Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Article characterizes the choice for president (D-Neocon) or (R-Neocon)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 04:56 PM
Original message
Article characterizes the choice for president (D-Neocon) or (R-Neocon)
Edited on Sun Jun-10-07 04:58 PM by ProSense

Time to Ignore the Middle East?

Leon Hadar | June 7, 2007

These days, conventional wisdom in Washington, DC holds that the Iraq War has been lost, that the Bush Doctrine of promoting unilateral regime change and spreading democracy in the Middle East has failed, and that the neoconservative ideologues who have dominated U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 are "out" while the realists are "in."

But the same conventional wisdom says you shouldn't hold your breatheven if an anti-war Democrat wins the White House in 2008, don't expect a revolutionary change in U.S. policy on the Middle East. In the best-case scenario, some U.S. troops would probably remain based in Iraq, and certainly in other parts of the Persian Gulf, as a way of demonstrating U.S. resolve to defend Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing countries in the region; Washington would still maintain its strong military and economic support for Israel and try to mediate another peace process.

If anything, the election of one of the three leading Blue candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-NY), or former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)all of whom have little experience in national securitymight make it more likely that the United States could be drawn into a military confrontation with Iran as the new White House occupant tries to demonstrate that he or she is "tough." Hence, under either a Democratic or a Republican president, one should not be surprised to discover that the major element in the neoconservative agendamaintaining U.S. military and diplomatic hegemony in the Middle Eastwill likely remain alive and well, producing the never-ending vicious circle: more U.S. military interventions, leading to more anti-U.S. terrorism, resulting in more regime changes.

A lack of change in U.S. policy could be due to the power of inertia combined with the influences of the entrenched bureaucracies and powerful interest groups, the military-industrial complex, the "Israel Lobby," and the oil companies. But although all these players have major impacts on the policies pursued by the White House and Congress, the most important factor that makes it likely that U.S. interventionism in the Middle East will continue is the survival of what could be described as the U.S. Middle East Paradigm (MEP), whose origins go back to end of World War II and the start of the Cold War. Central to the MEP was the belief that competition with the Soviet Union made U.S. involvement in the Middle East a costly but necessary way to protect U.S. interests. The United States simply had to counter to Soviet ambitions. Notwithstanding the end of the Cold War, the MEP has continued to dominate the thinking of policymakers, lawmakers, and pundits in Washington. To paraphrase the famous saying, policy paradigms don't die, and unlike old generals, they don't even fade away.


Posted here.

It's really a fascinating article. More interesting than its assessment of what will happen if a Republican or Democrat is elected, is that DUers (17 recs at the time of this post) agree.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Calling Obama and Edwards neocons is a tad too harsh
Neither or them are warhawks. Yea, Edwards supported the invasion...but to put him in the DLC crowd or Big Corporate crowd is unsupported. Obama hasn't voiced the anti-war rhetoric that many on this site would like to hear, but that doesn't make him a neocon either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Edwards has been shaking his "saber" at Iran, too.
Tough guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. What in the h*ll is a Dem neocon?
I don't know anything about Leon Hadar, but that artical is BS!

So is his opinion that any of the 3 leading Dems would likely go to war with Iran...just to look tough!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Incredible, isn't it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. DLC = Dem neocon
Hope that helps.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I thought of that, and although I undersand a lot of why many on DU
detest the DLC, they are a FAR CRY from the neo-cons! Just think PNAC! I don't care how arrogant, crooked, or DLC loving any Dem might be, NONE OF THEM ever subscribed to anything even close to PNAC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Will Marshall is a PNAC signatory.
snip>
Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more centrist orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.

He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion.<


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

"they are a FAR CRY from the neo-cons!"

Some of them are actually just a short whisper.....
an ears width....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The term is actually neo-liberal. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. The word "Liberal" makes most of them reach for a barf-bag...
I think most would prefer "neo-con".

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Neo-liberals are socially liberal and Neo-cons are socially conservative.
Both are corporatists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. "The Israel Lobby."
Goodness, who could this writer be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. He or she is paraphrasing and certainly meant AIPAC, JINSA
et alia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
6.  Leon Hadar
About Me

Dr. Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, where he analyzes global politics and economics. A former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post, he is the Washington correspondent for Singapore Business Times and a contributing editor for the American Conservative magazine. Hadar has written for numerous newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy and has been interviewed by broadcasting outlets like CNN, BBC and FOX News. He has taught at American University and Mount Vernon College and has been affiliated with think tanks such as the Institute on East-West Security Studies and the Center for International Development and Conflict Management. A graduate of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Hadar earned his MA degrees from the schools of journalism and international affairs and the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, and his Ph.D. in international relations from American University. He is the author of "Quagmire: America in the Middle East" (Cato Institute, 1992) and of "Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Cato Institute?
Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
globalvillage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. So, it doesn't matter?
Bullshit. Any one of the Dems is better than any Republican candidate by far.

That article is a bunch of crap. What "conventional wisdom" in DC says that? I hate when people use that phrase, it's like "some say", and it's baloney.


Thanks for posting. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. "could be drawn into a military confrontation with Iran "
Nobody want to do that except B*sh & the Neocons... Nobody. I can't see it from any of the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sounds like the kind of Naderist thinking that gave us George W. Bush* to begin with. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Nader didn't give us *, SCOTUS gave us *, with help from

Choicepoint, Katherine Harris, and baby brother JEB, and LIEberman unilaterally deciding on national tv that all military votes would be counted, even if they were illegally cast (postmarked after Election Day, etc.)

Lots of Nader voters would not have voted for Gore, anyway, they simply wouldn't have voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Wow, never heard that one before.
Yes I have.

No one had to vote for Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. It was DLC thinking and a mealy mouth corporatist campaign
along with caging and other vote theft followed by sandra day o'conner that gave you gwb...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-12-07 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Agreed, Kucinich could have done much better.
With his 3% of the vote he got in the next primary and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. Bullshit article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. Only Hillary is DLC. No one else is.
Edited on Sun Jun-10-07 11:03 PM by illinoisprogressive
besides, Obama is no DLC guy and edwards turned his back on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Richarson and Dodd are also DLC...
Hillary is not the only one.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-10-07 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. This article is absolutely ridiculous
Whoever wrote it doesn't even know the definition of neo-con.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. Why are you hiding the source for the story (Rightweb.com)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. It probably isn't the reason you think. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I didn't think any reason. That's why I asked.
I'm always curious why people hide the indentity of their sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Why don't you read about the group before asking a question based solely on their name?
Right Web, founded in 2003, is a program of the International Relations Center (IRC) that tracks the work of those, in and outside of government, who have been instrumental in shaping or supporting U.S. policies in the global war on terror. Right Web explores the many ties that link the main players, organizations, corporate supporters, foundations, educational institutions, and government representatives in what could be described as a new architecture of power. Right Web aims to shine a spotlight on how these links influence the direction of foreign, military, and homeland security policies, and to illuminate this web for the public.

Many of the organizations and individuals profiled by Right Web are affiliated with the Republican Party, but not all. Efforts to push militaristic policies cross party lines, and so the Right Web project examines rightist organizations and figures, as well as leading liberal hawks. Reporters, researchers, and analysts have come to rely on Right Web for its well-documented research and analysis provided in the form of hundreds of dossiers, policy reports, op-eds, and news commentaries.

The IRC has worked for nearly three decades to illuminate the causes and consequences of U.S. policy and to make the United States a more responsible global leader and global partner. Right Web represents a revival of a former IRC program called GroupWatch (1985-1991), which profiled more than 125 private, quasi-governmental, and religious organizations that were closely associated with the implementation of U.S. foreign policy, especially in Central America.

By establishing Right Web, the IRC hopes to add to the growing national movement of concerned citizens who are working to check the militaristic drift of the country. We invite you to join the IRC, and we encourage you to become part of our effort to expose the right's architecture of power and its alarming cultural and political agenda.


Here is the author's blog. He's probably coming from the far left in trying to characterized Dems as the same as Repubs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 09th 2020, 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC