Time magazine's Joe Klein has suggested it is legitimate to look at the religion of neoconservatives. He does not say there was a conspiracy but says there is a case to be made for disproportionate influence of Jewish neoconservative figures in US foreign policy, and that several of them supported the Iraq war because of Israel's interests, though sometimes in an unconscious contradiction to American interests: "I do believe that there is a group of people who got involved and had a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy. There were people out there in the Jewish community who saw this as a way to create a benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies....I think it represents a really dangerous anachronistic neocolonial sensibility. And I think it is a very, very dangerous form of extremism. I think it's bad for Israel and it's bad for America. And these guys have been getting a free ride. And now these people are backing the notion of a war with Iran and not all of them, but some of them, are doing it because they believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel."[75] David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."[76] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[77] First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
On Jun 17, 7:37 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Neocons Losing Hold Over Republican Foreign PolicybyJim Lobe, June 16, 2011 > Nearly ten years after seizing control of Republican foreign policy, > neoconservatives and other hawks appear to be losing it. > That is at least the tentative conclusion of a number of political analysts > following Monday’s first nationally televised debate of the party’s declared > Republican candidates none of whom defended the current U.S. engagement in > Libya, while several suggested it was time to pare down Washington’s global > military engagements, including in Afghanistan. > "This sure isn’t the Republican Party of George Bush, [former Vice President] > Dick Cheney, and [former Pentagon chief] Donald Rumsfeld," exulted one > liberal commentator, Michael Tomasky, in theDaily Beast. "The neocons are > gone." > "Is the Republican party turning isolationist for 2012?" askedWashington > Postcolumnist Jackson Diehl, a liberal interventionist who has often allied > himself with neoconservatives in support of "regime change" against > authoritarian governments hostile to the U.S. or Israel. > "All in all, this first Republican debate offered a striking change of tone > for a party that a decade ago was dominated, in foreign policy, by the > neoconservative movement, which favored [and still does favor] aggressive > American intervention abroad," Diehl wrote on his blog. > Of particular note during the debate was a comment about Afghanistan by > former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is widely acknowledged to be > the current front-runner in the Republican field. > "It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, > consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the > country over to the [Afghan] military in a way that they’re able to defend > themselves," Romney said, adding, perhaps fatefully, "I also think we’ve > learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of > independence for another nation." > What precisely he meant by the latter sentence was left unclear, but it was > sufficiently negative for one prominent neoconservative, Danielle Pletka, to > tellPoliticothat her inbox had been flooded Tuesday morning with emails > calling Romney’s remarks a "disaster." > "I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican supporting American > strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that," Pletka, who > heads the foreign policy and defense division of the American Enterprise > Institute (AEI), toldPolitico, adding that perhaps the front-runner was "a > little bit of a weathervane." > Whatever Romney meant, Monday’s debate and the candidates’ apparent lack of > enthusiasm for the military adventures of the near-decade that followed the > 9/11 attacks marked at least an "incremental… shift," as theNew York Timesput > it, in the party’s foreign-policy stance from "the aggressive use of American > power around the world" to a "new debate over the costs and benefits" of > deploying that power, particularly in a time of "extreme fiscal pressure." > Since the mid-1970 s, Republicans have been divided between aggressive > nationalists, like Cheney, and Israel-centered neoconservatives who also > enjoyed the support of the Christian Right on the one hand, and isolationists > and foreign-policy realists on the other. > The balance of power between the two groups has shifted more than once in the > nearly four decades since. Under most of President Ronald Reagan’s tenure, > for example, the nationalists and neoconservatives largely prevailed until > they were overcome by the combination of the Iran-Contra scandal, Secretary > of State George Shultz, and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Under > President George H.W. Bush, the realists gained virtually total control. > The two factions spent much of President Bill Clinton’s eight years fighting > each other. Indeed, it was during that period that the nationalists, > neoconservatives, and Christian Rightists formed the Project for the New > American Century (PNAC) initially to counteract what they saw as growing > isolationism and anti-interventionism among Republican lawmakers in Congress. > PNAC’s founders, neoconservatives Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, backed John > McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries, against George W. Bush whose calls > for a "more humble" and "modest" foreign policy conjured bad memories of his > father. > Once in office, however, President George W. Bush chose leaders of both > factions as his main advisers most importantly Cheney and Rumsfeld, both > nationalists surrounded by neoconservatives; and Colin Powell, a classic > realist, as his secretary of state. For the first eight months, the two sides > locked horns on virtually every major foreign-policy issue. > But the 9/11 attacks changed the balance of power decisively in favor of the > hawks who, even as they gradually lost influence to the realists within the > administration during Bush’s second term, retained the solid support of > Republicans in Congress for all eight years. The fact that McCain, whose > foreign-policy views were distinctly neoconservative, won the party’s > presidential nomination in 2008 testified to the hawks’ enduring strength. > But the Sep 2008 financial crisis and the economic distress it caused laid > the groundwork for the resurgence of the party’s realist-isolationist wing, > according to political analysts. > "The economic duress is undermining the national greatness project of Bill > Kristol and the neocons," according to Steve Clemons, a national-security > expert at the New America Foundation (NAF), whose washingtonnote.com blog is > widely read here. > "What we are seeing evolve among Republicans is a hybrid realism with some > isolationist strains that believes the costs of American intervention in the > world at the rate of the last decade simply can’t be sustained," wrote > Clemons. > That evolution has gained momentum in the past few months, particularly since > President Barack Obama yielded to pressure from a coalition of > neoconservatives, liberal interventionists, and nationalists like McCain, to > intervene in Libya, and, more importantly since the May 2 killing by U.S. > Special Forces of the al-Qaeda chief in Pakistan. The killing of Osama bin > Laden, according to Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations > (CFR), "symbolized a closure in some ways to the wars that began after the > 9/11 attacks." > Indeed, in just the last month, 26 Republican congressmen deserted their > leadership and joined a strong majority of Democrats in calling for an > accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan, while last week, in an action that > drew charges of "isolationism" from the neoconservativeWall Street Journal, > 87 Republicans voted for a resolution that would require Obama to end > military action in Libya within 15 days. And each new day seems to offer a > story about yet another Republican insisting that the defense budget should > not be exempt from major cuts to reduce the yawning federal deficit. > "The party was moving in this direction quite decidedly before 9/11, and then > 9/11 silenced the voices of restraint and neo-isolationism," Kupchan told > IPS. "And now, they are finally coming back with a vengeance." > "That emergence may make for some interesting alliances across partisan lines > where you have left- leaning Democrats uncomfortable with the use of force > lining up with Republicans interested in bringing down the deficit," Kupchan > noted. > Tomasky observed, Republican candidates might now be changing their tune not > so much out of conviction as out of the desire to win elections. > Just last week, the Pew Research Center released its latest poll on U.S. > foreign policy attitudes which found that "the current measure of > isolationist sentiment is among the highest recorded" in more than 50 years. > While, for much of the Bush administration, only one in four Republicans said > the U.S. should "mind its own business" internationally, that percentage has > nearly doubled since Bush left office. The Pew survey also found a 50 percent > increase in Republican support for "reducing [U.S.] military commitments > overseas" from 29 percent in 2008, to 44 percent in May, 2011. Moreover, 56 > percent of Republicans said they support reducing those commitments as a way > to cut the budget deficit. > Similarly, Republicans appear to have lost virtually all interest in > promoting Bush’s and the neoconservatives’ "Freedom Agenda" abroad. According > to the Pew poll, only one in ten Republicans said they believe > democracy-promotion should be a long-term U.S. > priority.http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2011/06/15/neocons-losing-hold-over-republican-foreign-policy%C2%A0/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
