Right Web

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

The Africa Cadre; Eliot Cohen and World War IV; Nina Shea and Christian Persecution

FEATURED ARTICLE

Africa: The Right’s Stuff
By Conn Hallinan | March 7, 2007

A seasoned cadre of neoconservatives and right-wingers have latched on to the human rights issue in Sudan, pushing an agenda that favors military over political solutions. It is hard not to conclude that the Bush administration’s strategy for Africa is less about freedom and God than about oil and earthly power. Read full story.

SEE ALSO:

Right Web Profile: Nina Shea
The Hudson Institute scholar, who supported the Contra wars in the 1980s, sees religious persecution as a powerful reason to advocate U.S. intervention in foreign countries, including Sudan.

ALSO NEW THIS WEEK

Right Web Profile: Eliot Cohen
The new counselor at State believes the United States is fighting World War IV, and he has little patience for diplomacy—or for giving generals too much power in a war he pushed for.

Right Web Profile: Robert Joseph
Joseph, a supporter of preemptive military strikes, missile defense, and gunship diplomacy, is the latest hardliner to resign from the Bush administration.

Rice Picks Promoter of Iraq War as Counselor
By Jim Lobe | March 6, 2007

Shortly after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped produce impressive diplomatic breakthroughs with U.S. "adversaries," she hired a prominent neoconservative hawk to be her counselor. What gives? Read full story.

Leveraging the Surge
By Gareth Porter | March 6, 2007

Bush’s decision to surge troop levels in Iraq seems closely linked to a complex U.S. bargaining game aimed more at Iran than at Iraqi insurgents. Read full story.

A "New Diplomatic Offensive"?
By Jim Lobe | March 5, 2007

Does the State Department’s call to engage Iran mark a strategic shift that could reverse the recent U.S. trajectory toward confronting Tehran, or is it a tactical move designed to soothe an increasingly anxious Congress? Read full story.

IRC encourages feedback and comments. Send letters to rightweb@irc-online.org. IRC reserves the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.

IRC Global Good Neighbor Initiative

The initiative to promote a global good neighbor ethic as the guiding vision of U.S. foreign policy was launched by the International Relations Center (IRC) in May 2005 with events in New York City and Washington, DC. Consider adding your voice to the cause. And check out this new GGN video.

If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email rightweb@irc-online.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”

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