From neo-conservatism to neo-realism

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...eo09.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/09/ixworld.html

The neo-realists are seen as pragmatists who seek aggressively to defend America's interests but to do it with a softer face.
...
Keith Richburg, the foreign editor of the Washington Post, said ...

"It's better to have allies on board than to have them p****d off. It doesn't mean you have to change your policy."

The original neo-conservatives were liberals who backed a robust foreign policy against the Soviet Union.

More recently they have become known as pro-Israel hawks.

In the past few years, as their trademark policy, the war in Iraq, has become increasingly discredited, the word "neo-con" has become a catchall term of abuse of Mr Bush's first-term foreign policy aides.
What do you think about it? Has neo-conservatism failed?
 
#3
#4
PartTimePongo said:
Has neo-conservatism failed
Has it ever succeeded?
The very early Neocons in the Reagan administration were a driving force behind a bullish policy towards the Soviet Empire and contributed, albeit indirectly, to it's collapse. I'd say that was a success.

Their problem is that most of them are wonks who plan their grand strategies from think-tanks up on the hill. Very few of them get out onto the plot and see how things are in the real world, which shines through in their post-Iraq decision-making. Neocons have clearly demonstrated their inability to construct a meaningful narrative on how the US should deal with asymetrical warfare.

Veg.
 
#7
It's just like English , but errrr longer :D

Veg , see what you're saying , but I wouldn't agree. The pressure that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union came from within. So all those Dallas episodes we sold them had more effect than Nukes...
 
#8
From the original linked text:
Daily Telegraph said:
The original neo-conservatives were liberals who backed a robust foreign policy against the Soviet Union.
More recently they have become known as pro-Israel hawks.
In the week of flip-flops, that's a flip-flop - liberal to neo-con to Zionist hawk!!!!

The policy that we call "neo-conservative" is, in my opinion, an inaccurate moniker. It should more decriptively be called "neo-liberal" - which is hardly a surprise if we agree with the Telegraph's portrayal of their roots in classical liberalism.

And, returning to Veggies' point, the successes of the Reagan era, were I think best described as "neo-realist". I mean, did anyone attempt to argue that the Soviet Union should be invaded and democracy forced upon the populous?
 
#9
Neo-Realist in the sense that the USSR had a massive nuclear arsenal.

I think we tend to forget that the international Left behaved, at best, misguidedly and at worst disgracefully during the Cold War era. Some where fellow travellers/ "useful idiots" who fully supported totalitarianism, some honestly thought that the USSR could be placated. Neil Kinnock thought that we could dump our nukes and fight them from the hillsides (what was that, Neil? Oh yes, another general election down the toilet). And so on.

So, some thought that you could deal with The Kremlin using carrot (wrong), some with a bit more stick. The NeoCons wanted the USSR fought on all fronts: in Vietnam, in Africa and (yes) in Afghanistan, wherever the "progressive elements" were dancing to Moscow's tune. If the USSR was rotting, collapsing under it's own inherent contradicitons then the NeoCons, driving the Reagan/ Thatcher agenda of uncompromising foreign policy, hastened it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top