12Jan04-Tom Regan-Neocons: Don't stop now
World > Terrorism & Security
posted January 12, 2004, updated 1:00 p.m. ET
Neocons: Don't stop now
New book urges Bush to push regime change, keep an eye on US Muslims, and not to create Palestinian state
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Neoconservatives Richard Perle and David Frum don't want the US to back down from its aggressive positions in the war on terror. Not now.
As President Bush turns more towards diplomacy to deal with international problems (the chosen path of one of Mr. Frum's and Mr. Perle's least favorite people, Secretary of State Colin Powell), the authors see this as a mistake.
01/09/04
US military stretched too thin?
01/08/04
Report: White House misled public on WMD
01/07/04
2003: 'A Black Year'
Sign up to be notified daily:
In their new book, an "An end to evil: How to win the war on terror," the two men argue, among many other things:
France is really more an enemy than an ally of the US and that European nations must be forced to choose between Paris and Washington
Muslims living in the US must be given special scrutiny by US law enforcement and other Americans
The US must overthrow the regimes in Iran and Syria, and impose a blockade on North Korea
Palestinians must not be allowed to have a state
All Americans must carry a government issued identity card
The US must explicitly reject the jurisdiction of the United Nations Charter.
The two authors are both fellows at the American Enterprise Institute and former members of the Bush administration who left within the past year. CNN reports that Perle resigned last March from his position as chairman of the Pentagon's civilian advisor Defense Policy Board over charges that he stood to profit from the war in Iraq because of his acceptance of consultant fees from telecommunications Global Crossing. He continues to serve as a member of the DPB. IndyMedia reports that Frum left his position as White House speech writer after someone leaked the news that he was the one who came up with the phrase "axis of evil."
• Neocon 101
• Key figures
• Interactive quiz
Perle and Frum call their book a "manual for victory." The Jewish Forward says the book provides succeeds in "providing what some political observers describe as the most comprehensive and coherent summary of the core positions held by various neoconservative camps in the wake of the Iraq invasion." But the Forward says it also shows the deepening rift and battle for control of White House policy between pro-interventionist neoconservatives and old-line conservatives
"We were with them on Iraq," said Helle Dale, a foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, an old-line conservative think-tank in Washington. "But if you have any sense of military constraints, you would know further calls to military action right now are a little ill-timed."
The book has generated much debate. In a review in The Washington Post, New Republic Senior Editor Lawrence Kaplan (former executive editor of The National Interest, the foreign policy journal published by Irving Kristol, the man referred to as the "godfather of neoconservatives") says bears reading "less for its grace as a polemic than for its value as a primer on how those hawks view the world around them," and that the arguments put forth by Perle and Frum, make them the "the heirs and custodians" of President Woodrow Wilson's "crusading" foreign policy style.
When not ridiculing the backwardness of Islamic societies, they champion an effort "to lead the Arab and Muslim world to democracy and liberty"and make the case for enshrining women's freedom at the center of official policy. An End to Evil shares the traditionally conservative view of the world as a fundamentally dangerous and Hobbesian place. But it also argues that the condition can be ameliorated – through the vigorous application of American power and ideals. This is not conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth.
Syndicatecd columnist Cal Thomas, in a piece about Iran, says Perle and Frum's advice on how to bring about regime change in Iran (basically, no more Mr. Nice Guy) is right on the money.
The United States has two options. It can fail to follow through on its initial blow in Iraq, thus empowering and encouraging America's enemies everywhere, or it can deal a knockout blow to terrorism by finishing the job. As we saw with the Soviet Union, resolve is often enough to achieve American objectives. As long as American diplomats think humanitarian aid and political niceties by people dressed in Western business clothes will lessen the threat against us, we will continue to be threatened.
The book also has its critics. Jim Lobe of Inter Press New Service (a long time critic of neoconservative philosophy) writes that if Perle and Frum have their way, the US would be issuing ultimatums on a daily basis. Mr. Lobe, while acknowledging the book must be taken seriously because of who wrote it (particularly Perle), he also says it contains many errors and omissions, and seems determined not to take responsibility for the fact that Iraq might not have worked out the way they first envisioned it would.
Perle and Frum naturally blame the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), retired military officers and senior officials from the administration of the current president's father – in other words, all the foreign-policy specialists and "realists" who initially raised questions about going to war in Iraq – for resisting their calls for expanding the war to Syria, Iran, North Korea and even Saudi Arabia. And they categorically reject, albeit often defensively, any notion that the loss in momentum might be due more to over-optimistic predictions by themselves and their friends in the offices of Cheney and Rumsfeld about the ease with which US forces could occupy Iraq without significant international support.
Carl Evans, columnist for The Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado, accuses Perle and Frum (who he called "chicken hawk neocons") of trying "to play God."
If it's obtuse to think you can banish terrorism (and it is), what kind of hubris is required to say you can vanquish evil? You can try, but as soon as you do, new evils inevitably, paradoxically stain your effort. Because you're pursuing an unachievable goal, you are forced into using increasingly harsh measures, and as a result, innocents die – and evil remains. Ask the French about Algeria.
The Economist also has some problems with the book. In a review entitled "Breathlessly to victory," the Economist writes the book contains plenty of "plain talking" but tends to skim over the details.
America's relations with the UN are settled in a brisk seven pages; those with Russia in fewer than three. This makes the reader wonder whether the boldness of the neo-conservative agenda is rooted—as they see it—in clear thinking, plain talking and moral courage, or whether it arises from a reckless disregard for complexity, shades of grey or the possibility of unintended consequences.
Perle, meanwhile, continues to make headlines while he promotes the book. Sunday he told CNN that Saudi Arabia also qualifies for the "axis of evil" club. "I hope that those who believe that we are now getting full cooperation are right," he added, referring to Kingdom's willingness to work with the Bush administration to fight war terrorism after September 11, 2001. "I have yet to see the evidence," Perle said. Saudi papers blasted Perle Monday, saying that he only speaks the language of language of "force, murder and destruction."
csmonitor.com |
