Andrew Sullivan might have saved himself three years' mental labor by reading Walt and Mearsheimer in March 2006. He writes:
I took neoconservatism seriously for a long time, because it offered an interesting critique of what's wrong with the Middle East, and seemed to have the only coherent strategic answer to the savagery of 9/11. I now realize that the answer - the permanent occupation of Iraq - was absurdly utopian and only made feasible by exploiting the psychic trauma of that dreadful day. The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into. Cheney saw America as Netanyahu sees Israel: a country built for permanent war and the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business" of waging it (with a few war crimes to keep the enemy on their toes).
But America is not Israel. America might support Israel, might have a special relationship with Israel. But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.
But America is not Israel. America might support Israel, might have a special relationship with Israel. But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.
Honorable. And of course Sullivan has apologized for his support for the Iraq war. Andrew, move on to: Who propagated "Radical Islam" and why? and Marty Peretz, what did you feed me in my cradle?
P.S. Jeffrey Goldberg attacked his friend Joe Klein when Klein made a similar charge about the neocons last summer. Goldberg attacked Walt and Mearsheimer, saying they blamed all wars on Jews. Will he go after Sullivan? I say no; this battle's lost. And that's a great sign in itself. Some day this will be the conventional wisdom.
(Phil Weiss)
'I took neoconservatism seriously for a long time, because it offered an interesting critique of what's wrong with the Middle East, and seemed to have the only coherent strategic answer to the savagery of 9/11.'
Still lying, after all these years.
'I never really took neoconservatism seriously but you see everybody (and I mean everybody who's anybody) did, and well, I'm as ambitious as the next British pseud with pretensions to Orwell's throne, and I didn't want to sink my little ship just as it entered the great American harbour, not with the competition already thru the heads and gathering speed. Of course there were far more coherent responses to 911 all over the net (NoWar blog or one) but these people owned no media conglomerates, couldn't tell a Pimms from a Pernod and probably lived in flyover country anyway'
'The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years'
Hundreds of thousands of us were there BEFORE 911 you twat. I wonder where your head was at the time; actually I don't want to think about it.
"America might support Israel, might have a special relationship with Israel."
It looks like Sullivan isn't quite sure where he stands yet. After his "realization" wouldn't distance and suspicion make sense when dealing with Israel rather than support and a special relationship?
Andrew is a prolific and popular blogger, and an excellent bellwether. If he's moving in a good direction, it's both meaningful and should be encouraged. There are very few Westerners who were *always* progressive on Palestine, or whatever the phrase is.
EXCERPT FROM: "When Foreign Policy Took a Wrong Turn"
by Michael Lind @ talkingpointsmemo.com
……Neoconservatism–I say this as the former executive editor of Irving Kristol's The National Interest–is not deeply rooted in American foreign policy traditions, Wilsonian or otherwise. The idea of a "global democratic revolution" pushed by former leftists like Michael Novak and Joshua Muravchik has nothing to do with Wilsonian/Gladstonian liberal internationalism, which promoted international law and self-determination. Neoconservative "democratism" essentially is an offshoot of anti-Stalinist Marxism in which "democratic socialism" is replaced by "democratic capitalism." This idea along with their jobs and their undeserved public prominence was inherited by the mediocre non-leftist children of the ex-leftist neocon dynasts (the Kristols, the Kagans, the Podhoretzes). Add to the "global democratic revolution" a preference for Churchill over FDR, a quite un-American nostalgia for the British empire in the Third World (Max Boot) and an attitude toward Arabs picked up from British and Canadian Tories and Israeli right-wingers, and you pretty much have the whole idiosyncratic Commentary/Weekly Standard worldview……
ENTIRE POST – link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
/>
when_foreign_policy_took_a_wrong_turn/
But Michael Lind has always impressed me as trying to find the middle ground between both 49-yard lines. Gladstone and Wilson were both imperialists, wouldn't you say?Lind's "new nationalism" is another form of American exceptionalism.
Andrew is a prolific and popular blogger, and an excellent bellwether.
Which is a polite way of saying that he is a political jock sniffer of sorts. This finger to the wind epiphany is reminiscent of Hitchens and his embarrassing on camera realization that water boarding is torture, after having his quivering lard belly placed on the table of the latest Inquisition for the benefit of his pocketbook and the readership of 'Vanity Fair'. More than anything else Sullivan and Hitchens want to remain relevant, part of the dominant conversation.
*FROM MICHAEL GREEN, ABOVE: "Gladstone and Wilson were both imperialists, wouldn't you say?"
*ME: As to Wilson, you are certainly correct. He was also a racist. I do not hold him in high (or even moderate) regard. As to Gladstone, I will demur based upon my modest general knowledge of the British Empire during the 1800s. Additionally, I know of your credentials well enough to defer to your judgment. I am not 'that much' of a fool! (LOL)
When I post excerpts along with the http, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything in the excerpt. I probably should include a brief disclaimer.
I posted the Lind excerpt because of his personal comments regarding the "neocons". The Wilsonian aspect apparently has to do with a minor disagreement Lind has with the published views of Andrew Bracevich. From what I know, it does appear that the "neocons" like to 'wax Wilsonian', and I think Lind is pretty much just saying that he (as opposed to Bracevich) considers it to be a 'ruse de guerre' (or the less pretentious, but more mundane 'ruse').
*FROM MICHAEL GREEN, ABOVE: Lind's "new nationalism" is another form of American exceptionalism.
*ME: I lack sufficient knowledge upon which to form the basis for a conclusion. (I defer!) But we ARE "s-p-e-c-i-a-l" now, aren't WE? (heavy sarcasm intended)
RE: "American exceptionalism"
Mohandas Gandhi was asked by a western reporter (in the wake of WW II) what he thought of Western civilization. He replied: "I think it would be a very good idea."
ME: Even today, I concur!
Sullivan's stance here is a pretty big deal.
The big mote in Sullivan's eye was furnished by Hitler. The Zionist regime in Israel has taken full advantage of goy guilt for too many years.
The difference between Israel's "Never Again" and universal humanity's "Never Again" is like night and day. It's the difference between a sociopath and a normal person.
I'm reminded of the analysis that says Israel and most jews around the world (Who have official automatic dual citizenship/loyalty unlike no
other) are forever victims of vicarious post-traumatic stress disorder. It's like an abused child–wait, make that a child who has from infancy been taught of his or her ancestors victimhood–who just feels compelled to keep the cycle of violence going.
And in the name of peace or defense yet. The world outside their
mental affliction does not matter. It's a way of a small person to feel bigger, like, say a typical USA football team fan–it winds down to Witty and the hasbara agents on this blog. They just can't help themselves. "Shake n bake n Ah hepd." Chickens all. Or, rather, Chicken Hawks.
I agree with otto that Sullivan's column is going to be a big deal. Goldberg may not have attacked him yet, but Podhoretz already has.
He implies Sullivan is motivated by "antisemitism!" (Well what else have they got left?)
Thanks to D. for the Podhoretz link. I would not have had the stomach to go within 100 miles of the man's work otherwise. His narrative and the supportive commentary (with a few exceptions) are completely devoid of objectivity, relying on slander and barely disguised sadistic glee as rhetorical device. The comments attacking Sullivan by focusing on his sexuality and specific reference to sexual practices are particularly vile. I am not gay, but if someone were to direct such hate at a friend or family member, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to smash their f*cking brains in.
I love my country, but there seems to exist an enduring anti-intellectual strain that holds sway over public debate.