Right Web

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

Rumors of a Neocon Death Are Highly Exaggerated

There is an element of Schadenfreude in the reaction of critics of Washington's neoconservatives to the policy setbacks and ideological...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There is an element of Schadenfreude in the reaction of critics of Washington’s neoconservatives to the policy setbacks and ideological turbulence that their erstwhile bureaucratic rivals and ideological antagonists have been experiencing in recent weeks. With the humiliating “resignation” of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a day after the Democrats, carried by populist antiwar sentiment, won both the House and the Senate, the neocons have lost one of their two most powerful patrons in the George W. Bush administration.

Adding insult to injury, replacing Rumsfeld in the Pentagon will be Robert Gates, a leading member of the “realist” foreign policy establishment that dominated the George H.W. Bush administration. Many members of this old-school cadre, including former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and ex-Secretary of State James Baker, have disapproved of the neoconservative agenda adopted by the younger Bush, including the Iraq War and the ambitious Wilsonian campaign to “democratize” the Middle East.

In fact, in a sign that Bush père‘s advisers are on their way back to power in Washington, the city’s foreign policy elites-government officials, lawmakers, pundits, foreign diplomats-are now holding their breath as they wait for the report of Baker’s Iraq Study Group (ISG). The independent, congressionally-mandated panel, which Baker chairs with “realist” former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), is set to issue recommendations on Iraq that could set the ball rolling for the United States to cut its losses and start withdrawing troops from Iraq. To put it bluntly, the same foreign policy types whom the neocons have traditionally accused of “appeasing” Mideast dictators and of “selling out” Israel have now been assigned by the Bush administration and Congress to show the way out of the Middle East mess into which the country was driven by neoconservative-inspired policies.

And according to news reports, the ISG is expected to call for rewriting the neoconservative script of establishing democracy in Iraq and to replace it with a plan to partition Iraq and/or bring the country under the rule of a friendly dictator, a user-friendly Saddam Hussein. The so-called Baker Commission may also recommend that Washington start negotiating with Iran and Syria to take steps to reenergize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In short, from the perspective of the neocons, Baker and his gang of “pro-Arab appeasers” are drawing the outline of the anti-neocon foreign policy script.

Indeed, it seems that the neoconservatives are now engaged in rearguard battle to secure their remaining outposts in Washington, which include many media outlets, think tanks, and front organizations, including the Weekly Standard, FoxNews, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The neocons are also striving to ensure the allegiance of lawmakers, such as former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), as well as media pundits, such as David Brooks of the New York Times and Ann Applebaum of the Washington Post.

But unfortunately for them, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice embracing what looks like a Realpolitik-lite foreign policy on Iran and North Korea, it seems that the neocons’ last bureaucratic bastion in the Bush administration is now the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, a stronghold from which neocons like David Wurmser will probably try to counter the rising power of the old realists. That task could be challenging, if only because Wurmser and his colleagues are likely to be required to testify before the congressional investigative committee that the Democrats are sure to launch in the coming months.

Though the neocons and their allies in the media have tried to spin the Democratic electoral victory as a reaction to the corruption and scandals that engulfed the Bush administration and the Republican Party, the fact is that most opinion polls suggest that opposition to the Iraq War was responsible for the anti-Republican, anti-Bush political backlash. Such sentiment made it possible for Democratic candidate Jim Webb (a former Republican and ex-Navy secretary) to advance his anti-war campaign and win the Senate race in Virginia, a conservative, Republican-leaning state.

It’s not surprising that in this new political environment, neoconservative pundits and thinkers are hoping to lead a bureaucratic and ideological counterinsurgency. As expected, many of them are now defending their support for the Iraq War by arguing that the plan they had envisioned-establishing a prosperous democracy in Iraq and using it as “model” to remake and reform the Middle East-was great, but those who carried it out-the Bush administration-screwed it up. Until recently, neoconservatives have pointed the finger mainly at Rumsfeld, the military, the CIA, and other allegedly incompetent and disloyal members of the Bush administration. But now they seem to be ganging up on Bush himself.

Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, who were both Pentagon advisers before the war (Adelman predicted that the invasion of Iraq would be a “cakewalk”), Michael Rubin, a former senior official in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (and a leading backer of Ahmed Chalabi), and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter (credits include the phrase “axis of evil”), were among the neoconservatives who blasted the performance of the Bush administration in Iraq in pre-election interviews with Vanity Fair ‘s David Rose. Perle, who was a member of the Defense Policy Board, blamed “dysfunction” in the Bush administration for the present quagmire in Iraq. “The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly,” Perle told Vanity Fair, according to published excerpts of the article. “At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.”

Perle also told Rose that in retrospect, he would not have backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. “I think if I had been Delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, ‘Should we go into Iraq?’, I think now I probably would have said, ‘No, let’s consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'” This reflects a new neocon attitude, since until recently most neoconservatives insisted that both Iraq and the United States were “better off” as a result of Saddam’s removal.

And Adelman’s excuse for his incredibly optimistic pre-war assessment? He hugely overestimated the abilities of the Bush team. “I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent,” Adelman told Vanity Fair. “They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.” About Rumsfeld, a close personal friend, Adelman remarked: “I’m crushed by his performance.” Adelman also expressed worry that the “idea of using our power for moral good in the world,” a tenet of neoconservative ideology, is not “going to sell” after Iraq.

Rubin and Frum also blast Bush on Iraq, suggesting that he had betrayed neoconservative principles. Bush’s actions in Iraq were “not much different from what his father did on February 15, 1991, when he called the Iraqi people to rise up and then had second thoughts and didn’t do anything once they did,” Rubin told Vanity Fair. Frum, who predicts now that the insurgents will win in Iraq, contends that the blame for the mess in Iraq lies with the “failure at the center,” starting with Bush. (For more, see David Rose, “Neo Culpa,” VanityFair.com, November 3, 2006.)

So how will the neoconservatives adjust to the new reality in which the foreign policy realists, backed by Democrats and Republicans, want to project U.S. power in the pragmatic work of diplomacy? Several former neoconservatives such as Francis Fukuyama have already abandoned the neocon ship, bailing on the movement altogether and perhaps hoping to join the ranks of Democratic and Republican “realist internationalists” in post-Bush era.

Of course, there is at least one neocon who is still bullish about his ideology. AEI scholar Joshua Muravchik, writing in the latest issue of Foreign Policy, exhorts his “fellow neoconservatives” to learn from-and admit-their mistakes. “The essential tenets of neoconservatism-belief that world peace is indivisible, that ideas are powerful, that freedom and democracy are universally valid, and that evil exists and must be confronted-are as valid today as when we first began,” Muravchik writes. Mistakes were made in Iraq, but mostly by those implementing the policies. “Could things have unfolded differently had our occupation force been large enough to provide security?” he asks, seeming to assign blame for the mismanagement of the occupation on Rumsfeld and the military. You see, Muravchik implies, the mess in Iraq is not neocons’ fault. Sure, the ideas might have come from neocons, but after all, “Our forte is political ideas”-not practical matters. Neocons, it seems, are not to be blamed for the poor job done carrying out their ideas.

What Muravchik seems to suggest is that the new generation of neocons should be in charge of a huge project to promote democracy in the Middle East and worldwide. “The Bush administration deserves criticism for its failure to repair America’s public diplomacy apparatus,” he writes. “No group other than neocons is likely to figure out how to do that. We are, after all, a movement whose raison d’être was combating anti-Americanism in the United States. Who better, then, to combat it abroad?”

And Muravchik, a former socialist and labor union activist, reached to the Cold War-era for an appropriate model for the neocons. “Today, no one in the U.S. Foreign Service is trained for this mission,” he writes in Foreign Policy. “The best model for such a program are the ‘Lovestonites’ of the 1940s and 50s, who, often employed as attachés in U.S. embassies, waged ideological warfare against communism in Europe and Russia. They learned their political skills back in the United States fighting commies in the labor unions. There is no way to reproduce the ideological mother’s milk on which Jay Lovestone nourished his acolytes, but we need to invent a synthetic formula. Some Foreign Service officers should be offered specialized training in the war of ideas, and a bunch of us neocons ought to volunteer to help teach it. There should be at least one graduate assigned to every major U.S. overseas post.” (For more, see “Operation Comeback,” Foreign Policy, November/December 2006.)

Muravchik has also one or two short- and mid-term “practical ideas” for the neoconservative strategy, including preparing to bomb Iran and recruiting Lieberman to run for president in 2008 . But it’s doubtful that his somewhat kooky program for the neocons-training foreign service officers to export democracy-is going to be adopted by the more ambitious and action-oriented neoconservatives. These neocons are hoping that, notwithstanding the current bureaucratic and ideological setbacks, they’ll be able to regain policymaking powers, as opposed to just dispensing propaganda. After all, they have suffered similar losses in the past, including in clashes with the Bush 41 realists, and eventually came out as at least temporary winners, living to advise another president and leading the way to the Iraq War. They are probably already outlining plans and generating goals for the next generation of neocons.

Leon Hadar, a Washington-based journalist and contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org), is author most recently of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (2006). He blogs at globalparadigms.blogspot.com.





Leon Hadar, "Rumors of a Neocon Death Are Highly Exaggerated," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, November 15, 2006).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.

Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.

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.”

Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.

Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.

A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.

A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.