With bated breath, last week I mentioned the big conference this week at Harvard's Middle East Strategy group of the Olin Institute, on American finding its way after Bush. A lot of neocons, and a guy named Adam Garfinkle from the American Interest journal who concluded recently that the problem with the Iraq war was "contracting fiascoes." This is a choice phrase I am going to keep repeating till I understand it. You may get sick of it, sorry, I'm slow.
Today I received a report on the conference from one of my farflung friends:
There were two panels: neocon realists who said America’s interests revolved around oil and another panel with neocon idealists that asked how the natives (Arabs) could be brought democracy (“the freedom agenda”). Part of the subtext for democracy promotion was the fear that our Egyptian and Saudi allies might one day be overthrown. Martin Kramer made numerous reference to the pathologies of the Arab world (and arguably there are many including a hideous Wahhabi/Saudi brand of fundamentalism) but made no mention of any other pathologies. The 2nd panel featured Joshua M (forgot his last name)(it's Muravchik, hon) and he blasted Walt Mearsheimer (another correspondent says he referred to the pair as "antisemitic bigots").
Broad themes/soundbites:
–Avoid the optics of defeat (vis-à-vis Afghanistan and the Taliban). They didn’t care about Afghanistan. The rise of the Taliban was not their concern. This I found shocking. Yup they used the phrase "optics of defeat," I scribbled it down. "We shouldn't look like we are losing."
–Adam Garfinkle: “Bringing the Iranian economy to its knees”
–Al-Qaeda was almost completely ignored. I mean I worry about the bastards and the grievous harm they’ve done to this country. But nope, not the neocons at this panel.
–They seemed to worry about Israel’s rough neighborhood and its security concerns. But none of the panelists wanted to let on that they might have any degree of devotion to the place. They blithely put themselves forward as “objective” scholars lauding a plucky nation not at all understood in this country
–The neocon idealists were not malevolent, but they simply don’t get that conflict in the Arab world structurally empowers the Islamists. I mean they can’t be that stupid, right?
–J. Scott Carpenter of WINEP said that Eliott Abrams was one of the biggest forces
behind the Bush "freedom agenda." OMG I thought: Abrams? One of the major architects of US democracy promotion? This
is scary. Carpenter cited Abrams's experience in Latin America and the lessons he learned he wants to apply to the Arabs. God
help us all.
The general mood was one of grimness. I didn’t quite understand why they looked so scared. There was a real attempt on their part to show that they’re good Americans dealing with American interests not some small lobby group.
I didn’t see any Harvard faculty excerpt for Kramer’s patron: Stephen Peter Rosen. No faculty from Center for Middle East Studies was present. No one – almost no Arabs!
"They didn’t care about Afghanistan. The rise of the Taliban was not their concern. This I found shocking"
What I find shocking is the number of us who do seem to see that the problem in Afghanistan is not the rise of the Taliban (they are still there but they are not rising) but that the Pashtun people are returning to their roots — which is to repel foreign invaders.
Nato and the US is now involved in fighting the Pashtun's efforts to fight invading armies, whose primary interest, as it has been for the last dozen centuries.
Some background for those who haven't followed. There are about 40 million Pashtuns, about half inside Pakistan and the rest in Afghanistan. They think of themselevs as one people. I was the Brits a century ago that placed them in two different countries. If you haven't been paying attention, those Pashtuns in Pakistan accepted that state as long as their national army stayed out of their provinces. The current border problems are mostly the result of those Pashtun tribes that refused to accept the British borders in the first place.
Basically, the US army is now being given the task of forcing the Pashtuns to accept borders, that they never had any choice placing in the first place, so that we can more easily pursue our real enemy – the Taliban or whatever.
It is totally nuts. Al quada and the Taliban understand this dynamic and are artfully exploiting it, when are we going to understand this.
Poor Obama seems to have boughten into this notion that we must go to war in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to defeat the 'terrorist'.
–The neocon idealists were not malevolent, but they simply don’t get that conflict in the Arab world structurally empowers the Islamists. I mean they can’t be that stupid, right?
they are either stupid or in denial or lying. which? i pretty much know it isn't stupid.
"Al-Qaeda was almost completely ignored. I mean I worry about the bastards and the grievous harm they’ve done to this country. But nope, not the neocons at this panel."
Phil, "Al-Qaeda" is most likely just an intelligence creation. Unlike the Taliban, there is no distinct group called "Al-Qaeda." It was just a database of various potential "terrorists" around the world, some real and some not real, compiled by intelligence agencies. In my opinion, the term should cease being used. Since it isn't a real entity, the only purpose in invoking it is one of propaganda.
Muravchik gave John Mearsheimer a Harvard professorship.
He referred to "those two anti-Semitic bigots at Harvard, who blame Israel for terrorism."
He appears to have read a version of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy from an alternate universe.
Muravchik said nothing surprising, but claimed the verdict was out on democratization because the policy planners had originally explained it as a generational effort.
In my reading of political and economic development, creating a Rechtstaat is probably more important than establishing the forms of democracy.
Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are all grappling with the meaning of creating a state based in a regular system of law.
Of course Neocons never talk about this particular issue because they have worked hard to undermine the status of the USA as a state of law.
Muravchik, Hill and Cramer also expatiated on the pathological nature of Arabic culture. It was all quite insulting. I have worked fairly extensively in the Arabic and Islamic world. I simply don't perceive the pathology. Egypt is a lot like the USA in the 50s. We have progressed since then. I am sure Egyptians will as well if Neocons are denied the chance to muck with Egyptian politics.
The Neocons were probably grim because they seem to be losing some of their access at the high levels and now must take their case public.
I have to assume that Perle did a lot of damage to Neocon influence with Bush when he started to blame Bush for the failures of Neocon policy because Bush has no tolerance for that sort of criticism.
The Olin Foundation also funds the David Horowitz Center as well as scholars like Anna Geifman of BU. See Islamobolshevism: Zionist Copies Nazi Propaganda.
By the way, Walt is debating Muravchik today (Thursday) in Washington.
feedblitz@mail.feedblitz.com
re daily kos accepting free trips to israel, visiting sderot, but not the west bank. and yet won't touch the issues of the conflict in print.
Er, guys, I am not a neocon. I have been, a always, against the so-called freedom agenda. But you think rather too highly of your own understanding. You have a lot of stuff wrong.
Adam Garfinkle
"A lot of neocons, and a guy named Adam Garfinkle …"
Now tell us how we can avoid future "contracting fiascoes."