Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

America’s Crusaders

Ideology and faith are stirring new calls to arms among influential political factions in the United States. At a time when the U.S. public is...

Ideology and faith are stirring new calls to arms among influential political factions in the United States. At a time when the U.S. public is questioning the interventionism and unilateralism of the Bush administration, leading social conservatives and neoconservatives insist that the United States needs to militarily confront the purported threats facing the Judeo-Christian world order.

Leading far-right social conservative Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic and former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is heading up a new initiative, called the "America’s Enemies" program at the neoconservative-aligned Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), to awaken the slumbering public to what he sees as a "gathering storm" of adversaries. At the same time, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a devout Jew who co-chairs the Committee on the Present Danger, is calling for a global political and military alliance to defeat the threat of "Islamic extremism."

Ironically, while the ideology and faith-based politics of "America’s enemies" routinely come under attack by U.S. social conservatives and neoconservatives as dangerous manifestations of radicalism, the ideology and faith-based politics of America’s would-be defenders are presented as redemptive forces in world affairs.

Perhaps nowhere does this merger of ideology and faith come together so clearly than at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where Santorum is a program director. A strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s war on terror, the EPPC has since the mid-1990s sought to mix religion and politics—or more specifically, to conjoin the Religious Right with a hawkish foreign policy. In its own words, the center aims to "clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition" and the public policy debate.

Immediately after his electoral defeat in November 2006, Santorum announced his plans to carry his crusading politics into private life, which resulted in the creation of EPPC’s "America’s Enemies" program. The program focuses on "identifying, studying, and heightening awareness of the threats posed to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces that are increasingly casting a shadow over our future and violating religious liberty around the world."

Rather than regarding his overwhelming electoral defeat last November as an indicator that his own extreme notions about domestic and foreign policy were misguided, Santorum concluded that Americans are slumbering while at the gates gather barbarians such as "Islamic fascism."

"Iraq is only one front in a larger war waged against the Western world," Santorum says. It is a war of ideas, according to him, waged by Islamic fascists—whose tentacles extend beyond Iraq and Afghanistan and into Iran and Venezuela. "We are under siege by a people with an ideology, a plan, hundreds of millions of dollars, and an ever-increasing presence on virtually every continent" (Santorum, "Knowing Our Enemies," National Review Online, December 12, 2006).

Topping the list of priorities is the need "to confront Iran," says Santorum, who was once described by the New York Times Magazine as the "country’s preeminent faith-based politician," after President George W. Bush. War, said Santorum in a major speech on the Senate floor, "is at our doorstep, and it is fueled, figuratively and literally, by Islamic fascism, nurtured and bred in Iran" (December 6, 2006).

Likening the current array of countries that oppose the United States to what Winston Churchill called the "gathering storm" before World War II, Santorum paints a picture of enemies closing in on the United States. "With the exception of the state of Israel, we are fighting this battle alone, and I suspect we will for quite some time," laments Santorum.

Along with Islamic fascists, Santorum points to supposed threats to U.S. national interests and security coming from Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Russia, and China. To support his alarmist rhetoric, Santorum claims, apparently without evidence, that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela "plans to spend $30 billion to build 20 military bases in neighboring [sic] Bolivia," where Bolivian soldiers will answer to Venezuelan and Cuban officers. In a speech last December, Santorum warned that the "Sandinista revolution" in Nicaragua and the "Bolivarian revolution" are constructing a 21st-century socialism in the U.S. backyard.

Although Santorum played an important role in the Senate in building support for confrontational resolutions on Iraq and Iran, he was mainly known for his aggressive leadership in legislative efforts against abortion, in favor of intelligent design, against gay rights, and in favor of faith-based government social initiatives—working closely on the latter with Lieberman.

While Santorum concentrates on waking America to the danger of newly emboldened enemies, Lieberman recently took to the world stage to advocate stepping up the ideological campaign against Islamic extremism and to organize a new global alliance to confront that threat. At the Munich Conference on Security Policy in mid-February, Lieberman said: "What we are fighting is an ideology—the totalitarian ideology of radical Islam, as brutal and hostile to personal freedom as the communism we fought and defeated in the last century."

Lieberman described NATO—the transatlantic military alliance founded in 1949 as part of the Cold War—as "the gold standard for the security of free nations." To confront the supposed global threat of Islamic extremism, Lieberman called for "a global NATO" that "would profoundly reshape the ideological 21st century" and that would be "capable of acting globally."

The previous day President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had warned the conference that the United States "has overstepped its national borders, and in every area." The world, said Putin, was dominated by a country whose military actions were "illegitimate" and "unilateral." It is a world, warned Putin, of "one single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision-making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign."

Lieberman criticized Putin’s address as "confrontational," saying, "some of the rhetoric takes us back to the Cold War." Although Lieberman described the United States as "the indispensable nation in the fight for freedom throughout the world," he disputed Putin’s notion that the United States is the "single center of power in the world." Rather, he said, "power is freedom," and he called for a "global war of ideas" because "freedom does not belong to one nation alone" and "totalitarianism cannot defeat it."

Perhaps the most tragic development in U.S. foreign policy during the Bush presidency has been the reinstitution of a Manichean, Cold-War-like worldview, which has been promoted ably by social conservatives of the Religious Right and the neoconservatives in and outside the administration. Instead of working to reap the long-lost peace dividends that were supposed to emerge after the end of the bipolar confrontation, institutes like the EPPC, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, along with their influential spokespersons, are intent on propagating an imperial foreign policy that envisions the United States forever at war.

Tom Barry is the Policy Director of the International Relations Center (www.irc-online.org) and a contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "America's Crusaders," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, February 23, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share