Right Web

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

Selective Service

In the growing debate over whether the Bush administration should get "boots on the ground" in the war-torn West African nation of Liberia, the neoconservatives who...

In the growing debate over whether the Bush administration should get “boots on the ground” in the war-torn West African nation of Liberia, the neoconservatives who helped lead the charge to war in Iraq have been surprisingly silent. Led by top Pentagon officials and advisers like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neocons were championing war with Iraq even as the dust from the 9/11 attacks was still settling over lower Manhattan. By September 20, the neocon-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC) had published an open letter to the president calling for “a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq” — regardless of whether evidence connected him to the terrorist attacks. As the war crusade gathered momentum in late 2002 — and as doubts grew about Saddam’s connections with Al Qaeda — the neocons gave voice to a full-throated Wilsonianism (minus the multilateralism) as the reason for invading Iraq. The newest rationale became “liberation” from “tyranny.” As Lawrence Kaplan and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote in late January, the “Bush strategy enshrines ‘regime change’ — the insistence that when it comes to dealing with tyrannical regimes like Iraq, Iran, and, yes, North Korea, the U.S. should seek transformation, not coexistence, as a primary aim of U.S. foreign policy. As such, it commits the U.S. to the task of maintaining and enforcing a decent world order. ” After the war, when critics began hounding the administration to prove that it had not exaggerated its claims regarding Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the neocons lambasted the doubters as mere quibblers and bad sports who were, in Charles Krauthammer’s words, “deeply embarrassed by the mass graves, torture chambers and grotesque palaces discovered after the war” and thus trying “to change the subject and relieve themselves of the shame of having opposed the liberation of 25 million people.” Given their apparent concern over stamping out terrorism across the globe and ousting leaders who commit atrocities against their own people, the neocons’ silence over Liberia is deafening. After all, Liberia seems to be a country tailor-made to the neocons’ interventionist agenda. First, unlike the case in Iraq, there is solid evidence connecting Liberia to international terrorism. Liberian President Charles Taylor allegedly gave refuge to Al Qaeda operatives after 9/11 and helped the terrorist group buy diamonds from rebel groups in neighboring Sierra Leone. Second, unlike Saddam Hussein, Taylor has actually been indicted for crimes against humanity by an international court. While the Hussein regime was clearly one the great human rights abusers of the last 20 years, Taylor can certainly be said to hold his own in that area. Not only are there “mass graves and torture chambers” to which Krauthammer is presumably sensitive, but there were also the tens of thousands of amputations and mutilations carried out by Taylor-backed rebels in neighboring Sierra Leone. As Human Rights Watch put it, the Liberian president is notorious “for the brutal abuses of civilians perpetrated by his forces in Liberia, and for his use of child soldiers organized in ‘Small Boy Units.'” Taylor’s hand has also been traced to brutal conflicts in Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire. With the president on his way to Africa this week, one would expect the normally loquacious neocons to be raising their voices. So far, only the neoconish Wall Street Journal editorial page seems to have squarely addressed whether the United States should intervene. Its recommendation — let the feckless U.N. and the perfidious French, who “left America alone to clean up Iraq,” take care of the problem. The lone neocon voice calling for intervention appears to be Thomas Donnelly, a Perle colleague at the American Enterprise Institute. With coauthor Vance Serchuk, Donnelly argues in The Washington Post on July 7 that intervention is justified not for humanitarian motives per se, but because of the growing acknowledgment that “U.S. security interests in Africa… cannot be ignored.” But where are the rest of the neocon ring leaders? If they truly believe that the United States is now committed “to the task of maintaining and enforcing a decent world order,” than why aren’t they crying out now for intervention in Liberia? Why hasn’t PNAC issued a new sign-on letter pressing the administration to act? And why aren’t Wolfowitz and his comrades in the Defense Department strongly urging the president to once again extend the boundaries of the war on terrorism?

Michael Flynn is a research associate with the IRC’s Right Web program. Jim Lobe writes for Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org), Foreign Policy In Focus, and Inter Press Service.

 

 

 

Citations

Michael Flynn and Jim Lobe, "Selective Service," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, July 8, 2003).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


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.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share