Republican Representative Ron Paul gave a stirring speech in Congress yesterday titled “Neo-conned”. I haven’t read it all, but I caught some of it live on C-Span. Ron Paul is well-respected by people from all across the political spectrum for his consistent adherence to principle—in his case, the principle of liberty.

From what I know of Ron Paul, I’m sure this speech stands as one of the most credible and well-stated warnings about the encroaching influence of neo-conservatism—the core philosophy driving the Project for the New American Century.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul: Neo-conned

Here is one relatively short segment in that long speech which gets to the heart of the matter:

---

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter–and especially for expanding the American empire–must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories–against non-enemies–ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process–where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy–is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naive for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives–a name they gave themselves–diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means–that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and
withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should
not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

…

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Early on, they urged war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. …

Read the whole speech

Alarming other nations and making them feel threatened by our power and our maneuvers are important elements of the PNAC’s strategy, and of the United States’ current foregin policy stance. So North Korea’s reaction here would not necessarily be seen by PNAC proponents as a bad thing.

James Brooke, New York Times

Published June 22, 2003

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA—When the United States announced plans to pull its troops away from the border with North Korea, attention focused mostly on South Korea and its objections to losing the protection of the so-called tripwire. What was largely overlooked were the protests from the party that felt most threatened by the change: North Korea.

…

In a new twist, North Korea now fears that if the United States rolls up its human tripwire, it will free U.S. military planners to go north, bombing nuclear sites near Pyongyang, the capital. In the military chess game on the Korean Peninsula, by moving U.S. troops out of range of North Korea’s border artillery, the United States gains a strategic advantage.

“Our army and people will answer the U.S. arms buildup with a corresponding powerful deterrent force and its pre-emptive attack with a prompt retaliation to destroy it at the initial stage of war,” North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said recently.

Lacking targets

Alexandre Mansourov, a former Soviet diplomat in Pyongyang who now teaches security studies in Hawaii, translated North Korea’s concerns to mean, “If the U.S. pulls out of the bases, North Korea knows that the U.S. is preparing a pre-emptive strike.”

Full story…

This is an essay by a conservative, about the neoconservative movement, and the distinctions between the various sectors of conservatism.

Pay no attention to the neocon behind the curtain

By Timothy P. Carney
carney@evansnovak.com

Debates among and about “Neoconservatives” and “Paleoconservatives” recently have bounced between being enlightening, mendacious, vicious, and dangerous. But easily the most bizarre aspect of the fight is the claim that neoconservatives don’t exist—that they are the hallucinations of fevered minds.

Regardless of whether you consider yourself neo-, paleo-, non- or just plain-conservative, it is worth examining whether a) there is such a thing as a neocon, and b) how, if it all, they differ from conservatism proper.

Full article…

PNAC prodigy Paul Wolfowitz has been granted a powerful new position.

CNN.com – Defense deputy gets authority for military tribunals – Jun. 24, 2003

From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 Posted: 2:01 PM EDT (1801 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN)—U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has delegated his role as “appointing authority” for military commissions to his deputy, according to Pentagon officials.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a delegation last weekend putting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in authority over the tribunals that will try al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, the officials said.

Under an order that President Bush issued in November 2001, military tribunals can be used to try non-citizens accused of terrorist acts. Individuals brought before the tribunals would have no right to a jury trial, no right to confront their accusers and no right to judicial review of trial procedures or sentences, which could include death.

Full story…

I’m again inclined to waive our policy of not posting particularly opinionated, biased, or mean-spirited material, due to the excellent content in the rest of the following article. The only real “offense” is that the author begins by saying President Bush is acting with “commendable stupidty”, which I think is an appraisal that goes beyond the author’s field of expertise. The rest of the article is much more suited to the purpose of foreign policy analysis, and provides some essential context to the simmering situation developing in Iran, albeit from a definitely judgmental viewpoint. Two more-journalistic appraisals follow it.

US wages war from within Iran
By Richard M Bennett
Jun 20, 2003

With commendable stupidity usually only reserved for the most powerful and isolated from reality, President George W Bush has managed to go some way towards repeating the catastrophic mistakes of Lyndon Johnson and ensnare the United States in an increasingly unpopular and probably unwinnable foreign military involvement. Just two months after the sudden collapse of organized Iraqi resistance to the US-led invasion, US troops are back in a Vietnam-scenario with the ambushing of military convoys, the regular use of grenades and rocket launchers against isolated American targets and indeed suicide bombers.

It has always been a truism that if you cannot avoid wars, then at least learn the lessons of previous conflicts. This, however, the US has signally failed to do. Not content with the ultimate failures of the campaigns in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, of Somalia, and indeed even Afghanistan, to achieve the stated aims and the supposed improvement in the state of the inhabitants of those nations, the US has blindly embarked on a dangerous and unsound course of action. US forces are already launching operations suspiciously similar to the “search-and-destroy” tactics of 40 years ago and with a similar response from an increasingly hostile civilian population.

Using a marked degree of devious propaganda about the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction and largely in the dark about the true allegiance and likely response of the majority of Iraqis, the US has now succeeded in alienating much of both the developed and Third World, and indeed signaled to both Russia and China that Washington’s new-found military belligerence and diplomatic toughness are a profound threat to their influence and future powerbase. Not content with expending much of America’s wealth and the lives of its young service personnel in largely fruitless campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington is now clearly preparing the ground for an attack on Iran.

Full Article…

And here is a more surface-level look at the situation in Iran:

Bush warns Iran on nuclear weapons, urges Tehran to treat pro-reform protesters with ‘respect’

June 18th – 9:19 pm ET
SCOTT LINDLAW
Associated Press Writer

President Bush said Wednesday that he and other world leaders would not tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran, and administration officials expressed concern to the U.N. nuclear agency about the country’s atomic program.

Bush also urged Iranian leaders to treat protesters with “the utmost of respect” as they seek the ouster of the Islamic government.

Though Bush’s words of warning were strong, he gave no indication that Iran, which he has characterized as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea, might face military action under his policy allowing pre-emptive attacks where he sees threats.

Iran is thought by U.S. officials to be developing nuclear weapons, though the Iranian government denies it. Iran’s chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, rejected allegations that his government failed to honor promises made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

“Iran considers the acquiring, development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman, immoral, illegal and against its very principles,” he said. “They have no place in Iran’s defensive doctrine.”

Bush suggested he did not believe such denials.

Full Article…

And here’s another:

Setbacks Dog U.S. Iran Policy
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
Friday 20 June 2003

The United States began to show its teeth to Iran this week after a series of diplomatic setbacks dashed optimistic predictions of administration officials that an international consensus had formed about taking concrete steps to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The souring of the administration’s outlook was on display Friday as John Bolton, the hawkish undersecretary of state for arms control issues, said that military action against Iran is an option the U.S. is studying should diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal fail.

“The President has repeatedly said that all options are on the table, but that is not only not our preference, it is far, far from our minds,” Bolton told the British Broadcasting Corp. On Thursday, President Bush also toughened his public stance, saying that the U.S. would “not tolerate” a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

The speedy decline of the U.S. effort to win broader support illustrates an important fact: Iran is viewed quite differently from Iraq or even North Korea by most of the world’s nations. In spite of its record as a supporter of terrorist groups and its repressive Islamic leadership, it is more democratic than many states that the United States regards as allies, and its strong oil and energy industries make it an attractive investment opportunity.

Downhill Fast

As recently as a week ago, administration officials were citing support from Russia, the Group of Eight industrialized nations and the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as proof of the progress being made by the U.S.-led effort to curb nuclear proliferation, which Bush has described as “topping the agenda” now that Saddam Hussein has been toppled.

But since then, across the board, actions the U.S. had hoped would lead to a strong condemnation of Iran for refusing to allow open inspections of all suspect nuclear facilities have fallen short.

Full Article…

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the stories about the U.S.’s failure to “win the peace” in Iraq is that the PNAC proponents have been pushing for this war for many years. One might think that with a solid 5 years of time to plan and prepare (the PNAC first urged a second war with Iraq in 1998), and with over a decade of close observation, and decades of involvement with the country, that some of these issues could have been better anticipated.

US General Condemns Iraq Failures
By Ed Vulliamy
The Observer

Sunday 22 June 2003

One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of ‘failing to prepare for the consequences of victory’ in Iraq.

At the end of a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General William Nash told The Observer that the US had ‘lost its window of opportunity’ after felling Saddam Hussein’s regime and was embarking on a long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned.

‘It is an endeavour which was not understood by the administration to begin with,’ he said.

Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, specialising in conflict prevention.

In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said the US had ‘failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country’.

Full Story…

Jim Lobe has been on the tail of the neoconservatives since before the word “neocon” was widely used or known. His articles typically appear in the Asia Times, as well as on the website of Foreign Policy in Focus. He has also been a correspondent for Inter Press Service (IPS) for some 23 years.

IPS has just recently compiled all of Lobe’s stories on the neoconservative movement on one handy webpage. It is an invaluable resource, and worth browsing in order to get a handle on how the movement has evolved over recent years.

Check out the the IPS archive on “The Neo-Conservative Ascendancy in the Bush Administration.”

This article has to much of import to excerpt it effectively. It’s very much worth reading in full, and in concert with our previous entry on unrest in Iraq.

US losing the peace in Afghanistan
By Jim Lobe
Asia Times

WASHINGTON – Just as the United States is struggling to deal with major postwar headaches in Iraq, its efforts to pacify Afghanistan appear to be unraveling, according to a new report by a key group of experts sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Asia Society.

Titled “Afghanistan: Are We Losing the Peace?”, the 24-page document, authored by, among others, three retired senior US government policymakers who specialize in South Asian affairs, answers that question very much in the affirmative and argues that Washington must do far more, and urgently, to save the situation.

“Without greater support for the transitional government of President Hamid Karzai, security in Afghanistan will deteriorate further, prospects for economic reconstruction will dim, and Afghanistan will revert to warlord-dominated anarchy,” the task force concluded.

“This failure could gravely erode America’s credibility around the globe and mark a major defeat in the US-led war on terrorism,” added the report, which was written by the co-chairs of the independent CFR-Asia Society task force that has been following Afghanistan since before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon.

…

In addition to devoting increasing energy to get Iraq under firm control, the administration is also increasingly preoccupied internationally with implementing the “roadmap” for Israeli-Palestinian peace and coping with the diplomatic fallout from both the Iraq war and its failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in that country. The alleged production and deployment of WMD by former president Saddam Hussein was cited by Bush and his allies as the main justification for going to war.

Continuing challenges to the US military occupation in Iraq, as well as the general insecurity there, has forced the Pentagon to deploy at least 140,000 troops there – twice as many as it had planned before the invasion…

…

In addition, tensions with Iran have been rising steadily over the past six weeks as the administration appears increasingly inclined to adopt a policy of “regime change”, which could include covert paramilitary action and even military strikes in a country whose population is roughly twice that of Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

“This is what is called ‘imperial over-stretch’,” noted one congressional aide whose boss has long warned that Bush’s post-September 11 strategic ambitions would stretch US forces impossibly thin within a very short time.

…

“If the administration fails to take the lead in providing more security and extending the authority of the central government,” said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University and a member of the CFR-Asia Society Task Force, “our policy in Afghanistan is definitely on track to fail.”

Full Story…

The PNAC strategy calls for a lasting presence and influence over places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and the like. But the scene on the ground in the first two of those experiments must inspire serious doubts about whether or not such a plan is feasible — whether nations in the Middle East will accept such a presence.

It’s worthwhile, as always, to look at history when trying to understand the events of the present. Here is an excerpt from HistoryChannel.com’s entry under “Iraq”:

In World War I the British invaded Iraq in their war against the Ottoman Empire; Britain declared then that it intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. Nationalist elements, impatient over delay in gaining independence, revolted in 1920 but were suppressed by the British. Late that year the Treaty of Sèvres established Iraq as a mandate of the League of Nations under British administration, and in 1921 the country was made a kingdom headed by Faisal I. With strong reluctance an elected Iraqi assembly agreed in 1924 to a treaty with Great Britain providing for the maintenance of British military bases and for a British right of veto over legislation. By 1926 an Iraqi parliament and administration were governing the country. The treaty of 1930 provided for a 25-year alliance with Britain. The British mandate was terminated in 1932, and Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations.

In 1933 the small Christian Assyrian community revolted, culminating in a governmental military crackdown and loss of life and setting a precedent for internal minority uprisings in Iraq. Meanwhile, the first oil concession had been granted in 1925, and in 1934 the export of oil began. Domestic politics were turbulent, with many factions contending for power. Late in 1936, the country experienced the first of seven military coups that were to take place in the next five years.

That’s 21 years of tumult described there. A little over 20 years of further tumult later, the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein began their rise to power.

The theory of the PNAC believers and neoconservatives must be that somehow, this time will be different. But the story on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be bearing that theory out:

Smashed US Memorial Points to Deepening Iraqi Anger
By Scott Peterson
The Christian Science Monitor

Friday 20 June 2003

BAGHDAD – With tears in his eyes, US Army paratrooper Richard Bohr knelt down in the Iraqi dust and kissed a handmade memorial stone, bidding farewell to a brother in the US Marine Corps who was killed in action on the spot April 10, the day after Baghdad fell to invading American troops.

Draped with a necklace and pendant imploring, “St. Michael Protect Us,” the concrete memorial put in place by a US unit Friday morning measured two-by-three feet, and had been painted with a bright American flag, the Marine Corps shield, and the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

But within 30 minutes of the American troops leaving, this tribute to a brother was no more – a casualty of the deepening resentment toward US troops here, at the hands of Iraqis who increasingly see those troops not as liberating friends, but as an occupying enemy.

…

Ms. Fadhel says that as much as she disliked the regime of Saddam Hussein, she could safely be out past 9:00 pm. Now, she says, any time after 6:00 pm is unsafe. Delays by the Washington-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, to create a new Iraqi government, adds to the resentment among Iraqis.

“If they don’t establish a new Iraqi government by August, Iraqi people everywhere will attack them. They must know that it will result in a civil war,” Fadhel says. “You will see bodies of Americans in the streets. They think we are silent, but we are agitated inside.”

That agitation is increasingly boiling to the surface. Signs are sprouting that US troops – and the ineffective new US-led authority they have ushered in – are wearing out their welcome. Graffiti sprayed across one highway overpass reads: “Go home Americans.” Spray-painted in red inside a downtown bus stop: “Go away, U.S.A.”

…

“The US has proved to the Iraqi people that it is an occupation force that wants oil, to protect Israel, and to build big military bases in Iraq,” says Mr. Hussein, who also worked in the Iraqi military. “Of course we wanted a change of regime, but not in this way, because we have gone from bad to worse. Then there was safety, and we knew when we would get our salary.”

Full Story…

(A story about the troubles in Afgahnistan is forthcoming.)

A key element of the PNAC’s plan for a “unipolar” world is the idea that nations can be fundamentally changed, through force, by other nations. If that premise doesn’t hold true, then most of the PNAC strategy would be deemed unreliable, since it relies heavily on the U.S.’s ability to achieve fundamental changes in many nations and regions around the globe.

America’s Rebuilding of Iraq is in Chaos, Say British
By Peter Foster
The Telegraph

Tuesday 17 June 2003

The American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is “in chaos” and suffering from “a complete absence of strategic direction”, a very senior British official in Baghdad has told The Telegraph.

The comments paint a grim picture of American incompetence and mismanagement as the Coalition Provisional Authority struggles to run post-Saddam Iraq.

“This is the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for,” the official said yesterday.

The source revealed that Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, had “fewer than 600″ staff under his control to run a country the size of France in which the civil infrastructure was on the point of collapse.

“The operation is chronically under-resourced and suffers from an almost complete absence of strategic direction,” he added.

Similar frustrations have been voiced privately in London, where British ministers are said to be fed up with being “taken for granted”.

Full article…