The neo-cons
I elsewhere gave my view on the neo-cons's plans for Iraqi democracy so I thought I would repeat it here."The problem is the difference between neo-con rhetoric and reality. It is certainly the case that some of the US's problems in Iraq have been because of neo-con failing and arrogance, i.e. the belief (seemingly widespread) that the Iraqis would greet the Americans as liberators, and that therefore few troops would be required, the over-reliance on the words and deeds of exiles, particularly Ahmed Chalabi, the belief that the US was better off alone, etc.
Of course everyone makes mistakes, and it is also arguable that in the roll-call of failures that is the Bush Adminstration the neo-cons come out quite well. But it is also arguable that many of their failings are endemic, insofar that as extreme ideologues they view every opinion contrary to their own as an ideological failing, e.g. European governments or state department 'arabism', rather than something to inform and aid. We saw a similar thing here in Britain, where the ex-ambassadors criticism of Blair was viewed by the pro-war lobby as evidently a consquence of their long experience in the Middle East, or their business contacts in the region (most of which are comprehensively rebutted in the letters page of today's Telegraph), rather than an experienced view -- albeit only one -- that one should take into consideration.
Essentially if this war ends in failure, which I still do not expect, it won't be because the State Department and the flip-flopping (to the neo-cons) Defense secretary didn't invoke a neo-con plan to use 20,000 exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi to liberate Iraq.
Finally in what the neo-cons are said to believe in, and say they believe in, then Tony Blair is a neo-con. Yet Tony Blair has not dissented one bit from George Bush's policy.
posted by Matthew @ 5/09/2004 04:20:00 PM
Comments: 0
