Above (click for bigger pic): The guy in front of me falls asleep during Michael Ledeen's talk.

Panel 3, Sponsored by the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy

A Neo-Conservative Conspiracy? Principles and objectives of Bush's Foreign Policy: A Roundtable

Excellent roundtable. Most of these academic panels put me to sleep. Not this one. Unfortunately, the guy sitting in front of me wasn't as into the talks as me. I couldn't resist snapping a picture of him with my cell phone. That's Michael Ladeen, author of War Against the Terror Master, in the background talking.

Speaker 1: Adam Wolfson, former editor of Public Interest

Wolfson began by talking about how Bush outrages both Realists and Idealists. Later, Wolfson would claim that Bush is a Hamiltonian Realist. Hamiltonian Realists believe that the character of opposing regimes is somehow connected to our national security.

Bush is also not a Wilsonian Idealist, as some on the Right like to accuse him --think Pat Buchanan. This is evidenced by Bush's willingness to selectively apply his idealism. Think Cuba. After the Cold War, Cuba ceased to be threat. Bush's unwillingness to invade Cuba does not reveal a hypocrisy, as many on the Left like to accuse, rather it is consistent with a Realist foreign policy. No threat, no need for regime change. Iraq, on the other hand, was a threat and therefore only by regime change could we ensure the long-term national interests of the country.

Wolfson reminded us, though, that the cause-effect relationship between democracy, peace, and our national interest is a theory we are trying to test. It could very well be that the theory is wrong. Bringing democracy to the Middle East may not, in fact, bring peace and serve our interests in the long run. Let's hope the theory is right.

Random thought : This guy should definitely blog. Speaker 2, Gerard Alexander University of Virginia

Alexander said something so obvious, yet so profound, that it needs to be said over and over.

Throughout most of history (with some major exceptions) states were at risk of vanishing (since war was an elite endeavor), not large numbers of citizens.

For the first time in history, (among the industrialized nations) there is absolutely no danger of states disappearing, but there is an increasing danger that large numbers of their citizens are at risk of being killed.

Dr. Alexander then went on to build on Wolfsnon's Wilsonian Realist argument--without using that term. The so-called 'NeoCon' agenda is based on a cause-effect theory. For instance, would the 'Realists' during WWII have argued that once Allied forces reached the borders of Germany that we stop? No, there is an implicit assumption that the hyper-aggression of Hitler's regime was somehow connected to Nazi ideology. It was only through changing that regime that America's national interests were served.

The nature of opposing regimes is related to ou nations security. Alexander was confident that the policies of pre-emptive war and building a larger military would not change even if a Democratic President were elected. Even if that President would be less willing to commit our troops to a preemptive war, they would not renounce the doctrine altogether. However, he too admitted the jury was still out on whether or not democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan would necessarily be in our nation's interests (or even be possible), but he was optimistic about its potential prospect.

Last speaker, Michael Ledeen, columnist for NRO and author of 'The War Against the Terror Masters.'

Of all the speakers Ledeen seemed most like the classical charicature of a 'Neo-Con'. He began his talk by saying the problems we are facing in Iraq now are because we waited too long to invade after Afghanistan? Who is to blame for our failures there? Tony Blair's lawyers who insisted we wait for U.N. approval giving the Iranian and Syrian regimes ample time to plan the 'Lebanonization' of Iraq.

Iran, not Iraq, was and remains the biggest threat to U.S. security. Iran, he emphasized, is behind the largest terrorist organizations in the world. The biggest threat to Iran and Syria, he claimed, are the creation of free societies in the Middle East. Both nations have citizens eager to throw off the yokes of their masters. In order to protect their own regimes these two countries are trying to thwart the democratization of Iraq.

Lest Left-wing conspiracy theorists cry foul, Ledeen was adamant that there is no need to invade Iran. Rather, he says, we should support indigenous efforts to overthrow the Mullah's regime. We should be doing much more to broadcast pro-democracy messages directly to the Iranian people. 70% or more of the Iranian people want to end the reign of the Mullahs, all they need is the encouragement and unwaivering support of the U.S. Unfortunately, Bush is not doing nearly enough to help them.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 6 kb.