A Reply to Peter Beinart by Eric Alterman of The Nation

[Paul Hood]

In my last column, I focused on the Kerry campaign's inability to articulate an alternative national security strategy. This, I suggested, made it difficult to lay bare the colossal failures of the Bush Administration in the same area and to convince voters to trust the Democrats with the defense of the nation. I also noted that Democrats did not always have this problem; the "fighting faith" of 1950s cold war liberalism, for all its problems, presented Americans with a national security framework sufficient to earn their trust (and thereby, not incidentally, allow liberals to make considerable progress on social justice issues at home).

By coincidence, New Republic editor Peter Beinart simultaneously published an elegantly written, passionately argued 5,683-word essay addressing himself to exactly the same problem and deploying the same historical example as a guidepost to the future. The essay, "A Fighting Faith," was widely embraced as the fulcrum of debate about the future of a liberal foreign policy vision. In this regard, Beinart and TNR performed a salutary service, as such a debate is sorely needed. Unfortunately, Beinart's own contribution is fundamentally flawed, and must be discarded if this debate is to lead liberals in a fruitful direction.

Just as the magazine did when its editors argued in favor of Bush's foolhardy war--and Reagan's Central American fantasies before that--Beinart's essay employs McCarthyite tactics in conjunction with wishful thinking in the service of a chimerical political agenda. His solution for the political problem that ails the Democratic Party fits in perfectly with TNR's own intellectual DNA structure, calling as it does for the expulsion from the Democratic coalition of MoveOn.org, perhaps the left's most energetic and committed popular organizations, in support of a combination of policies (liberal on the domestic front, neoconservative internationally) with no clear constituency in America or anywhere else. In doing so, it reproduces the failures of the Bush Administration that have destroyed the sympathy and solidarity the United States enjoyed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

First the McCarthyism: Beinart's attacks on MoveOn--which understate the organization's 2.9 million membership by nearly 100 percent--rest largely on statements made by organizations he claims are related to it, often by nothing more than a click on its website. Many of his charges turn on the weasel word "seems," as in "in recent years, seems to have largely lost interest in any agenda for fighting terrorism at all. Instead, MoveOn's discussion of the subject seems dominated by two, entirely negative, ideas...." As a certain Prince of Denmark once remarked: "Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not 'seems.'"

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050110&s=alterman

[xchrom]

1. no reasonable democrat -- and i am admittedly more left

than many, would take beinart's assertions as being intelletualy honest.
there's nothing about neo-conservatism that is good for our country.
19th century imperialism should be left in the past.
reviving british hopes for empire within the united states foreign policy structure is futile -- and subordinating it to israeli foreign policy simply discredits the u.s.
attacking moveon is a smoke screen and describing it as mcarthyism is exactly right -- and beinarts approach is simply too republican in it's outlook to go with out comment -- it stinks.

[ixion]

2. excellent response by Alterman

this whole trend that the neodems are coming out with betrays the ideals of the party, IMO. They have been moving right for two decades now, the result being a continual erosion of the party base.

The DLC leadership should be thrown out and replaced with dems who still believe in democracy.

[Hotler]

3. Greed has its grip on the DLC...n/t

[teryang]

4. National defense strategy versus corporatist nonsense

The fact of the matter is that the republican supported neo-cons are little more than propagandists for the energy and defense sectors. The presumption that these persons know what they are doing or that they are the "experts" in national defense is nonsense.

These venal opportunists and unearned income based supporters of "conquest" don't have a clue. This is why chimp, chechny & halliburton had to go outside the Army to find a chief of staff. The experts on ground warfare don't agree with them. The toadies of retired colonels and generals on cable tv simply say whatever their paid to say. They testify for a buck like the expert whores they are.

Let's be honest, the most effective national security strategy is not to fight at all. To fight to obtain your political goals IS THE LEAST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY YOU COULD POSSIBLY FOLLOW. Anyone who has ever looked at Clausewitz or Sun Tzu or studied history should know this. However, the neocons have found a curious and irrational blend of fundamentalist mysticism, an extreme and obscure ideology produced during the age of fascism, and the blind faith in capital intensive and government subsidized corporate conquest, and call it expertise in national security. Hitler and Mussolini fancied themselves to be such experts as well.

Let's go over some of the basics they have violated:

They are fighting a conflict based upon lies and therefore have no moral legitimacy. According to Clausewitz and common sense, "righteousness" is an important factor in whether the political objectives of a military conflict are achieved. Colonial conquest is not righteousness. But according to the neo-fascist Straussian ideologues who run the Pentagon and their propagandists, morality, human rights, and therefore, treaties pertaining to such are irrelevant.

The new mantra of experts as we are losing the conflict is "We must remain committed." The truth- <So the important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistence.> Sun Tzu

Here are some other truisms from the master:

<Therefore one who is good at martial arts overcomes others' forces without battle, conquers others cities without siege, destroys others' nations without taking a long time.>

<The general rule...it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it.>

How does this administrations policies and ACTIONS measure up to those timeless observations?

Here's another:

<The lowest is to attack a city..."

<If the general cannot overcome his anger and has his army swarm over the citadel...and yet the citadel is not taken, this is a diastrous attack.>

<Therefore one who is good at martial arts overcomes others' forces without battle, conquers others' cities without siege, destroys others' nations WITHOUT TAKING A LONG TIME.>

How about this one?

<When resources are exhausted, then levies are made under pressure. When power and resources are exhausted, then the homeland is drained. The people are deprived of seventy percent of their budget, while the government's expenses for equipment amount to sixty percent of its budget.>

This is not rocket science. These are common understanding of the average diplomat and statesmen. However, we live in corrupt society which serves the interests of venal corporate interests and their share holding supporters in the main stream media. The notion that neocons, General Myers, and the others who have sold out to defense contractors and other corporate interests are experts is pure nonsense.

The reality is that the republicans have sold out national security, our international prestige and reputation, and the irreplaceable consensus in the community of nations which protected us all, for the almighty and increasingly worthless dollar.