because they got a kick out of it - they had to be to restrain the religious extremists. The secret police kept the radical mullahs in check. So I would question the expertise of any expert who thought that Arab Spring was a good thing.
only Tunisia is a success the last 5 years.
We can probably thank the French for that. They did a very effective job of imposing French norms on the country. French, for example, is still the language of polite society and the laws are still written in French, and then translated into Arabic.
Hawk suggests a certain ruthless self interest, which I don’t see with her positions. For Clinton, it’s not about protecting American interests, it’s about promoting certain ostensibly universal values. Which is something she shares with the Neocons.
Well, it’s more like containment and the Truman Doctrine. The “domino theory” was more a justification of why to do that stuff, that is, if you didn’t stop the godless reds in country x, then countries y and z would soon fall.
Oh my god, that is amazing.
Rubio: Dead Man Walking.
“We can’t do the Rubio thing anymore,” says Kor’taghnoch, Black Prince of Disunity Fox News head Roger Ailes.
Assuming the quotes are correct, it’s almost refreshing for someone at Fox to admit they’re just an extension of the GOP.
