Bill Kristol has spent much of the past decade warning that Democrats are dispositionally incapable of protecting the United States. But earlier this week, he seemed pleased to discover that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are not actually planning to "surrender" to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. "I'm thankful for the seriousness of all our elected representatives," he told a bipartisan assembly of elected officials and think-tank types yesterday, at the kickoff event for his new organization, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Kristol and Robert Kagan--the same duo who founded the Iraq War-boosting Project For the New American Century--decided to create FPI in order to beat back what they perceive to be creeping isolationism and domestic fecklessness (defined by them as military budget cuts and troop drawdowns) in the face of existential threats. Ordinarily, one would expect a group like this to oppose President Obama, but since he unveiled his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan last week, they have become some of his biggest cheerleaders.
"What's critical about this new plan is that it's not a 'minimalist' approach," Kagan said, sitting on a panel with John Nagl and Jackson Diehl. (Other speakers included Kristol, Fred Kagan, Lt. Gen. David Barno, Dan Senor, Jane Harman, John McHugh, and--sounding more partisan than the other panelists--John McCain.) Kagan added that Obama's definition of success--which involves preventing al Qaeda from ever returning to Afghanistan--means the U.S. is committed to building a responsive Afghan state. "Obama's is a gutsy and correct decision," Kagan said,
While a few of the speakers complained that Obama wasn't expanding the Afghan national army rapidly enough, and that he wasn't speaking explicitly about the effort required to create a functional Afghan government, most thought Obama's plan near-perfect. Now, FPI members say, they believe the danger comes as much from Republicans who want to slam the president for nation-building as it does from anti-war Democrats. "I want to echo that this is a courageous and responsible policy," said former Bush adviser Ashley Tellis.
Where did this newfound bipartisanship come from? According to Senor, an FPI co-founder, the decision dates back to an unpleasant informal discussion with the House Republican leadership. The three FPI founders were promoting an alternative stimulus bill, based on military spending. "One member told me, 'We're opposing Obama on the stimulus and we don't want to distinguish between good spending and bad spending--we want to start making the case that it's all bad.' To say something like that was just incredibly irresponsible." That and other conversations with Republicans who plan to paint Afghanistan as "Obama's war" convinced the trio that "there's a huge, glaring leadership vacuum on the right." They think populist economic rage has the potential to affect foreign policy. Senor explained: "Our objective right now is to give President Obama cover in the eyes of those who would otherwise be skeptical on the right."
Which means that neocons have uprooted themselves from their post-Iraq position and planted themselves squarely in the putative political center. Or at least they've gone to lengths to make it seem that way. The FPI has all the identifiable trappings of Establishment foreign policy centrism: Gone is the stylized talk about World Domination and a New American Century; in its place is a nondescript name and a blue globe emblem that makes the organization appear like the younger cousin of the UN or CFR.
Needless to say, the transformation isn't totally convincing. Although Obama's and Kristol's interests on Afghanistan do seem to align--and they may continue to--the organization's agenda diverges on a whole host of issues including missile defense, democratization, Russia, and "rogue regimes" like Iran.
In order for the political center to coalesce around Obama's plan, the president will have to convince the American public that his effort is realistic and legitimate. It's still an open question whether FPI's cheerleading helps or hurts in that regard.
--Barron YoungSmith
Print
COMMENTS (6)
No truth to the rumor that "Project For A New American Century" has been renamed "Project For Approximately Three-Quarters Of A Trillion Dollars Through 2009 And Counting Which Actually Could Come In Quite Handy Right About Now."
No truth to the rumor that "Project For A New American Century" has been renamed "Project For Approximately Three-Quarters Of A Trillion Dollars Through 2009 And Counting Which Actually Could Come In Quite Handy Right About Now."
How many chickenhawks [Democratic or Republican] eager to do battle with the "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan have put themselves in harms way in order to defend America against them? How many have loved ones in harms way right now?
Or, instead, how many of them approach these conflicts much as an adolescent would approach the "enemy" in a video game?
Or as garrulous pundits do, waging battle with other pundits by hurling words, sentences, paragraphs, essays....even whole books of them!...at each other.
Also, if they are so gung ho about spreading "freedom and democracy" around the globe why are their targets so selective? What about the tryanny in Egypt, ... view full comment
How many chickenhawks [Democratic or Republican] eager to do battle with the "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan have put themselves in harms way in order to defend America against them? How many have loved ones in harms way right now?
Or, instead, how many of them approach these conflicts much as an adolescent would approach the "enemy" in a video game?
Or as garrulous pundits do, waging battle with other pundits by hurling words, sentences, paragraphs, essays....even whole books of them!...at each other.
Also, if they are so gung ho about spreading "freedom and democracy" around the globe why are their targets so selective? What about the tryanny in Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, North Korea, etc etc.? Why are these politically repressive regimes not only tolerated but, in some cases, deeply embedded as trading partners with America in the global economy?
Here's why: American foreign policy, as many understand it, is largely an illusion. With respect to virtually all nations, foreign and domestic policy revolves first and foremost around wealth and power. Those who have a lot of both will tug the policies so as to enhance their own interests. The real struggle is often between conflicting camps of wealth and power.
All the analysis above and Barron YoungSmith makes not a single reference to the Monroe Doctrine, "manifest destiny", the military industrial complex. Not a single reference to national security as a commodity. Not a single reference to the enormous gap that exists between what we are told motivates our policies abroad [freedom, democracy, human rights] and what actually motivates it instead [markets, cheap labor, natural resources].
He must know this. And yet he spews out all these professorial bromides as though foreign policy were merely a clash of ideas between 'liberals" and "conservatives", "idealists" and "realists", "isolationists" and "interventionists". You would think it is understood that America represents all that is good and virtuous abroad. Instead, it all comes down...tactically...to how we should pursue these goals. Now, with a quasi detente between Obama and Kristol maybe, just maybe, the good guys can work together for a change to bring about a more enlightened world.
Next to the fable that America must remain a "Christian nation", the foreign policy narrative reflects just how out of touch with reality most American citizens really are.
george walton
I'm delighted folks like Kristol and Kagan can still recognize a realistic, bi-partisan foreign policy when they see one. Sort of like the one that compelled us to enforce the terms of the '91 ceasefire, if belatedly.
I'm delighted folks like Kristol and Kagan can still recognize a realistic, bi-partisan foreign policy when they see one. Sort of like the one that compelled us to enforce the terms of the '91 ceasefire, if belatedly.
Rot In Basketball Paradise: Why Did New York Stop Growing NBA Stars? by Jason Zengerle The G20 Fallout
Rot In Basketball Paradise: Why Did New York Stop Growing NBA Stars? by Jason Zengerle The G20 Fallout
From Commentary Magazin'e "Contentions" Weblog
April 3, 2009
Perhaps It’s Because They Believe in Something
. . . a youth at the New Republic with the opulent name of Barron YoungSmith wonders what exactly that devililsh Br’er Bill Kristol is up to:
"Neocons have uprooted themselves from their post-Iraq position and planted themselves squarely in the putative political center. Or at least they’ve gone to lengths to make it seem that way. The FPI has all the identifiable trappings of Establishment foreign policy centrism: Gone is the stylized talk about World Domination and a New American Century; in its place is a nondescript name and a blue globe ... view full comment
From Commentary Magazin'e "Contentions" Weblog
April 3, 2009
Perhaps It’s Because They Believe in Something
. . . a youth at the New Republic with the opulent name of Barron YoungSmith wonders what exactly that devililsh Br’er Bill Kristol is up to:
"Neocons have uprooted themselves from their post-Iraq position and planted themselves squarely in the putative political center. Or at least they’ve gone to lengths to make it seem that way. The FPI has all the identifiable trappings of Establishment foreign policy centrism: Gone is the stylized talk about World Domination and a New American Century; in its place is a nondescript name and a blue globe emblem that makes the organization appear like the younger cousin of the UN or CFR. Needless to say, the transformation isn’t totally convincing."
Really, this is just embarrassing. In the first place, the stylized talk about neoconservatives and “World Domination” comes from places like the New Republic’s own blog, the Plank, and not from “neoconservatives.” (As for “New American Century,” the term is a reference to one created by that famous neoconservative Henry Luce, then the proprietor of the notoriously intellectual Time Magazine. It is plausible YoungSmith, Brown ‘06, doesn’t know much about Henry Luce, since he existed before Twitter.) Speculations as to motive here are comical. Kristol and Kagan believe that a certain policy approach is best for the United States and the world. They discover that Republicans on Capitol Hill are willing to surrender their own principles in pursuit of partisan posturing. So what do they do? They support the policy, not the party.
That, as it happens, has always been true of them. When Bill Kristol declared in 1994 that there was no health care crisis, he said it because he believed it, not because he was coming up with an angle. Bob Kagan was rather ruthless in his criticisms of the Bush administration and its handling of certain foreign-policy matters — and that was the case even when his own wife was working in the White House. This, Barron YoungSmith, is what people do when they possess deep convictions.
It might be prudent for YoungSmith to take a break from this sort of thing until he becomes Barron A Little Bit OlderSmith.
--John Podhoretz -- 04.03.2009 - 10:43 AM
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
www.commentarymagazine.com/.../61111
4-4-09
Bill Kristol is fulfilling an obligation to the Military Industrial Complex that is shared by every Right Wing spokesman in this nation. Their love for war has nothing to do with their interest in anything but supplying unbelievable amounts of money to their industrial cronies.
The Iraqi was is a magnificent model of how sophisticated this activity has become.
Anyone doubting the intentions of the Right Wing to support these activities needs only to read two small books that cover instances of these activities prior to WWII. The first book was written by one of the most highly decorated Americans of all time. His name is Smedley Butler, (double Medal of Honor winner) ... view full comment
4-4-09
Bill Kristol is fulfilling an obligation to the Military Industrial Complex that is shared by every Right Wing spokesman in this nation. Their love for war has nothing to do with their interest in anything but supplying unbelievable amounts of money to their industrial cronies.
The Iraqi was is a magnificent model of how sophisticated this activity has become.
Anyone doubting the intentions of the Right Wing to support these activities needs only to read two small books that cover instances of these activities prior to WWII. The first book was written by one of the most highly decorated Americans of all time. His name is Smedley Butler, (double Medal of Honor winner) and he was a general in the Marines. After his retirement, General Butler wrote a small book titled, "War is a Racket." It describes his years of fighting in Central America and China, usually on behalf of big business interests, and overthrowing attempts to create democratically elected governments in these nations.
The second book is written about General Butler, and the conspiracy of big business interests to use General Butler to overthrow President Roosevelt. The book is titled "The Plot to Seize the White House." It is fascinating reading that has somehow failed to be included in our history books in spite of the fact that General Butler presented this information to a congressional committee that confirmed the veracity of his statements. Smedley Butler was a true American hero whose name should be known by every child in our nation and especially by everyone serving in our military forces.