- 0 Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Exploring S&S
- 3 Emma & Persuasion
- 4 Hearts & Minds
- 5 Conclusion
- BLOGROLL REVIEW
- COMPOSITE FEATURE ARTICLES
- Cooperative Housing
- Culture Wars
- Death of Adam
- Elitism, Conservatives and Progressives
- ESSAYS (essays.peaceandwisdom.org)
- Faith and Reason
- FEATURE ARTICLES
- Foreign Affairs
- How to Meditate
- Identity Politics
- In Search of Sense and Sensibility
- Jane Austen
- Jane Bennet and Barack Obama
- Mansfield Park
- MediaLens Dialogue
- Middle East
- Narratives and Brands
- New Age
- On Zionism
- P&W Seminars
- Peak Oil
- Philosophical Manifesto
- Philosophy of History
- Pride and Prejudice
- Sense and Sensibility
- The Black Swan
- The Enlightenment
- Treacherous Alliance
- UK Politics
- US Elections
- War is a force…
Category Archives: Neoconservatives
Blogging heads.tv have a fascinating discussion between Francis Fukuyama and Robert Kagan providing as good a critique of the neoconservative project as you will see. Robert Kagan is probably one of the smartest neo-cons since Fukuyama departed over the Iraq war but Fukuyama is quietly brilliant and in a different league. It just leaves my shaking my head in disbelief that someone of this calibre got sucked up in the neoconservative project. Kagan make sone very revealing comment about the way that good historians will trace the origin of the recent American hubris not to the start of the Bush administration but to ’90s and the Clinton administration (and the first Bush administration). He is quite right of course, even if the neocons took it to pathological extremes.
Jamal Dajani’s latest Mosaic Intelligence Report looks at what has been going on in Afghanistan. The outlook for victory in the ‘good war’ looks incredibly bleak.
Gordon Prather has an article arguing that the Bush administration legacy will be “the deliberate destruction of the existing international nuclear-weapons proliferation-prevention regime,” and Scott Horton has interviewed him on the subject. Prather shows a touching incredulity that nothing the Bush administration does in this area seems to make much sense.
Iraq has gone from second to fifth in the Foreign Policy Failed States Index, illustrating perfectly the success of the ‘surge’. William Pfaff has a truthdig article, The Illusion of Saving Nations from Themselves, reminding us of how we got here:
I hit quite a block after posting that acknowledgment of what a superior blogger Yglesias is. To what extent was it ego? I don’t know: it is difficult to be sure, but I suspect it was one of several factors.
Matt Yglesias has responded to my request for his take on the Goldberg/Walt disagreement over Ahmadinejad’s unpleasant rhetoric over Israel and produces a beautifully concise explanation of why it is a bad idea to exaggerate it (here is mine for comparison). While I can’t seem to stop being impressed by his articles, the way he has dispatched this has confirmed and amplified my sense of respect. This kind of thing is really not that easy to do.
I am disappointed by the absence of a link but I know I haven’t earned one either.
Robert Fisk has an article in the Indie about a Dutch press photographer putting on a photograph exhibition on Iraq based on images that Iraqis have captured with their mobile phones. The reason he is using Iraqi’s amateur collection is that Iraq is still too dangerous for anybody with any sense who has any option to be elsewhere.
The refugee statistics are so appalling that they have become almost mundane. Four million of Iraq’s 23 million people have fled their homes – until recently, at the rate of 60,000 a month – allegedly more than 1.2 million to Syria (a figure now challenged by at least one prominent NGO), 500,000 to Jordan, 200,000 to the Gulf, 70,000 to Egypt, 57,000 to Iran, up to 40,000 to Lebanon, 10,000 to Turkey. Sweden has accepted 9,000, Germany fewer – where an outrageous political debate has suggested that Christian refugees should have preference over Muslim Iraqis. With its usual magnanimity – especially for a country that set off this hell-disaster by its illegal invasion – George Bush’s America has, of course, accepted slightly more than 500.
This collection of pictures is therefore an indictment of us, as well as of the courage of Iraqis. The madness is summed up in an email message sent to Van Kesteren by a Baghdad Iraqi. “This summer,” he wrote, “a workman wanted to quench his thirst by putting ice in his tea. A car pulled up, the driver stepped out and began to beat and kick the man, cursing him as an unbeliever. ‘What do you think you’re doing? Did the Prophet Mohamed put ice in his water?’
The man being attacked was furious and asked his assailant: ‘Do you think the Prophet Mohamed drove a car?'”
On the supposition that finetuning the provisions that Iraqis find obnoxious to their sovereignty will bring them or their government around, Bush remains optimistic about the outcome.
President Bush said Saturday he is confident the United States can reach a long-term security agreement with Iraq, one that will not establish permanent U.S. bases there.
“If I were a betting man, we’ll reach an agreement with the Iraqis,” Bush told a news conference in Paris.
Bush has been wrong about virtually everything having to do with Iraq. He overplayed his hand one too many times, and SOFA is done for.
[Update: Please read the companion article, The Love Buzz, explaining why it is important to seek out everyone’s point of view, especially those of people that you find offensive, and that this process in no way condones their actions.]
In an eerie coincidence, as soon as I completed my essay, Why Fisk is Wrong about Ahmadinejad, that finished with Jeffery Goldberg, I read Goldberg’s article, Mearsheimer and Walt: Apologists for Ahmadinejad, responding to Stephen Walt comments in a lecture in Jerusalem:
A professor criticized the authors for failing to condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. “I don’t think he is inciting to genocide,” Walt responded.
Goldberg starts with the infamous mistranslation:
October, 2005: “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine… I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.”
despite it being well known that more accurate translations exist.
The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise.