Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Brzezinski criticized the Bush administration's rhetoric, specifically the phrase "war on terror," in yesterday's Washington Post. I received the text of the article from my prof, and I didn't want to register for the Post, so I'm not linking the article. But here are some choice passages:
"The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants. But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a 'war on terror' did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear."
"The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. 'war on terror' against 'Islamo-fascism.' Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.
Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, 'Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia'? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."
It seems the "global solidarity against extremism and terrorism" started to work well in Afghanistan but then fell apart once we got involved in Iraq.
Terminating the "political conflicts that spawn terrorism" is easier said than done. But he makes a good point elsewhere about how the media and entertainment industry reinforce this manufactured idea. Perhaps it's the job of the media, as well as Congress and other political leaders, to reduce the effects of this fear and change policies.
One thing is clear: in addition to figuring out the mess in Iraq, we have to refocus our efforts on peace between Israel and Palestine. It is probably the first step towards undermining and decreasing terrorist motives.
Laura,
I am going to have to take issue with some of the things you have said and some of the things Brzezinski said. I agree with some of your points and want to make sure that is clear also. Anything I don't mention/criticise.
I will start by commenting on your comment in the second last paragraph of your post as it is relevant to the structure of the debate. I am not sure that any idea is not "manufactured by definition." Ideas do not self create themselves, nor are they Gods creation ex-nihilo, unless of course the Spirit prompts or the Bible speaks. Ideas are manufactured by humans in a creative process, deliberately or intuitively as Brzezinski said, by reaction or pre-emption of situations or to reframe a view of the world or to give a feeling of direction and security, which in times of imminent danger is a good thing.
If by manufactured you mean that fear is being heightened disproportionately to the threat that is immanent and I think you might have been getting at that, then it is not necessarily the media or the Bush administration that are at fault but simply the gullible minds of people who are willing to be duped into this sort of anxiety. Responsibility in all parties must be taken and motive must be ascribed. Bush perhaps more than the media has an alibi, to protect and lead the nation in the best way he knew how. The media just want to make money, and by promoting a gut emotion they create sensation (your point I believe). However, the consumer of the news and the phrase "war on terror" are discerning individuals who can make rational choices unmoved by media hype, and do. On a day to day basis I think people still go to work as normal, are overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq (whether or not that is a good or bad thing is beside the point) so their behaviour in the US and also mostly in the UK and Europe is not influenced by the idea of a "war on terror." They are not hysterical. Thus Brzezinski's point is irrelevant and actually quite silly. His primary criticism, a semantic one, is rather moot also as it is extraneous whether Terror or terror is a tangible object, nation state, person or way of waging a war. The war on terror, coined when there was a real sense of fear in the USA (and rightly so) because of anthrax threats and airplanes being hijacked, was actually a very good way of brining about a sense of Americanism within America. This is to be united against one front and that front is the act of barbarism Brzezinski is kowtowing to. Indeed it did not stimulate an emergence of a culture of fear, if anything it allowed a Republican congress to give a Republican President more rights to protect the interests of the USA internationally and at home, because the clear and present danger was felt by images of the WTC falling down. (The fact that there were no real checks and balances to Bushes actions was a problem I am willing to concede, however that is neither here or there in this debate since Democrats would have allowed much of the Administrations actions internationally, indeed they supported it because of Americans outrage at terrorism)
Brzezinski, quite cynically actually, reverses the order in which fear was created (by terror). He inverts motive and time and actually seems to be perpetuating the conspiracy theory that somebody in the administration created the situation which brought about the war on terror, which is ludicrous. If anything the culture of fear started during the cold war, something Carters national security advisor should be well aware of.
Furthermore, to say that the war on terror is largely an American war that nobody else is fighting denigrates those allied men and women that have died since 9/11 for their own freedom and the freedom of others, including Muslim soldiers and politicians, and many, many moderates.
It is true that: "Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism." But our man never explains how and why the coined term does the opposite. Indeed, his criticism and cynical undermining of the truth about where the fear comes from perpetuates exactly the opposite, at least in opinion at home.
Finally, your last paragraph makes two wild claims that are not necessarily true. It does not necessarily follow that terrorism will stop if the Palestinian-Israeli problem is taken care of, baring an explosion of atomic proportion in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Israel is but a pretext for violence within the Muslim Brotherhood, Osama et al. group. Second, the "Mess in Iraq" comment misses the importance of the parties (within the Iraqi political system) chugging along and making progress on Oil revenue redistribution.
By the way, just as an aside. Perhaps American foreign policy is really the cause of some of the hullabaloo that terrorists do not like. But Osamas desire is to reinstate the Caliphate and in effect bring back an enlarged Ottoman Empire. This has nothing to do with America at least causally. To say that would be to be penitential narcissistic, which in effect is childish at best.
Hm. Just want to clarify some wording here.
"Mess in Iraq" (does not necessarily equal) "nothing good is happening there.
"Refocus" and "probably" do not constitute "wild claims."
Of course most people are discerning individuals, and they don't walk around in fear every day, but that does not let the media off the hook for taking advantage of "War on Terror" language (especially the broadcast/cable networks, sheish).
Heidi,
Thanks for clarifying for Laura. I knew you where triplets and am glad you can talk for each other. The loyalty shows. That's great! My aim is not necessarily to disagree, but to clarify and make sure those liberals up in Boston don't get the better of you. :-)
I never said "Mess in Iraq" meant nothing good was happening there. I did say that "mess in Iraq" is unclear and draws attention away from the good that is going on there, a point I think you might concede is perpetuated by the media and the Democratic spin machine. (In fact the same accusations Mr. B is making of Bush might be made of that statement) The media is exploiting the phrase "the war on terror." I agreed with Laura (by the way), but the do not (at least the ones I read) give perspective on the good that is happening in Iraq, cause it just doesn't sell as well as death toll figures and bomb reports...
For a positive and well balanced perspective on Iraq read this and this: http://www.slate.com/id/2162656/
http://www.slate.com/id/2162157/
I am not sure what you mean by "refocus" and "probably" and "wild claims." I am not sure who you are quoting and what you are referring to. But taking a wild guess I will go and refer you to this quote: "Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, 'Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia'? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."
Hysteria and paranoia are strong words Heidi and I dare say, since you agree with me that the media is perpetuating this sense, but that people have more sense than the media that the claims of Mr. B. are indeed wild, though I am not sure that I made that point in the earlier post.
The idea that Bush is paranoid and hysterical (both words clinically diagnosable) is both an attack on the person that leads the country, on his sanity and does so while never backing up his claim properly. For if Mr. B is saying that there needs to be a stop of this hysteria and paranoia he is making hte claim that Bush is indeed hysterical and paranoid.
By the way. I have read the whole article and there would be more to say about mr. bs views but since you have not posted the article I did not want to reply to the whole article only to the points you quoted. Just to reiterate though. My point is simply that Mr. B links the phrase "war on terror" with a lot of actions that might have happened even if Bush did not use that sort of phrase. Also, he cannot conlcusivly show that the phrase is the cause of the so called hype. Furthremore he uses language that makes it seem like the jury has brought a guilty verdict (of the acusation he is very hazy), which it has not by any means.
Heidi,
Can you tell I have a lot of time to burn at the office? Actually I enjoy writing and reading a lot at the moment which is good.
I do now see where I said Laura's claims are wild. Sorry. I was in the swing of things and the rhetorical tools where hardly worth the energy that I used to type them.
Having said that my points should not loose validity because of the overstatement, for which I apologise. I would like to say that the Administration have been working on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and I am not sure what "refocusing" would look like? Especially since the Palestinians did not have a proper government since the last elections. Hama's does not even recognize Israel and would like to see the thing it does not recognize pushed into a body of water... Perhaps more media emphasis would refocus the work in the Middle East?
Exactly, Lauri. You bring up a good point about refocusing, especially since I read today that Israeli and Palestinian leaders may talk directly to each other again soon. The refocusing should probably occur in the media, not that the media itself can solve any problems, but it does serve to keep the public informed, however flawed it may be. (Actually, I hate using the universal term "the media," since it's so diverse, as exemplified in the Slate articles you linked to).
As for liberals in Boston, there are a lot of them, but I don't ever listen to them. There are plenty of good moderates to listen to here as well. :)
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post. Never try to clarify anything at 8:00 in the morning.
Wow, quite the conversation going on here. Lauri, I will start by addressing each of the paragraphs in your first comment and then each of your following comments. I will try to keep it brief, so please give me the benefit of any doubts and don't force me to qualify my statements.
First paragraph: I agree that ideas by definition are manufactured. However, some have more connection to reality than others. Bush's idea of a "war on terror" has only a vague connection to reality. Yes, we are fighting terrorists, but in an extremely unconventional war against an unconventional enemy. I wouldn't argue that Bush uses the phrase maliciously, but I agree with Br. that it's probably used to justify his agenda, whether one agrees with his agenda or not. It was certainly used to give "direction" in a time of "imminent danger." The problem is that, in my opinion, Bush's direction has been mostly misguided (with the exception, as I stated, of Afghanistan) and the threat of imminent danger is dubious (although I concur it was real after 9/11). Not that we shouldn't exercise caution, but our institutions need to be more careful about how we exercise caution, which leads me to the next paragraph.
Second paragraph: I completely agree that American citizens don't perpetuate the "culture of fear" on a daily basis; in fact, I started to criticize Br.'s implication that Americans are more fearful and less reasonable than they were. But I erased it, because Br. emphasizes institutional fear more than individual fear. Increased security checkpoints, FBI detentions of suspected Arab-Americans who had no connection to terrorism, electronic billboards, etc., are all evidence of institutional fear-mongering (although I think some of them are necessary and good, and on that point I disagree with Br.). The real issue is the dollars being spent: the amount spent on security could at least in part be used for more effective counterinsurgency plans and more diplomatic efforts.
Third paragraph: I doubt that Br. thinks there's a real conspiracy in the White House, but I could be wrong. He's a reasonable man overall. Although his statements are strong, I think you misrepresent his argument. Of course the initial instigators of fear were the terrorists themselves, but for the manner in which we've reacted to it, only we are responsible (and by "we" I mean gov't, institutions, entertainment industry, and news media, mostly). I'm not (and he's not) saying we shouldn't be afraid at all, but we shouldn't let fear trump reason. Then we only play into the terrorists' hands.
Fourth paragraph: I agree that Br. fails to offer good, specific solutions. However, I think he succeeds in explaining how the culture of fear cripples our efforts at defeating the terrorists. I see you've read the rest of the article, so maybe we should agree to disagree on that point.
Fifth paragraph: I thank Heidi for defending my "wild claims." Of course, I take issue with the fact that you call them wild claims. The facts show, and I have read many experts who agree, that peace in the Middle East must begin with peace between Israel and Palestine. I never said that peace would stop the terrorists, but I stand by my claim that it might be the first step towards long-term extermination of the terrorists' motives. However, if I'm wrong, then I pray Jesus will come back sooner rather than later (which I should no matter the circumstances, I suppose). :) I, too, am happy to see Condi having talks with Olmert and Abbas, but I hope it makes up for Bush waffling on the issue for so many years. He threw up his hands (perhaps understandably) during the 2nd intifada and has since returned to the issue only sporadically. I don't like Hamas either, but compromise is the only good answer right now. I also stand by my claim that there's a mess in Iraq, although I'm aware of progress being made (which doesn't get enough publicity). However, any place where suicide and roadside bombs kill people on a regular basis and sectarian violence happens between (only recently formed) sects can safely be called a mess, a mess that the U.S. can't abandon any time soon.
Last paragraph: I realize that Osama wants to turn the world into an Islamic state; it's a good thing he doesn't have the support of the vast majority of Muslims. However, America is very much a part of the picture. After 9/11, Osama said, and I paraphrase: Why did we fly the planes into the Twin Towers? We could have attacked Sweden, they are a free country. It's because America as the global hegemon represents Western imperialism and materialism, etc., etc. Osama has also called for America to create a Palestinian state and to get out of the Gulf region (ain't never gonna happen). He has listed these two "grievances" as reasons for his opposition. Again, I'm not saying Osama would necessarily stop at this, but there are thousands of fringe terrorists who might stop if we address these issues more thoughtfully.
As for your other comments, I will only say that I don't think Br. would say Bush is paranoid or hysterical, only that he tends to propagate that kind of atmosphere with his semantics. As Jon Stewart says, "Bush isn't stupid, he just talks to us like we're stupid." And actually, a lot of people are questioning Bush's sanity these days, in the face of his opposition to Congress, but that's another issue.
Lauri, I just want you to know that I'm not anti-American, not anti-Bush (though I have my problems with him), not anti-freedom or democracy or anything else this country stands for. I don't like terrorists, nor would I ever justify terrorism. But there's room for being pro-America and criticizing her actions when appropriate and necessary. I don't think you would disagree with me on that. I know you were joking about the "liberals in Boston" thing, but I want to reassure you that, as Heidi stated, I'm surrounded mostly by moderates. Additionally, I don't think Br. represents a liberal view or Democratic or Republican view, but rather the view of a reasonable man frustrated with how things are going and trying to support an explanation for it. Although I think he's a little too dramatic and overstated, he is not being silly or irrelevant.
Just as a side note, I find it intriguing that Br., when he compares America today to the America of WWII and the Cold War, he leaves out that other annoying major conflict of the 20th century: Vietnam. Also, labeling America's dealing with the Cold War as "quiet persistence" is a tad misleading. I mean, has he seen some of those old videos of fake bombings and kids ducking under desks? Actually, that's probably where CNN gets all of their ideas. :)
Oh no. You did it. You didn't agree with me. I'm going to have to take issue. :-)
I will not ask you to qualify your statements. I will ask you to back the statements up. Also I will remind you of a Churchill quote I read the other day, just to give you an idea where I stand mostly: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” Big fan of his quotes... But to the point!
First of all I take it that you take issue with the war in Iraq. This is where I am going to disagree with you as relates this article. Is there a connection between the phrase "war on terror" and the phrase "war in Iraq", because that it seems is what you are referring to by arguing that Bush is using the phrase "war on terror" to justify and agenda in the middle east. What is the connection between the phrase "war on terror" and the Iraq war? When was the last time you heard the Administration use those words "war on terror" in relation to there so-called agenda? I don't know but perhaps we should find out just to get our timelines strait. I have a feeling that ended in about 2003-04 but I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
Please remember that I am critiquing the premise o the article and not your opinion on Iraq or the Middle East peace process as it has lately been called by the Administration.
Br. article did in no way show that there is an implicit connection between the phrase and institutional security heightening. Yes it is ludicrous to ask everybody to take off their shoes at the airport in Chattanooga, when you are not doing that in Washington DC national and yes it is also silly on the face of it to fill in a questionnaire explaining the intent of the visit to an office building. The possible terror targets must be more than 300.000 in the US any gathering is a terror target, although some are more likely than others. However, there are reasons why these processes happen. Of the top of my head it is unexpected and might make a nervous man sweet a bit more than usual to sign himself into the building and write down a reason of visit. These are security measures that have been in place for far longer in the Department of Homeland security. I had to sign a form that said that I have never been and am not a member of a terror organization. That was in 2002. My dad had to before 9/11. My point is who is Mr. B to tell us what is and is not necessary? He is a foreign policy adviser and not a police man or securities expert. The fact that that it is annoying doesn't prove anything. Does he know how many terrorist attacks where stopped because of some of these measures? He uses anecdotal evidence that some of the measures are silly but cannot know all the measures and why they are set up. He uses the silliness to make his point which does not prove anything but that he knows how to argue a point. Institutional fear as he describes it would be in place one way or the other. Anna points to history for this. Shame on B for having a short memory.
He also never makes it clear why the phrase and the perpetuation of the culture of fear is making it impossible for a proper way of dealing with extremism. As far as I know most Middle Eastern terrorists don't watch Fox news or drive up highway whatever youmacallit. Neither do moderates. The culture of fear might waste resources but that is all. Once again, please show me in what way that phrase perpetuated the culture of fear and why these wastages would not have happened anyway. Agreeing to disagree does not help anything, unless you show me where he argues that they are linked and I just simply don't acknowledge that as proof. That has not happened and the proof is not self evident.
You also do not prove how and where fear is trumping reason (it has to relate to real behaviour of people) and neither does he.
Please don't take issue with the "Wild" comment. I have explained myself and apologized. Please write accordingly. :-)
Laura, read Paul Marshall (http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742543625/ref=nosim/nationalreviewon) or try and get to a lecture he gives on the Middle East Islam and principled pluralism. He will tell you that the Palestinian-Israeli problem is a pretext for Muslims, moderate and extreme to chatter on about how evil America is. The Palestinians are treated like shit (I use that word on purpose) by the surrounding Muslim neighbours. At least they are treated like dangerous people by Israel. Indeed they are given money by them and are not given peanuts or even allowed to stay on some of the territories of surrounding countries. So when we talk about peace in the Middle East, please bare in mind that I want peace as much as you do, but it will not change the view of anybody important enough to make policy choices in the Middle East if a peace settlement is bartered by America. Nothing will be enough for the extremists and the rest will bickering because Israel will still be a sovereign state with Atomic weapons supported and defended by the US. Something Iran, Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood will not like.
Marshall is critical of the Bush administration for not spending enough money in public relations and bolstering the ideas of democracy in the Middle East. A point I will agree with him and you on. But this does not relate the phrase "war on terror." Unless you think that War cannot include propaganda and re-education.
It is shoddy journalism that perpetuates an atmosphere of hate toward America in the Middle East. You can read about that here: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/marshall200505160837.asp
Iraq is a mess. Yes. But it's a mess that is getting cleaned up a bit. Basically we agree and my point was simply one of journalistic emphasis. I am going to have to take issue with the (only recently formed) bracket you placed in relation to sectarian groups. That is not true. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis have been bugging themselves to death with bombastic booms and tribal biffs since well before Saddam was buggered them all. The fact that some are lead by tribal leaders that have recently emerged is another matter all together. They were leaders under Saddam, they just were not strong enough to do any squabbling because Saddam Husain lead by divide an rule and had most of the recourses and weaponry.
As for your analysis of Osama, I can only say that you merely give part of the picture and quote selectively. The bombings in England and Spain show that America is not the only target. Indeed militant Islam can be found more in the streets of London than anywhere else. I also think that if you listen to Osama properly you will hear him say that all Americans (and non-Muslims is what he really mean) need to leave the holiest of holies and retreat past the boarders where Allah was worshiped under Sha'riah rule during the most expanded period of the Caliphate. America is a symbolic target, but he has many more symbols than just America. (Parts of Iran are also included on this list) You simply don't get to see any others because of selective journalism.
One more thing. I think there is more of a culture of "fed up with this whole problem" than a cultrue of fear. Isolationism is on most agendas...
On peace between Palestine and Israel I have another thing to add that has nothing to do with the article or your previous posts.
The nations that surround Israel and Palestine hate Israel even more than they don't care about the plight of the Palestinians. Until there are forces in place which will make it possible for the Palestinians to get what they desire (there own state) there will be no peace in the region. Arafat had everything on the contract, everything he asked for but would not sign because it would take away the pretext the rest of the Arab and parts of the Persian world had to hate and fight against Israel. And Arafat was for a secular state unlike Hamas. It's because Muslims, like Neo-cons know that they need a pretext to wreak havoc where they want to wreak it in order to gain.
You win the mental energy contest. I simply can't compete. I will say only a few things in response, although I know they're not sufficient (I've never been good at these drawn out blog conversations, sorry). EDIT: I ended up spending more time on this than I thought I would, so I guess I had a little mental energy left. :)
1) I realize that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiias have had tiffs for years, although only recently have they been going at each other with armed militias. The sects I'm referring to are the tribal ones you mention, which I don't think are "another matter." The manner in which these groups have split into various sects and turned violently on one another is unique in Iraqi history. They coexisted fairly well, even if the Shi'ites were suppressed and unfairly represented, for many years until the Ba'ath party took over and Saddam wreaked havoc. Perhaps it would have been more clear to say "recently formed violence."
2) Yes, I take issue with the war in Iraq. The connection between the global war on terror (or GWOT as we affectionately call it) and the war in Iraq is one of the primary reasons we're in Iraq. That was the rhetoric going around at the time, that somehow Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda in a network of terror. So, in a sense, the phrase "war on terror" is like a straw man argument; no one can really say that a war on terror is a BAD thing, kind of like the war on drugs. The problem is that it's inaccurate and perhaps even deceptive. Wars usually have definite beginnings and ends, with pretty clearcut lines between enemies. This one doesn't, and it may gone forever as long as jihadists are willing to kill themselves.
3) However, your point is well-taken that institutional fear would be in place whether GWOT was used or not. I wouldn't deny that. It's difficult to imagine what would be different with a different president or with different language used after 9/11. I don't want to get into a nitpicky argument about semantics, but I would point out that semantics have consequences, as evidenced by the 2004 election (or any election). I'm not saying that the "nation at war" speak was the only reason Bush got re-elected, but it helped. We didn't want to "change horses mid-stream."
4) Here's a direct quote from Bush's 2005 speech at Fort Bragg: "We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror." And here's another: "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution" (can't remember when he said this). Michael Ledeen actually coined the phrase "global democratic revolution" in 1984 in reference to the changes in South America as the starting point for inevitable freedom around the world. Ledeen is a Trotzkyist, as was William Kristol's father Irving. Anyway, there you have it: the Bush agenda in the Middle East, connected to the war on terror. Bush used the pretext of the war on terror to invade Iraq, with the goal of establishing a prototype democracy that would then lead the fight against terror in the Middle East.
5) I admit I only give part of the picture of Osama, but I don't think his words can be taken out of context and misunderstood. Yes, al-Qaeda has attacked other Western countries, but there's no question America is the primary target. I never said we were the only target. Here are some more Osama quotes, all pre-9/11: "We declared jihad against the US government because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical."; "We believe the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists are Americans."; "I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."; "The solution to this crisis is the withdrawal of American troops...their military presence is an insult to the Saudi people." Even though I selectively chose these, it's pretty clear that America is their #1 enemy. Now, maybe that's within the longer narrative of establishing a global Caliphate, but I doubt bin Laden will live long enough to see that. I disagree that America is just a symbolic target, except in the sense that it represents Western imperialism to him, but the "grievances" he lists are very concrete even if they don't justify flying planes into towers and killing innocent civilians (including Muslims, a grievance against Islam itself). The point is that America's involvement in neutralizing the terrorists is imperative and essential because Muslim revivalists see America as the main source of atrocities in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. This means that we somehow have to make up for the poor planning of the Iraq war, beginning with helpful involvement in the peace process. Even if the revivalists use Israel/Palestine as a pretext, it is still more important to pursue peace than to ignore the situation.
Thanks for the Paul Marshall reference; I have read a bit of him before and admire him a lot, and wish I could have heard him at CovCol.
So it is true that Irving Kristol was a Trotsykist. He met his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotsykist meeting at the City College of New York... in 1940. At that time, Trotsyism (neo-Trotskyism really) was a poplar intellectual movement on the left. Shortly after the war, Kristol and Himmelfarb woke up to the horrors of communism and spent the remainder of their lives fighting against it. Kristol admits to being a neo-Trotskyist in the early 40's and has some humor about this point in his life. Hence his quote "A neoconservative is a liberal who was mugged by reality."
On the other hand, the word Trotskyist is somewhat specialized and I doubt that it means today in an American University setting what it meant either in communist Russia (where its meaning changed year in and year out depending on political fashions and gulag quotas) or at City College in the 1940's.
One more note: I see the reuse of "Global Democratic Revolution" to be one of those neat historical ironies. It's meaning today (allowing people around the world to elect their own political leaders and enjoy some of the basic freedoms) is in line with the best hopes of the left in the 40's and 50's. I see the concern around this phrase stemming from two sources (1) a semi-theoretical fear that this revolution is not a spontaneous revolution of the people in each country (we have some evidence in the 20th century that this type of revolution does not work in tyrannical systems) and (2) the abject abandonment of the longstanding values of the left.
So neo-Trotzkyism came from intellectual poplar trees? Who would have thought.
Seriously, though, you make a great point about neo-conservatism being a revival of the leftist movement of the 40's and 50's. My professor calls it "internationalist, leftist, and determinist," as in, it's inevitable that the whole world will one day embrace the freedoms we enjoy.
Good points Laura in reply to my posts.
I am interested in what you mean by determinist in light of the point that neo-conservative are actually liberals that have been hit over the head with reality...
L.
Hmm. I don't know enough about neoconservatism to give a good answer - but I would guess that the contradictory ideas show how neoconservatism has evolved over time. As the left became too radical for the neocons, the neocons shifted to the right, particularly in their opposition to the spread of communism and in their alignment with the Republican party. Those 80's neo-cons embraced big government as well. Todays neocons are smaller in number and don't have the Soviets to contend with, so perhaps they use the spread of global democracy as their engine oil, harkening back to Trotsky's idea of a "permanent revolution."
To sum it up, maybe: they are realists in the sense that they seek to maintain the status quo, determinists in the sense that this can only be achieved by spreading it everywhere.
Lauri, I love discussing international politics with you! By the way, there's an article in April 3 Wall Street Journal by Tawfik Hamid, former member of Jemaah Islamiya and former friend of Zawahiri. I can't link to it because I'd have to pay for it, but he very strongly states that Western intellectuals are too quick to blame the West for the roots of terrorism and are actually obstacles to reforming Islam. He also says:
"Politicans and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 in Algeria - which happened in the last few decades - or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Shew. Hard to argue with that. Also:
"It leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror."
He is very hard on Islam - not just radical Islam, mainstream Islam, because it doesn't oppose terrorism. I would say, the ones who do oppose it don't get much media attention. Anyway, an interesting perspective. Once again, I wish I could link to the article itself.