WMD - who cares?

Remove all ads!

Thinking back on the whole discussion on who's to blame for the intel failure on Iraq's non-existent WMD etc. etc.

Democrats have typically accused the Bush Administration of exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq in order to justify an unnecessary war.

Republicans have typically claimed that the fault lay with the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community, which they say overestimated the threat from Iraq.

Now that claim carries the unlikely implication that Bush's team might not have opted for war if it had understood that Saddam was not as dangerous as he seemed.

What left me with the candid line by Wolfowitz: "Sometimes the American people have to be pushed into these things."

 

Well, now then we end in a traditional problem when considering democracy at work, and I think this is a crucial problem with the neocons advising Bush.

They seemingly find it normal to make choices for the ignorant masses - and theoretically the point that US interests transcend (my new word of the day) legislative periods, the public opinion and presidents is valid. They conclude that it therefor requires people to hold the course - them.

In a democratic way this, however, causes friction: The people don't know how to decide PROPERLY - they are too bad to be free - and therefor need enlighted guidance. So what I wonder about with the neocons is wether they use democracy as a tactic or a goal.

And I very much fear it is just a tactic. As I see it the neocons are pretty much an elite enterprise, that is, they exclude others, lessers, from participation because they don't qualify - by not sharing agenda and ideology.

And that is because they deny the public participation in their decisionmaking processes - Bush's administration has expanded gvt secrecy massively. I think the expansion of executive powers under Bush has been significant, so they don't need democratic decisionmaking all that often. That is, they leave the public, as well as senate or house, poorly informed in order to rule undisturbed.

Ironically, along the way you have their talk about democracy for the middle east and other bla-bla - and that is because it sells. They did what they wanted to do anyway, and served everyone a personal reason to find war in Iraq not too bad. (we had that before BTA ) That gave them the majority for war they wanted.
That is, when they need approval they use democratic processes and if they have to push people to what they think are the right choices they do it.

I don't like the thought - because it implies that the policy made actually isn't really told to the people - and why should there be a need for it? The people don't know what's good for them anyway - so we tell them only what they have to know so that they give Daddy Cheny or Bush Jr. a free hand, who then will decide for them.

Their way of gvt DEMANDS manipulation, and disinformation if necessary, of the public. And there the emotional aspect plays a major role.

Gvt knows best

After all, that isn't a picture I like.

[ September 09, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That is how a representative democracy works. The neocons, however, take it one step further I think. They don't even inform the public on what they do, much less consult them - they don't know a sh*t anyway.

Being ruled by the enlightened may be ok in an ideal world. But then, in an ideal world the masses would be enlighted too and don't need this sort of tutelage.

That is to say, man is flawed and is prone to make mistakes and can be tempted and blinded and fail. That is the whole sober and disillusioned rationale behind the concept of checks and ballances.

The neocons have shown their ability to fail sufficiently by misplanning the US invasion of Iraq, especially the post war planning. They didn't listen to those whiny objectors and their concerns - they shouted down state and trampeled dissent in their Pentagon homebase. Their concept of "plug in Chalabi and play on - on to Syria, Lebanon and Iran!" didn't really work out the way they planned it. They didn't listen to the others because in their eyes they didn't know anything anyway and only talked to and with like-minded folk - engaging in groupthink.

The neocons to me reflect a practical example for the truthfulness of Adorno's idea of the dialectic of the enlightment - the idea that the elighted think of themselves as the epitome of rationality, blinding them to their own flaws and follies and errors.

In their arrogance they profoundly misunderstand Hobbes' dictum "man is too bad to be free" - it applies to rulers, too.

To me they are deluded fools.

[ September 10, 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I would not worry too much about these people, since most of them don't vote anyway. Of course, you may be saying that people who don't agree with you are "emotional and lazy." But that is an entirely different topic.

 

Yes, that's really what I thought you were getting at. It's like the whole issue of Kerry/Bush service during Vietnam. It is such a non-issue; it should be whether or not Iraq is the same problem for America as was the Vietnam War. IMO, that is the real issue.

 

Well, I think the neocons are special insofar as they are a very radical and consequently very energetic group - that actually distinguishes them from the rest of the lot both in effectiveness as well as in devotion.

Compared to the vitality US right the (by right wingers of course) much denounced liberal movement looks geriatric and inert (sorry, Chandos). The right's zeal, however, doesn't compensate for their silly ideas.
While some of the neocon critiques raise good questions and rightly point out problems a good deal of the neocons come to very questionable answers and concepts in response - and it isn't just me who thinks so, take neocon guru Fukuyama who recently blasted neocon Krauthammer (whose views were strongly reflected in the Bush administrations policy) for his follies and fallacies, quite publicly in iirc The National Interest.

The neocon uniqueness doesn't lie in their arrogance - the neocons are way more idealistic (to use their terminology) or fanatic (to use a nastier word) than the average vote chaser in the US.
And they don't even try to sell themselves and their ideas to the people because their ideas are so radical that people would reject them - it is entirely unrealistic to win an election with the slogan: "We want peace for Israel and stability in the Middle East so let us, the US, attack Lebanon, Syria and Iraq - and then Iran!"

Consequently you find them as political appointees - not as elected polticians. They don't go and want to be elected, neocons are appointed by friends. That is another major difference.

The neocon philosophy, for all its profession of love for democracy, favors sovereignty based on "exceptionalism": putting aside rules, laws and regulations in favor of "benevolent hegemony," or "strong leadership" as they call it, both inside and outside the U.S.

Agreed, even though it has been a major factor contributing to my disgust with them

PS: I edited my post to underline a few points that I felt I didn't make sufficiently clear.

[ September 11, 2004, 09:23: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

If there was anyone who believed the neo-cons weren't going to Iraq anyway, irrespective of whether there were WMDs present, click here.

It scares me, and Australia's a US ally.