One of the most interesting things about the neocons is that no matter what happens re Iran, the book of history has closed on them. They’ve been deemed overweening and foolish. The verdict’s in. The owl of Minerva has flown. They’re sort of like the “best and the brightest” of Vietnam that way.
There will always be bitter-enders who say we should have stuck it out in Vietnam. But at least 3/4 percent of the people disagree. And a similar number will forever say the neocons made a giant mistake by pushing the invasion of Iraq.
This is one reason I derive such amusement from Doug Feith. He hasn’t gotten the news! He writes a big book justifying the Iraq war and essentially lying about his own ideological fervor, which even his son doesn’t lie about, and no one pays him any mind (except me). They’re tired of this self-serving hokum. The only book duped Americans want from Feith is something like Rob’t McNamara’s mea culpa: “we sought to do the right thing…but in my judgment hindsight proved us wrong.” It took McNamara 30 years. Hint to Feith; the book got a lot of attention!
My favorite subject. Sorry. Here’s Feith misrepresenting the deeds of the neocons again, today, eulogizing the late Peter W. Rodman:
Peter appreciated skillful diplomacy. Because of silly accusations that
the George W. Bush administration was “unilateralist” and
“anti-diplomacy,” journalists would often ask administration officials
if we “believed in” diplomacy. Peter and I lamented and laughed
together about this foolishness.
But we invaded Iraq without real international backing. And Rodman wrote a famous 1999 essay in favor of unilateralism, in which he derided “multilateralism [as] a potential source of paralysis.” As for diplomacy, remember that for years Bush refused to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah. In this new book, Steven Van Evera calls it “the silent treatment.
Neoconservatives believe that talks with other states
are often a form of appeasement—a demonstration of weakness that invites
predation. Hence they often favor a policy of limiting or refusing talks with
states with whom the United States has had friction (such as North Korea, Iran,
and Syria at various times in recent years).”
