Everything Old Is Neo Again

I have considered myself as part of the Neoconservative persuasion. And yes, I know, I do know that Neconservatism has been branded as the enemy from Obama Messianic Leftists and Paleoconservatives alike. Also to be honest I am consistent among Neocons in that I don’t agree with some others of the Neoconservative persuasion. Neoconservatism is not monolithic in ideology. Neoconservatism is multifaceted with core similarities of ideology.

With that in mind I stumbled upon a book review of a collection of essays by deceased Irving Kristol. The reviewer Millman seems to be praising Irving Kristol essays with slight appreciation.

Millman then compares Irving’s son William (Bill) Kristol’s Neoconservatism. Millman is a little enthusiastic about Bill Kristol’s Neoconservative without coming out with some out right criticism.

JRH 3/19/11

American Choices in Egypt

John R. Houk

© February 2011

Pamela Gellar takes William Kristol to task because of his defense of Democracy that could lead to a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic dictatorship. I have noted before that the MB could gain power democratically in Egypt and then chip away at the democratic rule of law to form an Islamic Sharia State. I have used the examples of Hitler abolishing the Weimar Republic of Germany by slowly replacing the German Constitution with Nazi Supremacism. I also used the Iranian Revolution as an example even though Khomeini was not exactly elected but was popular as a perceived Islamic Savior he instituted a Shia Twelver Islamic Republic based on the Shia strain of Sharia Law. I could have also used the MB proxy in Gaza known as Hamas who won election by the popular Gaza vote only to take full control by violently ridding Gaza of the more secular yet more politically corrupt Palestinian Authority.

Gellar also takes Neocons like Kristol and Krauthammer to task for their criticism of Glen Beck who has spent a considerable amount of FOX News time in exposing the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood as compared by Leftist, Muslim Apologists and those Republicans who have been duped to believe the Muslim Brotherhood is a nonviolent Islamist movement. The words “nonviolent” and “Islamist” used as equals in the same sentence is definitely an oxymoron.

I must add a full disclosure moment: I consider myself a bit of a Neocon; however on the issue of the MB I whole heartedly disagree with Kristol and Krauthammer on the nature of the MB’s political aspirations. Now if Kristol is saying that the MB might be a political player that the US might be forced to deal with, then that is a realistic geopolitical outcome that might indeed need some diplomatic give and take to keep Egypt out of Iran’s orbit. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Shia Twelvers of Iran are natural enemies. Most Islamist Sunnis consider Shias a heretical version of Islam. There has been much Muslim blood spilled between Sunnis and Shias similar to Christianity’s Reformation days when Catholics and Protestants went at each other in religious wars. The difference in inter-religious war among Muslims is that Shia actually represents only about 10% of all Muslims. The other 90% are Sunnis. The percentage disparity is not so large between Catholics and Protestants. For percentage purposes, the ratio between Catholics and Protestants in 2011 (excluding Orthodox and other Christian sects) is 56% Catholic and 44% Protestant (if you group Anglicans with Protestants).

America has been pretty good with the short term strategy of playing rivals against each other to the benefit of American National Interests. In the decade of the 1980s America pitted Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against Iran just fresh off holding American diplomats hostage for about a year.

Unfortunately American clandestine favor toward Iraq probably set the stage for two American wars with Iraq that resulted ultimately in the deposing of Saddam Hussein as well as the Iraqi novice government’s execution of the overthrown dictator. The weakening of Iraq reinvigorated regional the aspirations of Iran.

The direction of Egypt’s future is also important to American National Interests. The American government will be involved with some difficult choices in trying to influence Egypt’s future to the benefit of American National Interests. We do not have a good track record in supporting the correct despots in long term stratagems in the Middle East. Yes I said despot in relation to Egypt. Even with free elections in Egypt, no matter who wins will ultimately shore up their political victory into the eventual central control of the Egyptian government. That central control will be despotic regardless of who wins unless the Egyptian military manages to be the balance of power keeping the politics inline. Turkey is an example of this form of Islamic democracy. However, even in Turkey, Islamists have been effective in placing their adherents into the Turkish Military. There is the actual possibility Turkey may enter the realm of Islamist despotism with the aid of Islamists in the Turkish Military.

I understand the Egyptian Military is willing to play that Turkey Military style balance of power, but it begs the question. How many Islamists – meaning the MB – are in the rank and file of the Egyptian military? Wrong American choices can come back to bite America’s butt which clearly would threaten Israel’s existence which possibly could be another stepping stone to another World War.

JRH 2/11/11 (Hat Tip: Tony Newbill)

To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

Bill Kristol takes a historical look of the analogous similarities between nuclear-arming Iran v. USA, Israel and the appeasers of Europe to Hitler’s Germany v. an appeaser Europe roughly led by France and Britain.

JRH 3/27/10
________________________
To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

By William Kristol
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15
Washington Post

In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as "unacceptable." But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it."

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

What is becoming increasingly clear, from the Clinton speech and from the overall behavior of her administration -- and for that matter from the action or, rather, inaction of the "international community" -- is that we are all moving toward accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Consider Clinton's speech.

The secretary of state devoted six paragraphs out of 52 to Iran.

She began by acknowledging that "for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat" than the prospect of the current Iranian regime with nuclear arms.

She explained how threatening such a prospect would be to Israel, the region and the world, culminating in the cascade of "unacceptables."

She then briefly defended the Obama administration's decision to try engagement, acknowledged (basically) that engagement had failed, but claimed that at least "[t]he world has seen that it is Iran, not the United States, responsible for the impasse." She noted that "with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of its obligations under the nonproliferation regime and an unjustified expansion of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concerns about Iran's intentions."

And what are the newly perceptive and ever more deeply concerned nations of the world doing about Iran? "There is a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure Iran's leaders to change course." What kind of pressure? New U.N. Security Council resolutions with "sanctions that will bite."

Now, these won't be quite the "crippling" sanctions Clinton promised last year -- but they'll be biting ones. (Then we learned, late in the week, that the sanctions were being adjusted so they wouldn't bite too much -- so as to get the "international community" on board.) Of course, three Security Council resolutions seeking to pressure Iran's leaders were passed during the Bush administration, before the great international awakening brought about by President Obama's engagement policy. Clinton had to acknowledge that "it is taking time to produce these new sanctions." But she maintained that "time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts." And she reiterated that "we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons."

Notice what Clinton conspicuously failed to mention as part of that "commitment" -- another word, by the way, about whose unhappy diplomatic history Raymond Aron would undoubtedly have had mordant comments. What the secretary of state did not say is that all options are on the table. What she did not say is that force remains a last but credible resort against this regime's nuclear plans. What she did not say is that we would try to help the opposition change who "Iran's leaders" are.

So: Nothing about regime change. Nothing about the possible use of force. Just broadly supported "sanctions that will bite," but not too much.

Then Clinton turned -- one can almost hear the sigh of relief -- to other issues, because, after all, "Iran is not the only threat on the horizon. Israel is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history." And we were off into the maze of the peace process, the settlements, and other ephemera and trivialities.

The Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute the dominant threat to the security of Israel and to the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East. While presidents Bush and Obama have proclaimed that this Iranian regime obtaining nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, they have done nothing effective to stop it. Now we are also apparently pressuring Israel not to act to stop Iran from getting nuclear arms.

Is it so hard to remember what happens when liberal democracies accept the unacceptable? Is it too much to hope that, for the government of the United States in 2010, accepting the unacceptable should be unacceptable?
__________________________

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company