HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Matchlessly
Wrong About Everything
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
by
Alexander Cockburn
September
18, 2003
Since
the breed is now being ripely abused as the sponsors of the US debacle in Iraq,
we had better be clear about its political bloodlines. What exactly is a
neo-con? The label was first stuck on those Democrats classed as liberals in
the early 1970s who thought George McGovern, the anti-war Democratic nominee in
1972 crushed by Nixon, represented an unacceptable swerve to the left by their
party, and who moved sharply to the right, advocating a tough Cold War posture,
reassertion of imperial confidence after Vietnam, increased military spending
and, above all, uncritical US backing for Israeli intransigence. They flocked
to Ronald Reagan.
Beating
up on neo-cons used to be a specialized sport without wide appeal. With all due
false modesty I offer myself as an early practitioner. Back in the mid-to-late
70s, when I had a weekly column in the Village Voice I used to have rich sport
with that apex neo-con, Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, published by
the American Jewish Committee. I nick-named him Norman the Frother and
freighted him with so many gibes that he made the mistake of publicly
denouncing me in Commentary, exclaiming that "Cockburn's weekly pieces
have set a new standard of gutter journalism in this country", a
testimonial I still proudly feature on the back of my books.
The
neo-cons' political hero in those days was US Senator Henry "Scoop"
Jackson, much venerated in Israel and the corporate offices of Boeing for his
ardor and constancy in sluicing the US taxpayers' money into their treasuries.
The neo-cons' great hope was Scoop for President but he failed to impress the
voters in the Democratic primaries in 1976. To the neo-cons' chagrin the new
occupant of the Oval Office was Jimmy Carter, whom they construed to be soft on
Communism and an Israel-hater. Carter threw plenty of money at the Pentagon and
stoked up the cold war, but on a couple of occasions he was downright rude to
Menachem Begin so the neo-cons abandoned the Democrats and threw in their lot
with Ronald Reagan. For them a hard-line Israel has always been the bottom
line.
Now
here we are on the downslope of 2003 and George Bush is learning, way too late
for his own good, that the neo-cons have been matchlessly wrong about
everything. One can burrow through the archives of historical folly in search
of comparisons and still come up empty-handed. The neo-cons told Bush that
eviction of Saddam would rearrange the chairs in the Middle East, to America's
advantage. Wrong. They told him it would unlock the door to a peaceful
settlement in Israel. Wrong. They told him (I'm talking about Wolfowitz's team
of mad Straussians at DoD) that there was irrefutable proof of the existence of
weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq. Wrong. They told him the prime Iraqi
exile group, headed by Ahmad Chalabi, had street cred in Iraq. Wrong. They told
him it would be easy to install a US regime in Baghdad and make the place hum
quietly along, like Lebanon in the 1950s. Wrong.
And
of course the neo-cons, who have never forgiven the UN for Resolutions 242 and
338,(bad for Israel) told Bush that he should tell the UN to take its charter
and shove it. Bush, who appreciates simple words and simple thoughts, took
their advice, and last Sunday night had it served up to him by his
speechwriters as crow, which he methodically ate in his 18-minute speech,
saying the UN has an important role in Iraq.
Now
many are gloating at the neo-cons' discomfiture and waiting for their downfall.
Click go Madam Defarge's knitting needles as she waits beside the guillotine.
Here come the tumbrels, inching their way slowly through the rotting cabbages
and vulgar ribaldry of Republican isolationists. Here's a pale-faced Douglas
Feith. Up goes the fatal blade, and down it flashes. Behold, the head of a
neo-con! The next tumbrel carries a weightier cargo: Richard Perle and Elliott
Abrams. Still not enough. Madam Defarge knits on and her patience is soon
rewarded. Here come Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, the latter defiantly jotting a coda
to Rumsfeld's Rules. They are cleanly dispatched and the crowd moves off to
torch the Weekly Standard and string up its editor, Bill Kristol.
Maybe
not all of them, but some neo-con will surely pay the price for dropping
President Bush's approval rating into the low 50s. But will the basic neo-con
political line, dominant for so long in Washington, suffer a dent? Not in any
fundamental way. To appreciate this one only has to look at the current posture
of prominent Democrats. Are they glorying in Bush's political embarrassment and
the humiliating and costly disaster for the US consequent upon its attack on
Iraq? Take US Senator Joe Biden. His immediate reaction to Bush's speech last
Sunday was to insist that the President would need, and should get, more money
than the $87 billion requested by the White House.
Then
Biden gave the neo-cons a lesson in how to pay lip service to internationalism
and "our allies": "What we need isn't the death of internationalism
or the denial of our stark national interest. What I want to talk about today
is a more enlightened nationalism that understands the value of international
institutions but supports the use of military force--without apology or
hesitation--when we must. An enlightened nationalism that does not allow us to
be so blinded by our overwhelming military power that we fail to see the
benefit, indeed the need, of working with others to begin moving this nation in
the right direction I believe we need to embrace a foreign policy of
enlightened nationalism. First, we need to correct the imbalance between
projecting power and staying power. America's military is second to none. It
must and will remain second to none."
Study
the zig-zag rhetoric of Governor Howard Dean and you find the same essential
approach, though Dean has just outraged the neo-cons by calling for an
"even-handed" US role in any resolving of the Palestinian issue. (A
posture he arrived at, please note, after taking heavy fire from the left,
including this writer, for being a whore for AIPAC. On Feb. 20, this supposedly
antiwar candidate told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not
to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days
to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but
unavoidable, choice." The next day he said he said the UN had to do it. In
June, at the Council for Foreign Relations Dean said, "I would add at
least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq. It is imperative that we
bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were
President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other
friends to share the burden and the risks." He's made trenchant criticisms
of Bush's rationale for the attack and of how it has been conducted, but he
still proclaims, "Failure in Iraq is not an option."
With
the exception of Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Brown no
Democratic candidate is calling for anything other than that the US to
"stay the course" in Iraq, with more money, more troops and if
possible the political cover of the UN. Senator Kerry, who favored the US
attack last spring, won't commit to supporting the request for $87 billion but
adds carefully, "I believe we must do what we need to do" to bring
peace to Iraq. Edwards still justifies his support for Bush's war. Don't even
ask about Lieberman. A few neo-con heads may roll, but the policy won't change.
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but don't
make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman Podhoretz or
William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of the donkey and
the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after them, and the
elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has come out with a
dustpan and broom.
Alexander Cockburn is coeditor of The
Politics of Anti-Semitism, and the author of The Golden Age is In Us
(Verso, 1995) and 5 Days That Shook the World: Seattle and Beyond (Verso,
2000) with Jeffrey St. Clair. Cockburn and St. Clair are the editors of CounterPunch, where this article first
appeared.
* Handmaid in
Babylon: Annan, Vieira de Mello And the UN's Decline and Fall
* California's
Glorious Recall: If Not Camejo, Then Flynt!
* Meet the Real
WMD Fabricator: A Swede Called Rolf Ekeus* New
York Times Screws Up Again; Uday, Qusay Deaths are Bad for Bush and Blair;
Kroeber and the Indians; General Hitchens Visits the Front
* The
Terrible Truth (Part MMCCXVILL)
* A Whiner
Called David Horowitz Moans at Sid Blumenthal and Imagined CIA Slur