Neo Culpa - the architects of the Iraq war play the blame game

[RickSp]

Whether you consider them to be scholars rethinking their positions or rats fleeing a sinking ship, they all place the blame on Bush.

Neo Culpa

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself. Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have." To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush. Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

[PatrickHenry]

That's just dandy. I have a revolver for those who would use it on themselves. The Japanese have a tradition of honor and if you have dishonored yourself you can square things up with a bit of seppuku...

These cowards just whine and point the finger.

[bishop]

interesting that perle is particularly criticizing rumseld's handling of the war, because perle actually advocated invading with a whopping 40k troops. if we were incapable of stablizing the country with roughly 4 times that number, imagine how much worse it would've been (if that's even possible) with 40k troops... what a hypocrite.

Richard Perle: Information from Answers.com

Perle advocated invading Iraq with only 40,000 troops, and complained about the calls by then Gen. Eric Shinseki to use 250,000 troops. He preferred a rerun of the Afghan war, where the U.S. would insert SOF (Special Operations Forces), along with some two divisions, to assist native Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels, much as the United States had done with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

[RickSp]

They each seem to ignore the underlying issue that invading and occupying a country that never attacked us will have a bad outcome regardless. Admittedly, the Bush administration has been grotesquely incompetent and has made things worse than they could have been. Nevertheless the real probelm was not the execution but the decision to invade.

[bishop]

the guy still has a home in the twilight zone, no doubt about that..

rereading some of perle's statements, i just hear the words "no shit, sherlock" echoing in my head.. for such a supposedly smart guy, he certainly doesn't have much interesting to say - the only interesting thing is seeing this true believer voicing doubt.

perle still has his head crammed up his arse though.. he's still holding on to his argument that saddam had the ability to produce wmd's and was willing to give them to terrorists. i could be wrong, but i've seen information saying that saddam could've restarted a wmd program - but it wasn't a fact that the program could actually be successful given the scantions imposed on iraq. but, that's another debate altogether..

perle's just grabbing on to whatever he can to save face.. my guess is that his peers in the academic/intellectual community have been mocking him, and little perle's feelings are getting hurt. his interview reads like a guy who's desperate to be taken seriously again. what a fall from grace.

[RickSp]

I have never been impressed by the intellectual depth of any of the neo-con gang. Perle, Wolfie, Gaffney, Frum, Adelman and the rest impressed me more by their arrogance and confidence than by their wit or insight. Now their braggadocio seems to be wilting, even if their arrogance is still intact.

[bishop]

their intellectual style revolves around believing their own dogma, rather than some sort of rational deduction of pros vs. cons... true intellectuals have to force themselves to look at issues as objectively as possible.

the issue with the neocons, obviously, is the means to their ends - and these ends are universally shared (freedom, etc..).. they would've been better off adopting a more pragmatic, kissingerian approach to their means. instead, their means were to be as aggressive as possible - to push for change through war. leading up to the war, i don't recall coming across any objective articles by neocons talking about what the aftermath would look like - and all the intellectual opponents to the invasion constantly harped about the uncertainties of occupying iraq. if you did hear some neocon comment about the post-invasion situation, you heard the usual dogma about oil paying for reconstruction, being greeted as liberators, etc...

[RickSp]

What I find so paradoxical about the neo-con perspective is the assertion that free societies can be created at the point of a bayonet. They embrace the tools of tyranny in the name of freedom and them start looking for someone to blame when the bodies start piling up and democracy is nowhere in sight. The problem is not their lack of pragmatism, but a complete lack of an understanding of how free societies develop and function.

[bishop]

not to get into semantics, but their (the neocons') perpective is the antithesis of pragmatism...

the notion of promoting democracy through war is as idealistic as it gets. a kissingerian styled, pragmatic approach would've been to argue for the destruction of iraq's regime/infrastructure, and occupation.. the neocons took it one step further and superimposed their rosy ideals of installing democracy in a culture that's never even known free speech, let alone democratic politics...

it's as if they have a guilty conscience about the means they use.. to compensate for the guilt, they superimpose these lofty goals to justify their brutal (and illegal) tactics.

*what would freud say?*

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop the notion of promoting democracy through war is as idealistic as it gets.

Idealistic or schizophrenic?

Democracy cannot be delivered by JDAM. The neocons either do not understand the nature of a free society or have no interest in promoting anything except imperial rule. I suspect the later.

[bishop]

idealistic and/or schizophrenic... doesn't matter. my point was simply that their approach was not pragmatic. a pragmatic approach would've sought to understand the nature of the task at hand, including the pros vs. cons... (it would've likely allowed the inspection process to continue.) that clearly didn't happen. instead, it was all about rosey scenarios, and any/all dejecters were quickly asked to leave the administration.

that's the same sort of psychology that occurs with all political cults.. the nazis did it, except they killed the dejecters... islamists do it, except they behead their dejecters.. go against the cultist groupthink and bad things happen.

and back perle, i maintain that, at an ego level, he's just feeling ostricized by his peers/colleagues and is looking for a way to get back into the club.

or, maybe his ability to profiteer on the war that he advocated is diminishing... no doubt, perle would rather see iraq more stable, so that his personal profits could be higher..

An unsavory character on Bush team | The San Diego Union-Tribune

[RickSp]

The problem with Kissinger's "pragmatism" or RealPolitick is that is the same imperialism as the neocon "idealism" just without the claims of piety. The result is the same. Vietnam or Iraq.

We need to abandon imperialism as foreign policy.

[bishop]

agreed.. i wasn't advocating kissinger's style of course - it simply served as a good example for comparison..

kissinger would've sought to install a strong man, like pinochet.. not that that would work in a diverse and fractured country like iraq.

we were going right until bush decided to end the inspections.. i wonder if he'll ever tell us what was running through his pea brain when he finally went and pushed the red button

[JohnMK]

Quote by: bishop their intellectual style revolves around believing their own dogma, rather than some sort of rational deduction of pros vs. cons... true intellectuals have to force themselves to look at issues as objectively as possible.

I wonder if this particular strata tend towards Asperger's Syndrome (AS). AS, or at least its diagnosis, tends to correlate with high intellect. What's missing, by degrees, is an accurate understanding of how minds outside of their own conceive of reality and contemplate. Instead of an intuitive and more accurate understanding, AS when young might begin with a markedly less accurate theory of mind (ToM). Like everyone, their ToM probably grows and gains understanding as they age, but the deficit tends to remain and perhaps even widen, as if being erected in the wrong direction, e.g., Leaning Tower of Pisa. This is doubly difficult to deal with when one so-afflicted fails to realize the limitations of their ToM.

[jose]

The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown. "The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up."The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy. "Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration. "George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons' philosophy. "It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world. After all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so it appealed to his character."

BBC NEWS | Middle East | End of the neo-con dream

[Osborn F Enready]

I am currently reading one of Pat Buchanans latest books:
Where the Right Went Wrong: how neoconservative... - Google Book Search

I just started reading it, but it seems like more wind from a political windsock.
A lot of what Pat says in the book is right, but, he ignores the bi-partisan coercion and teamwork as much as any other hypocritical windsock in the political arena.

Pat trying to lay down any blame that may be directed at the Conservative party, as the faults of the NeoCons, ignores his own time in bed with the enemy, and as usual, attempts to walk away with the appearance of a wise man, when really he is just another partisan shill.

He is right about one thing, we were founded as a republic.....why he played such an instrumental role in helping to neuter and dismantle something he claims to love so much, is beyond most reasonable readers I think, unless they are buyers of the "faith" tag line that Pat uses to give his "opinions" some pimped up morality.

[jose]

The leading role that Jews played in the brutal Bolshevik Revolution in Russia at around the same time also played a part in anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany and some other countries. (Over 20 million non-Jews were killed in that war, but no one ever talks about that today. We only always hear about the "6 million" Jews who were killed during WWII.) So under Nazi Germany, Jews were persecuted, along with many others. It wasn't just because they were Jewish in many cases. It was because of their politics. But unfortunately, Nazi Germany unfairly persecuted many innocent Jews, as we all know, rounding them up in concentration camps, working them hard to support the war effort and many died, especially during the end of the war when Germany was shattered, and food and medical supplies were cut off due to Allied bombing of railroads, bridges, roads. As in all wars, unfortunately many innocent people get killed, as even now in Iraq. Some say the figure is up to 650,000, but whatever it is, it is far too many when it comes to innocent victims. Neocons and the NeoLibs, all Israel-firsters, don't really care that there's a bloody quagmire in Iraq. That suits them just fine and dandy. As far as their agenda is concerned, endless war in Iraq and all the countries in the Middle East, except for Israel, suits the Zionist agenda to debilitate and render helpess and weak the entire Arab world. It's safer for Israel that way, and allows Israel the free oil pipelines, the access to their neighboring countries' water supplies, and so on. Yes, Israel-firsters in our government are lobbying to have Americans pay for a free oil pipeline and free oil for Israel. See Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited and U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan - Haaretz - Israel News for confirmation of this plan. All of this is normally called theft, grand larceny, along with mass murder. It's certainly racist as well, exploiting and dominating other people who belong to another religion or ethnicity. Yet, Zionists think that the world owes them all this. They blame it on the Holocaust. The Holocaust made them do it. Please note how Israel and their backers in the US never complain about Israel's WMD including over 250 nuclear warheads, nor Israel's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation agreement, which Iran has indeed signed. Why is it that Zionist Jews are only concerned with the security and welfare of Jews? Isn't that just a bit racist and self-centered? Exclusive? Hateful?

Need For De-Zionization Of America & Israel

[littlebear]

Bush deserves everything he gets. This beady eyed little hypocrite from Texas lied to get us into this mess and now his arrogance and ego keeps him bent on keeping us there. When this idiot leaves office, the whole country will let out a collective sigh of relief. Relief in the magnitude of someone healed of cancer. His support is down to Laura and Barney and he still insists in getting more boys killed and maimed. He made the decision to send more troops to Iraq about a month ago and has been posturing ever since claiming to be looking at every source of advice. Quite frankly, he now is looking under rocks to bolster his decision to ignore the joint chiefs of staff, Baker, and the American people. He not only deserves the blame, he deserves to be remembered as the worst president this country ever had.