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

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.


Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.


Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The tragic end of Jamal Khashoggi should serve as a reminder that it’s time for the United States to move on and leave the motley crew of undesirable Middle Eastern partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, to their collective fate. They deserve each other.


Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


RightWeb
share