Liberal Interventionists

[bloodyminded]

This is an interesting, brief article from Foreign Policy.

Walt isn't the only one who has argued a distinct similarity between Establishment liberal hawks and the conservative neocons. But I think he makes a decent case, one that I'd like to see navigated more expansively.

Last Wednesday I spoke at an event at Hofstra University, on the subject of "Barack Obama's Foreign Policy." The other panelists were former DNC chair and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean and longtime Republican campaign guru Ed Rollins. The organizers at Hofstra were efficient and friendly, the audience asked good questions, and I thought both Dean and Rollins were gracious and insightful in their comments. All in all, it was a very successful session.

During the Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that "liberal interventionists are just ‘kinder, gentler' neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionists on steroids."

Dean challenged me rather forcefully on this point, declaring that there was simply no similarity whatsoever between a smart and sensible person like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and a "crazy guy" like Paul Wolfowitz. (I didn't write down Dean's exact words, but I am certain that he portrayed Wolfowitz in more-or-less those terms). I responded by listing all the similarites between the two schools of thought, and the discussion went on from there.

I mention this anecdote because I wonder what Dean would say now. In case you hadn't noticed, over the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya, largely on the advice of liberal interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides Samantha Power and Michael McFaul. According to several news reports I've read, he did this despite objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power -- and especially its military power -- can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America's right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.

So if you're baffled by how Mr. "Change You Can Believe In" morphed into Mr. "More of the Same," you shouldn't really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I'm not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn't really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance

[Oleg Bach]

A little Liberal "Hawk" is someone so aggresive and such a crazed idealog that they will happily destroy a nation - kill as many Patriarchs as possbible "so a little girl can go to school" - but they turn a blind eye to Afghani perverts that rape little boys for amusement.

[bush_cheney2004]

President George Bush only "left in disgrace" in the context of the false "hope and change" framework. American power transcends any single president, and demands attention to the duties of the office. This realization and split in liberal support was evident during the presidential campaign primary season, which pitted Clinton against soft power Obama. Hillary Clinton may have lost the battle, but she won the war.

[Oleg Bach]

President George Bush only "left in disgrace" in the context of the false "hope and change" framework. American power transcends any single president, and demands attention to the duties of the office. This realization and split in liberal support was evident during the presidential campaign primary season, which pitted Clinton against soft power Obama. Hillary Clinton may have lost the battle, but she won the war.

Never understood how or why the Obama committee gave Hillary who was an ADVESARY such a pumb postion...what is that? You win the election and then you hand over a huge chunk of power and prestiege to your enemy? Maybe there are no real devisions betwee the parties - maybe it's just one huge circle f**k..? Hillary when you read her face really enjoys being the hawk...I guess that makes up for not having a thing that rhymes with hawk.

[Sir Bandelot]

Never understood how or why the Obama committee gave Hillary who was an ADVESARY such a pumb postion...what is that? You win the election and then you hand over a huge chunk of power and prestiege to your enemy? Maybe there are no real devisions betwee the parties -

There's no honour among thieves

[bush_cheney2004]

....Maybe there are no real devisions betwee the parties - maybe it's just one huge circle f**k..?...

Well, in case you didn't notice, they are both American. I don't know why this point is so easily lost on navel gazers from abroad, but it is. Barack Obama is the American president, not just the president for American "liberals".

Take a look at the silly political dance going on in Canada right now in the election run-up...to the point of fighting over what it means to be Canadian. The Americans don't have this kind of problem....even if its president is alleged to have been born in Kenya!

Edited March 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Well, in case you didn't notice, they are both American. I don't know why this point is so easily lost on navel gazers from abroad, but it is. Barack Obama is the American president, not just the president for American "liberals".

Take a look at the silly political dance going on in Canada right now in the election run-up...to the point of fighting over what it means to be Canadian. The Americans don't have this kind of problem....even if its president is alleged to have been born in Kenya!

Which is the greater sin - being born in Kenya...or destroying a civilzation though the ruse of weapons of mass destruction? Canada is pitiful....dishonest men and woman who take positions in politics recieve the title "The Honourable" so and so...yet none of them know or care about honour...at least Bush and Cheney and Obama...are forth right...they know there is no place for honour when attempting to maintain an economy or personal wealth...honour makes you poor...Look at me...and look at you ....a lot of good honour did us.

[Oleg Bach]

There's no honour among thieves

BC....it a appears we see eye to eye once again. Being a realist can be an uncomfortable and un-popular job...someone has to do it. Recently my kid had his friend over - a brilliant drummer...The guy grins like a sneaky cat 24 7 ...He commented to me the other day...."You old school buys are dumb...you are all about honour and all that other crap" - This kid is a typical smart and cunning product that Canadian liberalism has produced...He goes out of his way to make sure nothing gets accomplished.

[bush_cheney2004]

...at least Bush and Cheney and Obama...are forth right...they know there is no place for honour when attempting to maintain an economy or personal wealth...honour makes you poor...Look at me...and look at you ....a lot of good honour did us.

Ironically...there is more honour on the battlefield.

[Oleg Bach]

Ironically...there is more honour on the battlefield.

In case you have not noticed..this is the battlefield. I always thought that WW 2 had ended...it continued...it's just bloodless and more low key...guys like me eventually develope post tramatic stress dis-order...that's what my doc says I have.... being an old warrior does wear you down...battling and fighting a war I could never win destroys the soul...I have fought the good fight....and I may not have victory...but I still have my honour...as you do...and that is why we are friends...Time to get out into the sun and buy some blue paint to add colour to the painting....Remember - hope is your only true wealth..and honour and loyalty will always be paramount when it comes to a life well lived...I have no regrets...I did - what I was designed to do...wage war...Now I retire from the field .... good luck my friend...You know I do truely love you and your nation...sure I pick on you..but brothers always tease for sport.

[bloodyminded]

Take a look at the silly political dance going on in Canada right now in the election run-up...to the point of fighting over what it means to be Canadian. The Americans don't have this kind of problem....even if its president is alleged to have been born in Kenya!

Sure they do. Hence Obama's recent speech extolling the orthodoxy of "American exceptionalism."

A pointed attempt to shut down that very debate that has been ongoing since the foreign Muslim socialist threw his hat into the ring. "But I am so American," he is saying. Which declares the pre-existence of the silly debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure they do. Hence Obama's recent speech extolling the orthodoxy of "American exceptionalism."

...long instantiated by fact and deed. President Obama has now earned his bloody American stripes.

A pointed attempt to shut down that very debate that has been ongoing since the foreign Muslim socialist threw his hat into the ring. "But I am so American," he is saying. Which declares the pre-existence of the silly debate.

Only in a campaign context, not the reality post inauguration. I often opined that I would be skeptical of Mr. Obama until he dropped some bombs on people, embracing the sober duties of office, and inoculating against Jimmy Carter disease.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

...long instantiated by fact and deed. President Obama has now earned his bloody American stripes.

Because he thought it was politically wise.

Because Americans are having silly arguments about what it "means" to be American.

We're in agreement.

Only in a campaign context, not the reality post inauguration. I often opined that I would be skeptical of Mr. Obama until he dropped some bombs on people, embracing the sober duties of office, and inoculating against Jimmy Carter disease.

He's been dropping bombs on people from the very beginning. You should be pleased.

Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Because he thought it was politically wise.

Because Americans are having silly arguments about what it "means" to be American.

We're in agreement.

That's great, but America is the same as it ever was, whether you agree with me or not. I don't know why some rubes ever thought otherwise because of a political phenom called Obama. Hillary supporters knew better from the outset.

He's been dropping bombs on people from the very beginning. You should be pleased.

Wait...it gets even better...so is Canada! LOL!

[bloodyminded]

That's great, but America is the same as it ever was, whether you agree with me or not.

Sure. Who said I disagreed?

I don't know why some rubes ever thought otherwise because of a political phenom called Obama.

I don't know either.

Hillary supporters knew better from the outset.

Of course. It's easy to see the errors in thinking of one's opponents.

The monumental ignorance of the Hillary boosters would now be apparent had she become President.

Wait...it gets even better...so is Canada! LOL!

Of course, though I don't know why that's "better."

I wasn't making the erroneous claim. You were; now corrected.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Of course, though I don't know why that's "better."

I wasn't making the erroneous claim. You were; now corrected.

Not at all...it is "better" because not only has President Obama continued "American Exceptionalism" by way of laser guided bomb and land attack cruise missile, but Canada is helping him do it.

[GostHacked]

Ironically...there is more honour on the battlefield.

You mean honor ... at least use the American spelling and not the Canadian one.

[GostHacked]

Not at all...it is "better" because not only has President Obama continued "American Exceptionalism" by way of laser guided bomb and land attack cruise missile, but Canada is helping him do it.

Also A-10 with depleted uranium rounds. It's time this shit stops.

[Guest American Woman]

You mean honor ... at least use the American spelling and not the Canadian one.

Don't make me start calling you jbg.

It's actually the British spelling, which is still used as well as the Americanized spelling, for some words; honour would be one of them. We also have Glamour Magazine and a shuttle named Endeavour.

[Bob]

We're seeing a lot of hypocrisy these days from both Republicans and Democrats with respect to how they're positioning Obama's decision with respect to Libya and other Middle Eastern unrest. It's really painful to watch both parties do a complete 180-degree turn from years ago with respect to new vs. old rhetoric and talking points.

[Sir Bandelot]

Take a look at the silly political dance going on in Canada right now in the election run-up...to the point of fighting over what it means to be Canadian. The Americans don't have this kind of problem.

"I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/gingrich-fears-atheist-country-dominated-by-radical-islamists/

Sounds like the silly political dance in America is to the same beat. I don't understand why you would say this. Defining the national identity, setting the course and controlling it, IS the great political struggle, in any country.

But please, explain to us belly-button-picking Canucks what a "secular athiest country, dominated by radical Islamists" is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like the silly political dance in America is to the same beat. I don't understand why you would say this. Defining the national identity, setting the course and controlling it, IS the great political struggle, in any country.

I said it because it is true IMHO...the Americans do not struggle to identify themselves in terms of Canada or Canadian foreign policy. There was no cry about the land that Bush = Harper....it was the other way around. Americans do not fret over Canadian interventionists in Libya.

Are the Canadians who wanted to vote for Obama, at the expense of their own domestic ballot, now disillusioned and confused (like some Americans)? This is what happens when they invest themselves so much into a foreign political landscape.

But please, explain to us belly-button-picking Canucks what a "secular athiest country, dominated by radical Islamists" is.

Ask Newt.

Oh, and did you find any lint in your navel?

Edited March 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Don't make me start calling you jbg.

It's actually the British spelling, which is still used as well as the Americanized spelling, for some words; honour would be one of them. We also have Glamour Magazine and a shuttle named Endeavour.

You got some good points there.

[WIP]

This is an interesting, brief article from Foreign Policy.

Walt isn't the only one who has argued a distinct similarity between Establishment liberal hawks and the conservative neocons. But I think he makes a decent case, one that I'd like to see navigated more expansively.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance

Once again it seems that real change starts from the ground up, not the top down! I think we in Canada are fast approaching the situation they have in the U.S., where politicians answer to the money, not the people! I was hoping for the best two years ago, when Obama came along, because he had a chance in the wake of the banking meltdown to be an FDR, and really overhaul the system. But, even then that didn't seem likely because a lot of his major contributions were coming from Wall Street.

When it comes to foreign policy, nobody crosses the defense contractors, Republican or Democrat. It's uncanny how U.S. foreign policy plods along seemlessly from one administration to another, with little, if any change. If anything, Obama is worse than Bush on many issues, such as the further eroding of civil rights, increasing the number of private military contractors (mercenaries) and drone attacks (many of which are actually Tomahawk cruise missiles)...check out the laundry list provided by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com

When it comes to this situation in Libya, who doesn't smell oil behind this policy of arming the rebels! Just happens most of the oil reserves are in the eastern half of the country, that has always been teetering on the verge of revolt against Gadaffi. If it's not about oil, why was it so important to stop Gadaffi's army from invading Benghazi, while staying silent about the mass shootings of protesters in Yemen and Bahrain by U.S. trained forces? There's not much of a valid reason for the intervention and new war in Libya on humanitarian grounds, since, if there was no oil, the most that would have been done would have been to secure a corridor for refugees to flee Benghazi into some makeshift refugee camps set up on the Egyptian border.

[bloodyminded]

Once again it seems that real change starts from the ground up, not the top down! I think we in Canada are fast approaching the situation they have in the U.S., where politicians answer to the money, not the people! I was hoping for the best two years ago, when Obama came along, because he had a chance in the wake of the banking meltdown to be an FDR, and really overhaul the system. But, even then that didn't seem likely because a lot of his major contributions were coming from Wall Street.

When it comes to foreign policy, nobody crosses the defense contractors, Republican or Democrat. It's uncanny how U.S. foreign policy plods along seemlessly from one administration to another, with little, if any change. If anything, Obama is worse than Bush on many issues, such as the further eroding of civil rights, increasing the number of private military contractors (mercenaries) and drone attacks (many of which are actually Tomahawk cruise missiles)...check out the laundry list provided by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com

When it comes to this situation in Libya, who doesn't smell oil behind this policy of arming the rebels! Just happens most of the oil reserves are in the eastern half of the country, that has always been teetering on the verge of revolt against Gadaffi. If it's not about oil, why was it so important to stop Gadaffi's army from invading Benghazi, while staying silent about the mass shootings of protesters in Yemen and Bahrain by U.S. trained forces? There's not much of a valid reason for the intervention and new war in Libya on humanitarian grounds, since, if there was no oil, the most that would have been done would have been to secure a corridor for refugees to flee Benghazi into some makeshift refugee camps set up on the Egyptian border.

While there is a lot of confusion arising about the rebels, it does appear that at least many of them really are pro-democracy activists. But Western (and not only American) intervention is likely less about "helping democracy flourish," and more about currying favour and determining future influence over an upcoming client regime.

Yes, certainly Obama is a continuation. Really, it's hard to imagine it otherwise. I don't totally agree with the repeated notion that "the left is disillusioned" by Obama. Some, no doubt...but there was a lot of leftwing suspicion of him even before the election, a lot of predictions that he would not be all that different from Bush. Greenwald, whom you mention, was one of them; and of course, there were the usual suspects, proven correct here as they often are: Chomsky, Zinn, and that bunch of old-schoolers who are not apt to indulge in political hero-worship.

Edited March 31, 2011 by bloodyminded