Now that the Imperial Project has sufficiently advanced that this august body will debate the topic: "Conservatives Should Embrace Empire," perhaps an assessment of current progress on the project is appropriate. In an article more to the question of whether the GOP is at risk of losing this country, which can be seen here
, is something of an assessment of how well the Imperialist project is going. Here is an excerpt:
Thus, in March 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history,invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have. Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world has been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain,Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2,055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up. True to the neoconservative creed, Bush has launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.
The panglossians amongst us will disagree, of course, refusing any information which may conflict with their utopian schemes and dreams. In fact, the more agressive neos of the neocons may scream antisemitism, resorting to racebaiting to silence opposition, as they have previously and as is traditional on the left.
However, considering the consequences of the policies they successfully advocated, it may be time to consider whether the neocons themselves aren't anti-semitics, or maybe even plants by the Iranian intelligence services (while allowing for the possibility that the vast majority are merely useful idiots, as Lenin described those with misguided "good" intentions), as the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency claims the neocon's darling Chalabi is.
Again from The America Conservative (don't be too quick here with the anti-semitism charge), Leon Hadar, a former Israeli Defense Force Officer, now at the Cate Institute, writes, (see complete article here
) in an article entitled: Bad For You Too? How the Iraq War Disappointed Israel, the following.
Even more intriguing has been the way Israeli officials and pundits have scoffed at the Wilsonian fantasies of the neocons—fantasies of using the invasion of Iraq as the first stage of “democratizing” the Middle East. Not only have most Israeli experts suggested that such a scheme is impractical, they have also argued that the collapse of authoritarian regimes in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan is bound to bring to power anti-Israeli and anti-American forces. As Israeli leaders see it, the Jewish state would have a hard time adjusting to a democratic Arab world in which public opinion, rather than centralized rulers, determined policy. Yehezkel Dror, a political science professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, recently related the Israeli establishment’s view: “We’re all for democracy, but let us imagine democracy in Egypt or Jordan. Will it strengthen their peace with Israel?” Dror and his colleagues have concluded that the answer to this question is a clear “No!” That explains why Newsweek characterized the reputation of Natan Sharansky—George W. Bush’s favorite author and the prophet of Middle Eastern democracy—in Israel as that of a “scorned idealist.”
An aide to Ariel Sharon (presumably not anti-semitic) recently voiced the same thought, that the urban renewal project in Iraq has made it more dangerous for Israel, than it was before. Certainly the Iranians have benefited far beyond their wildest dreams, and China's People's Liberation Army's General Command looks at events in the mideast like the U.S. General Command looked at events in Afghanistan in the early 1980's.
But why would conservatives, not neoconservatives nor "compassionate" conservatives, but conservatives, have ever though differently? I grew up as an anticommunist, and my conservatism was always in opposition to the ideals of communism. Then, along comes leftists out of the Social Democrats USA party, (http://www.socialdemocrats.org/
, anti-Stalinist, not anti-Marxist, founded by a Trotskyite) self-described as "neo" conservatives to distinguish themselves from the American Conservative movement, arguing for "Empire," albeit "democratic." To achieve this, Trotsky's dream of "permanent revolution" must take place.
That dream failed in the 1920's when the lunacy of the idea was apparent, even to Bolsheviks, and it will certainly fail, with huge economic and strategic consequences, to any country idiotic to attempt it today.
Recently, a neoconservative intellectual, and JAS member, posted on this website a debate between (George?) Galloway and Christopher Hitchens. That was like judging the merits of Vladimir Lenin's arguments or Leon Trotsky's arguments in a debate. Hitchens was presented as a valiant defender of western civilization. Our befuddled blogger, and neocon, didn't understand that the motive for Hitchen's support was in seeing the U.S. as the best hope for achieving the Marxian dream, and why so many Iraqi exiles who called on the U.S. to liberate their country were Iraqi Trotskyites.
Here is an excerprt from an article
about my neocon friend's ideological mentor. After reading this, contemplate why the American Right must turn to the British Trotskyite Left for
guidance on becoming an "Empire."
So where does this lover of Trotsky and hater of God, this despiser of religion and tradition and devotee of "permanent revolution," this anti-Catholic bigot and reviler of Reagan and John Paul, now find an ideological home? Among the neoconservatives, naturally. As Hitchens told Johann Hari in the same interview where he said "I don’t regret anything," he admires Paul Wolfowitz, whom he described as a "real bleeding heart." According to Hari, Hitchens sees neoconservatism as a "distinctively new strain of thought, preached by ex-leftists, who believed in using US power to spread democracy." Hari also wrote that Hitchens believes that if neoconservatism "can become dominant within the Republican Party, it can turn US power into a revolutionary force." Barry Didcock came to a similar conclusion in the June 5, 2005 Sunday Herald after interviewing Hitchens: "The way Hitchens tells it, he began to realize, as the 1990s wore on, that US force could and should be used to fight what he saw as the forces of fascism." Hitchens still wants world revolution; the only difference is that now he sees us Americans as perfectly placed to do the fighting and the dying needed to achieve his Trotskyist dream.