Neocons have shredded America’s moral authority to lead
Elke Wetzig | Wikimedia Commons
Mark Around the World — September 17, 2012
By Mark Jurkevich
Desmond Tutu recently withdrew from a major leadership conference to protest the presence of former British prime minister Tony Blair, who was scheduled as a key note speaker. The retired Archbishop explained his protest in a Sept. 2 Op-Ed piece published in The Guardian, a leading UK newspaper. It’s worth reading.
Tutu writes “On what grounds do we decide . . . Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr. Bush’s chief supporter, Mr. Blair confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?” He also declares “The immorality of the United States and Great Britain’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.”
The ever-eloquent Nobel laureate conveyed the lesson that “Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality.” Tutu’s thesis is diametrically opposed to that of American neocons. They believe leadership is all about having and using a dominating military force and being the most feared. Neocons often argue that being liked is irrelevant at best, and in reality breeds weakness and disrespect. The neocons started gaining traction in the 1970s under the leadership of Irving Kristol, gained a foothold in the formulation of President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy, and have dominated America’s foreign policy since 2000.
Unilateralism in foreign policy is a fundamental neocon principle. It’s based on the premise that American politicians know what’s best for the world, by virtue of the fact that its military is unchallenged. Therefore, the U.S. shall be the world’s policeman, judge and prison warden.
As symbolized by the Statue of Liberty, America historically led first and foremost because it was the undisputed moral leader of the world. Its reputation was that of a reluctant giant who was begged and prodded to intervene in far-away conflicts such as the two World Wars. In the last 20 years, the neocons have changed all that.
Clearly the neocon foreign policy experiment of the last 20 years has been a tragic failure for the U.S. in terms of national treasure and its ability to lead the world. Its moral authority is shredded. The Statue of Liberty has been replaced by the symbolism of Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the barbaric lynching of Saddam Hussein, etc. The world just does not want to be lead by neocon America.
It’s a basic truth that if the followers do not want to follow the leader, the leader will fail.
A note about Desmond Tutu: Along with Nelson Mandela, former Archbishop Tutu was a key architect of the non-violent dismantling of apartheid in South Africa. They orchestrated that unique event in human history based on their Christian moral values of turning-the-other-cheek and forgiveness. Once victorious, Tutu and Mandela stood their ground when some key followers wanted to exact revenge against their defeated former white oppressors. It was Tutu who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, when other powerful voices demanded trials and executions similar to the ones the U.S. later orchestrated against the defeated members of Saddam Hussein’s government. Today, South Africa is a nuclear power and a powerhouse member of the advanced-emerging BRICS countries. And, Mandela and Tutu are revered by all South Africans – the victorious blacks and the defeated whites.
Tutu is a Noble Peace Prize Laureate and 2009 Recipient of the Presidential Medal Of Freedom. The entire list of his awards and recognitions are too long to list in this essay. Please read his wise Op-Ed thoroughly (linked above) and discuss it with your peers. Debate it. Wrestle with it.
September 17, 2012 - 6:00 AM
This article is dead-on accurate. After listening (and reading the transcript) of the NPR interview with Candidate Romney’s chief foreign policy advisor, I’m convinced that the next Republican elected as President will lead us into another war, whether that’s in 2012 or beyond. The worldview is flawed and dangerous….
America led during the Bush years. Now there’s a vacuum in leadership. Thats why all these crazy Islamofascist regimes have taken over in all these countries. They know there’s nobody to stop them now. In fact, they know they’ll get support and aid from the 0bama regime.
“If you were trying to intentionally bring down America, how would you do it differently from the what 0bama is doing?”
Great question. Yet to be answered.
An armed world is a polite world.
Jimmy Carter says Obama is guilty of human rights abuses
http://thegazette.com/2012/09/13/u-s-drone-attacks-amount-to-human-rights-violations-carter-says/
sooo, if a reasoned judgment turns out to not be accurate…does it then become a lie?
The Neocons have been a costly disaster for this country, in terms of treasure and prestige. Rmoney’s campaign and advisor pool is infested with them.
“Reasoned judgment”…right. For years after the invasion George W. repeatedly said that “Iraq wouldn’t let the UN inspectors in,” but I’m sure many of us distinctly remember watching them on CNN and other channels racing from place to place all over Iraq and finding no WMD anywhere they searched! Anyone else remember Rumsfeld saying we knew exactly where the WMD were just prior to the war?
Frank #5 – Read Tutu’s essay carefully. He states that he withrdrew from the conference because Blair recently acknowledged that the WMD story was a ruse all along. The subject here is not reasoned judgement that turned out to be accurate.
The ruse, or as Tutu calls it the “lie” has been obvious for a long time. Remember Colin Powell being so disgusted by his marching orders to make the WMD claim at the UN that he only agreed if the CIA Director sat directly behind him so that no camera filming his speach could avoid capturing the CIA head. Then, he attributed the WMD evidence to the CIA. Via this strange spectical, he was immunizing himself against the future judgement of the public, if not possible legal claims down the road.
Once you start ginning up the “intelligence” supporting your “reasoned judgment”…you’re lying.
Suzie #2 comment is the current Republican mantra. It amounts to an amazing u-turn by the Republican neocon wing. The fact is that the Obama administration was always concerned that the “Arab spring” movement could lead to hot beds of Islamic radicalism inside failed states. The Republicans and neocons voraciously criticized him for NOT providing more material support sooner to the “democracy movements”. Under Republican pressure, he provided selective support and hedged his bets. Now that Obama’s concerns have proven to be correct and the reality is ugly, the Republicans are saying that the Arab Spring fallout is all Obama’s fault since it happened on his watch.
Suzie…there are so many fair lines of attack on Obama. I suggest you don’t use such an obviously flawed line of attack that just boomarangs back on the Republican neocon foreign policy positions.
was bill clinton lying?
I well remember the disdain that the free world, in general, and the US intelligence community, in particular, once held for the USSR intelligence services — because of filtering intelligence via the dogma/propaganda of its leaders.
For example, following WWII no field reports of the extensive bombing and damage to West Germany were credited or sent up to the leaders — because the dogma/propaganda was that the allies had intentionally bomb only the Eastern part to deprive the USSR of resources, while sparing the Western part to provide valuable assets to NATO. Fast-forward to the Cuba Missile crises. Ditto, to any reports of the US’s willingness to respond. Backbone did not fit the approved dogma re: our leaders. There are plenty of other examples.
Guess our assumed ethical superiority is now as bogus as the US “yes-men” of late.
I think if Suzie ever accomplishes ANYTHING on this blog, it may be to persuade Mark (who is sitting on the fence right now with regard to the presidential election) to cast his vote for Obama.
Maybe the reason W and Cheney were so convinced of the Iraqis having WMD’s was that Rumsfeld and company were holding the receipts for them…didn’t the US arm Saddam to the teeth when they were baby sitting Iran for us back in the late seventies/early eighties? Any public records available that shows exactly what weapons were sold to Iraq back then? I can’t help but wonder if the US had left Saddam where he was (as awful as he was) if we’d have as much saber rattling from Iran as we do now. Back then the Iranians were too worried about the nutjob next door to be threatening anyone else…now look at the uproar Iran is causing in the region.
Re: Comment by Mark Jurkevich — September 17, 2012 @ 11:38 am
Beat me to it!
An absolutely amazing flip-flop by the neocon wing and but one example of historical revisionist lack of integrity while playing the “big lie” for the advantage of the “party” at the expense of the country.
Lest we forget how the neo-cons lied to us before and during the unnecessary war in Iraq, a trip down memory lane:
10/11/2000, George W. Bush, Candidate for President
I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building.”
10/29/2001, Michael Leeden, American Enterprise Institute
“Just wage a total war against these tyrants; I think we will do very well and our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”
11/15/2002, when asked how long the Iraq War would last, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
“Five days or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last longer.”
02/13/2002, Kenneth Adelman, a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board
“Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.”
03/16/2003, Dick Cheney, Vice President
“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months.”
03/22/2003, General Tommy Franks
“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
03/27/2003, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
“There’s a lot of money to pay for this … the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
05/01/2003, George W. Bush, President
“My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” Under the banner “Mission Accomplished.”
06/29/2005, Dick Cheney, Vice President
“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency”
05/22/2006, George W. Bush, President
“We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror.”
09/10/2006, Dick Cheney, Vice President
“If we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing.”
9/9/2008, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve through 2005. (from The Age of Turbulence, p.463)
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
http://zfacts.com/iraq-war-quotes
#11 Was Bill Clinton in office when George Bush claimed Iraq still had WMDs?
Thanks for playing.
Did Bill Clinton believe Saddam had WMDs? That’s likely. Did Clinton believe that justified an invasion of Iraq? No, and the proof is that he didn’t invade. Even GWB didn’t think that whatever Clinton believed justified an invasion, or GWB would have invaded Iraq sooner. He had to wait until Cheney et al had cooked up the specter of an Iraq armed with nukes (something Clinton never bought into).
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
gdad #17 – Bill Clinton’s foreign policy team was badly “infected” by neocons. That is a key reason why I was for W. in 2000. I figured he would be aligned with his father’s foreign policy positions. Man, was I wrong. In fact, by 2004 I recall telling Dan that W’s foreign policies are Clinton’s on steroids. The fact is that the neocons have their folks in both parties. At a significant cost to himself, Obama is somewhat tempering those with influence in his party.
Huntersdad #14 wrote “I can’t help but wonder if the US had left Saddam where he was (as awful as he was) if we’d have as much saber rattling from Iran as we do now”
The toppling of Hussein’s Baathist Sunni government was a beautiful $2 trillion dollar present from Uncle Sam to the Shia government in Iran. Note the recent outrage the US is expressing about the US installed Shia controlled government in Iraq being the main transit route of Iranian supplies to the Syrian government which is now in the neocon crosshairs.
Re: Comment by Dan Casey — September 17, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
Dan,
You need to remember that Bill Clinton wasn’t chagrining at what he perceived as his papa’s failure.
From Consortiumnews, The Neocons and 9/11. Be sure to check out Romney’s white paper, “An American Century.”
Mr. Jurkevich, I thoroughly enjoy reading your articles. You’ve been a great addition to this blog.
That said, Manifest Destiny seems to be alive and well here in the 21st century. It’s a wholly bastardized ideology now, though; we’ve simply decided to attempt to apply it to the entire world, through might or fright.
The neocons really go back much further, all the way to the days of LBJ and the justification for cranking up the terrible tragedy of VietNam. The fact that we don’t seem to have learned from or remember that
miscalculation makes the mistake of Iraq even worse. The hubris, the
inordinate influence of the military industrial complex, and the schizophrenia of the neocons will ultimately ruin the world, if they haven’t already.
Consortiumnews link to Romney’s white paper no workee. Here’s a live one.
Make no mistake, if you liked Bush you’ll LOVE Romney.
While Tutu has some good points, I believe some Nobel Peace prize winners might be better off resting on their laurels; rather than trying to replay the success of their past in times that are completely different.
It reminds me of the aging boss who thinks his young employees should be impressed that “back in my time we only used pencil and paper”, when they actually think him an idiot…
Remember, Tutu also, recently, said the ANC government is “worse than apartheid”.
He seems a good man, but the radical muslim extremists care little about which cheek is turned as they chop off the head of an “infidel”. They don’t desire to kill us because they are trodden upon, enslaved or yearn for freedom. They kill us because we are an anathema to “their” beliefs.
I, daily, lament the increasing loss of our youth to secure the blessings of liberty to a populace that has no appreciation; and I often wonder if they should be better left to live with the “governance” they deserve, if they will not stand for themselves. Sadly, it is the women and children who shall suffer most when the time comes for us to reevaluate; and we will.
Then the ultra conservatives and the ultra liberals will scream again for us to “do something” to halt the carnage and abuse. But we will not.
We should remember who our friends are, help them and protect them; and should we find “new” friends, who value the democracy and freedom we enjoy we should assist them also. But only after they have proven their true beliefs.
Does the question of the morality of a lie for “action” also hold true for covering “inaction or ineptness”?
We know that the government of Libya has completely refuted Obama’s notion that the attack that killed our citizens was “spontaneous” and not “planned”.
Does this “lie” define the morality of this administration when informing Americans on how they protect (or not) our own diplomats and citizens on our sovereign soil?
Dan should implement a “Most Absurd Turd of the Day” thread. I hereby nominate post 27.
Mikeo, let me give you some insight into how things are going to do while “we reevaluate”.
While “we reevaluate”, Obama’s cruising into a second term in office. 4 years from now, when the GOP sends out it’s parade of clowns, Hillary Clinton’s going to roll up and bitch smack the 2016 sacrificial goat into oblivion. The GOP will have been shut out of the White House so long “we” won’t be able to locate it without a GPS.
I concur with you about the regretable, reckless, and finally pointless loss of young life in our series of military adventures undertaken to prop up our commercial interests.
“0bama administration warned of possible attacks but did nothing”
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-warned-of-possible-attacks-but-failed-to-take-precautions
It’s unforgivable this SOB knew it and didn’t even try to beef up security. Had to go to an overseas publication to learn this since the MSM is too busy protecting the Idiot to do their jobs. So I guess we won’t have to listen to any more crap about the very vague so-called ‘warnings’ about 9-11.
Glad to see Suze is following the RWer tradition of citing a “story” from The Examiner.
Often when RWers cite a “news” source it’s either CNSNews, which was started by the GOP for the purpose of pushing the GOP agenda, or the lovely Examiner, a citizen-journalist site that “publishes” any garbage from anybody. It was launched by a Colorado billionaire for the expressed purpose of being a RWer antidote to what he believed (inaccurately) to be a left-wing press.
In fact, RWers could go write their own “stories” for the Examiner and then cite them as proof in the comments here. A neat trick.
You guys are doing a quite wonderful job at pointing out the perceived mistakes of the past. Here’s the problem though. The world isn’t a big history classroom. There is utter chaos all over the world as radical muslims use this you tube movie as an excuse to promote anarchy and hate.
Here’s the question. What is Obama going to do about it? Yes, I know you don’t think Romney can handle it, but then, he is not the sitting president. Obama is. What is his response going to be. We’ve had three years of his foreign policy and so far all we’ve heard is how it’s still the Republicans fault. It may be convenient for you to continue to live in and blame the past, but that isn’t really helping today. If Obama is so impotent at improving these issues, why should he be re-elected?
And yes Dan, I agree. RWers would be far better off to use a more “unbiased” source like Mother Jones, right? What a joke.
“And yes Dan, I agree. RWers would be far better off to use a more “unbiased” source like Mother Jones, right? What a joke.”
Chuck,
Mother Jones is certainly a left-wing publication. But so what? The problem with that line of criticism is that these are Mitt’s own words, raw, uninterpreted and unanalyzed. Who cares who taped them? They speak for themselves. There is none of that take-four-words-out-of-much-more-nuanced-context like the right did with “you didn’t build that.”
Would you feel better if his words had been taped by the National Review?
The world SHOULD be a “big history classroom”! That is a big part of why we keep making the same mistakes and keep having bad outcomes. Mark J is correct, we used to lead by the “power of our example, not the example of our power”. We have changed and interfered in too many conflicts for too little gain and too much loss.
My God, the political divide today proves we learned little from our own Civil War. Iraq proved we learned nothing from Vietnam and Afghanistan is proving that we still have no clue how to fight modern war. The Neocons are the bane of America, but the truth is that it is us who forgets the important lessons of history. Our interference in the Middle East, from the formation of Israel to the Shah of Iran to the military juntas we supplied or ignored when convenient should be resounding lessons learned and they simply are not.
Anyone voting for Romney is virtually guaranteeing WWIII in our future. It is only a matter of time. They cannot help themselves and we keep putting them in power and looking the other way.
Where is the pressure to close GITMO? Where is the pressure to bring our troops home from harm’s way? Where is the pressure to mend fences and end conflict? Where is the pressure to let other nation’s live as they choose and meet their own destiny? The Neocons are still in charge and they will not relinquish that hold easily. We have become the world’s “beat cop” and that is not likely to change for the better. It certainly will not if we elect Romney/Ryan!
The world IS a “big history classroom”. That’s all it is. Why would anyone think differently? There’s nothing that happens that didn’t have some prologue and won’t have repercussions. Believing that anything happens in a vacuum is the mistake that Americans make.
Sandi, I don’t know about WW III. As with the late Roman Empire, what American’s should fear is perpetual asymetrical resistance in every hotspot bleeding our treasure and social cohesion.
Regarding your concern about the neocons’ share of the blame – remember, its not as easy as to vote Democratic. The neocons have done a great job of gaining influence in both parties. This means that American’s can’t continue limiting their involvement in politics to choosing one of the two parties and then rooting for it like fans for their favorite sports team. More of us need to become aware citizen activists.
Also,it could be that the US two party system has outlived its useful life, and that we would be better served if a viable 3rd, maybe even a 4th, party rose on a sustainable basis. It could keep the duoply more honest, as well as break the grid-lock. The two paties have become so similar and controlled by the same forces, that most elections are little more than a beauty pagent.
Sandi,
Re: “ The Neocons are still I charge”
Have you slept thru the past four years? Our “leader” (if only from behind), is the one “you” support, and is also the one who’s policies are allowing our soldiers to be killed at ten times the rate in Afghanistan than when the dreaded Bush was in office; although you won’t hear that in the “mainstream” media (it is a nasty fact that must be subdued).
Would to God it was as simple as “vote Democratic”! I know well that it is not and that the Neocons are still in charge. I have no illusions that we elected Ghandi in 2008.
You may be right about the two party system. The “difference” has been disappearing and is almost indistinguishable except on social issues and even that is mostly bluff and bluster. It remains far from just a “beauty pageant” IMO, but it bears noticing that the Neocon control, big business control and the need for more and more money to make the machine roll has stunted real stands and real achievement in ways that have hurt us, here and around the world.
We need to remain a world leader and become a world member not the world policeman. It will take decades to erase the mistakes we are hated for, but hearts can change and the new generation offers hope if we seize the opportunity. Obama has made inroads and could do more if he ever had the US Citizenry as the wind at his back. THAT is what we are lacking.
We are so far from “aware citizen activists” it is truly embarrassing. We shame our heritage.