Sullivan and Kerry Counter Neocons Posted by James Lamond

Andrew Sullivan had a great post yesterday in response to Danielle Pletka's ridiculous interesting NY Times column:

Pletka is a hard-right neocon, very close to the Kagans, and a former aide to Jesse Helms. Her support for Ahmadinejad is the same as Daniel Pipes' and the Mossad's. What we're seeing is how much of the neocon agenda really was about freedom. I have long since stopped believing that, having observed them closely for the past few years. They are about warfare against Israel's perceived enemies, and extending US hegemony to eclipse any rival regional or global power. That is the prism through which you have to watch their every statement. But why is the New York Times giving a platform at this moment to people who got the Iraq war so terribly wrong? Are there no consequences for total neoconservative failure?

It's a good questions.  Why do the neocons who have gotten everything wrong still get so much air time and op-ed space. Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and of course John McCain have been all over the news.

A separate but related question is why do people continue to listen to them?

In the instance of Iran, it is in large part because people want to do something, even though supportive action- even just verbal support- can have the opposite intended effect.  This feeling is especially true when people like Robert Kagan and John McCain portray the Obama administration's response as a cold-hearted realpolitiking. In his column today John Kerry sypamthizes with those that want to do something, but explains why we can't.

Mr. McCain’s rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran’s peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.

There’s just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.

Comments

[Peace]

The difference between those who favor the United States becoming more involved in publically supporting the Iranian moderates and liberals and those who do not and believe that only the Iranians, themseleves, can create political change has lot to do about how the end of the Cold War is interpreted. The Neoconservatives think that Reagan's strong language alone was enough to make the Soviet Union change course while those who have studied how the Cold War actually ended have concluded it was mainly internal changes instigated by Gorbachev that led to the collaspe of Communism. The Republicans who are still entrapped by the Reagan myth, have an ideological certainity that the United States can change the internal dynamics in other countries, but realists like Obama know that American influence is very limited and could be counterproductive.

[cheap jordan shoes]

good