In order to appreciate the governing principles of the neoconservatives, it is helpful to analyze the individual often described as the original advocate of modern neoconservative thinking, Dr. Leo Strauss.
Leo Strauss:
Philosophical Father of the Neoconservatives
“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed…Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united- and they can only be united against other people."
“those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior…The people are told what they need to know and no more."
- Dr. Leo Strauss
"…for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
- Paul Wolfowitz, May 29, 2003
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
- Richard Perle, November 19, 2003
It is widely acknowledged the Bush administration was not particularly honest about the reasons it gave to the public for the invasion of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of defense, acknowledged the evidence used to justify the war was always “murky” and now says that the main rationale for the Iraq war, “disarming” Saddam of a WMD program, was more of a “bureaucratic” reason than a national security reason.
His neoconservative colleague, Richard Perle also admitted the war was in violation of International Law, but nonetheless it was the “right thing” to do.
Many Americans have difficulty believing the Bush administration purposely engaged in a campaign of diversion and deception to convince the public that an invasion of Iraq was urgent and necessary. While these facts are disconcerting, they are not surprising given the self-proclaimed philosophical underpinning of neoconservative ideology.
In 1938 German political philosopher Leo Strauss arrived in the U.S., an ethnic Jew and refugee from Nazi Germany. He became a professor at the University of Chicago, where he specialized in philosophical analysis of the classic Greek tradition. He explored basic philosophical questions including of the structure of society and whether or not it can be founded on rational principles. Paul Wolfowitz was introduced to “Straussian” ideology while earning his PhD under Dr. Strauss at the University of Chicago.
Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, wrote two of the most interesting analysis of “Straussian” ideology. Her two in-depth books on this subject are entitled; The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988) and Leo Strauss and the American Right (1997). She deftly argues that the use of deception and manipulation in current US policy flows directly from the doctrines espoused by Leo Strauss (1899-1973).
These teachings include the philosophy that deception is the normal process in politics. Therefore secrecy is a paramount goal of government, especially with issues regarding foreign policies. Strauss also believed that society was comprised of three different classes of people, with only the “wise” elite who understand that “perpetual deception” is required between the rulers and those to be ruled over. According to Drury, Strauss believed that society was composed of three classes of people:
“There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures...”
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.”
It is important to realize that Dr. Strauss was openly contemptuous of secular democracy. In his framework; "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right- the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." Straussian theory thus requires the "The people are told what they need to know and no more."
While the elite are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not be exposed to the truth or they would fall into nihilism or anarchy. Perhaps this governing philosophy of blanket secrecy provides a parallel to the neoconservatives strategy regarding Iraq and an inability to be truthful with the American people about the reasons for the war, which have continual been shifted when no viable WMD stockpiles or WMD programs were found in Iraq.
Moreover, an equally interesting aspect of Straussian teaching is that religion is absolutely essential for imposing moral law on the masses (or vulgar many). At the same time, Strauss stressed that religion is to be reserved for the masses alone, as the ruling elite need not be bound by it. In fact, he argued it would illogical for the rulers to be bound by religion since the truths proclaimed by religion are in his words "a pious fraud."
Hence, secular society is the least desirable situation because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism. While these are the traits the Founding Fathers viewed as most desirable, in the Straussian ideology it is these same traits that promote dissent, which could weaken society's ability to 'cope with external threats.' Strauss was ambivalent as what religion was needed to facilitate social control of the masses, only that a religion was required in his analysis.
Strauss also believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united- and they can only be united against other people."
Drury makes the observation that a ‘perpetual war’ is a requirement in the Straussian political framework, and a 'external threat’ must exist even if it has to be manufactured. She concludes with this foreboding analysis of how Straussian philosophy permeates the underlying neoconservative political strategy.
“In short, they all thought that man’s humanity depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and “creature comforts.”
“…This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists willing to fight and die for their God and country.
...I never imagined when I wrote my first book on Strauss that the unscrupulous elite that he elevates would ever come so close to political power, nor that the ominous tyranny of the wise would ever come so close to being realized in the political life of a great nation like the United States. But fear is the greatest ally of tyranny."
Straussian ideology toward foreign policy is plainly Machiavellian in orientation. During the 1990s the neoconservative thesis was expanded and formally articulated by neoconservative groups such PNAC and AEI members Karl Rove, President Bush’s political advisor, who has boosted that he reads Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ every year.
If one believes that political order is stable only if the people are united by an external threat, then if no external threat exists, one has to be manufactured. In many crucial aspects, this philosophy of government mirrors the current actions of the U.S government with respect to the “war on terror.” After the September 11th tragedy, these polices of a world order dominated by US military power are being implemented.
Almost one year after the Iraq war had commenced, it was revealed that President Bush had initiated the formal process to notify the U.S. government of the nation imminently going to war with Iraq occurred in February 2002.274 This Presidential notification was followed up by a formal request in the spring of 2002 that General Tommy Franks begin to construct an invasion plan for Iraq.
Although this administration continued to deny that a decision had been made, the facts speak for themselves. As required in Straussian political theory, an “external threat” was created months later in the autumn of 2002. This campaign was designed to create the requisite societal fear necessary so that the “wise” rulers could pursue a strategy to be kept secret from the masses. As prescribed, the role of religion was often evoked as a divine force guiding our political leaders in a battle of “good versus evil.”
The mantra of “united we stand” created the necessary hyper-nationalism to drown out critical analysis of the facts surrounding the war. Under the threat of “mushroom clouds,” our prime nemesis, Bin Laden, was skillfully replaced by the Bush administration into our old yet new public enemy #1, Saddam Hussein.
***Segment #2******
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
Neoconservative Geostrategy 1992 – 2002
"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
-Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000
“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
-President George W. Bush, June 2003, as reported by former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas quoting President Bush
"Oil and gas are not the ultimate aims of the U.S.
. It's about control. If the U.S. controls the sources of energy of its rivals -- Europe, Japan, China and other nations aspiring to be more independent -- they win."
- Pepe Escobar, Asia Times
Despite the initial shock of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, many aspects of current US geostrategy following 9/11 appear to be carefully planned in the late 1990s. A cursory analysis of the various policy documents published the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) relay sufficient details of the Bush administration’s geostrategy. Interestingly, many Americans fail to appreciate the implications of these numerous policy papers published over a 10-year period, beginning in 1992, and continuing into 1998, 2000 and 2002.
In 1992, the final year of George H. Bush’s presidency, Paul Wolfowitz took the lead in drafting an internal set of military guidelines which is typically referred to as a "Defense Planning Guidance.” At the time Wolfowitz was then under secretary of defense for policy (the Pentagon's third-highest ranking civilian), and originally authored this document for then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. In this draft of the Defense Planning Guidance document, it was advocated that with the fall of the Soviet Union, a window of opportunity was available for the United States to exert an aggressive unilateral geostrategy with a stated goal of preventing any nation of any groups of nations from “aspiring to seek a larger global role.”
”In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get close to parity with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence; therefore, more U.S. military bases will be established in the various regions of the globe. (A post-Saddam Iraq may well serve as one of those advance military bases.)”
This strategy for global dominance required a hybrid economic/military nexus in order to enforce US supremacy. This document did not escape the public’s attention once it was leaked to the press, instantly creating much controversy in Washington, DC.
The following interview with Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman offers insight of the reactions to this story at the time.
You have to take yourself back to 1992. This is the first time that the Defense Department gathers itself to say, "What is our new strategic mission in the world now that there is no more Soviet Union?"...
.... they said, "Our number one mission in the world, now that we are the sole superpower is to make sure we stay that way."
They wanted to pocket that gain. And what was so politically insensitive in this internal document, which wasn't meant for distribution, is it talked about not only Russia, but Germany, Japan, India, all as potential regional hegemons that could rise up to challenge the United States as at least a regional and, potentially, a global superpower. They said their number one mission is to quash that.
What was the (world's) reaction?
Well, most of the countries I just named were on some kind of friendly terms, or central allies of the United States. They were none too pleased to be named as potential rivals. The public reaction was, "Good God, we're supposed to have a peace dividend now. The Cold War is over. Let's get on with our lives. Of course, stay strong enough to protect ourselves. But what in the world are you doing, going out there and looking for trouble?"
It was very controversial in Congress. There was an enormous amount of commentary by the opinion leaders saying, "This is way over the top." And, it was an election year. And they caved.
Based on the reaction of the world community in the months leading up the 2003 Iraq war, the majority of the world community still does not harbor a positive impression of U.S. geostrategy outlined in the original 1992 strategy document. Indeed, the world community seems increasingly intolerant and fearful of a hegemonic U.S. superpower in the opening years of this new century. The failure of the George W. Bush administration to gain U.N. authorization for the Iraq war, in conjunction with the largest anti-war protests in recorded history show that a great number of nations and their citizens oppose the neoconservative agenda as still ‘way over the top.’
One year after the Iraq war, an international poll showed that a substantial number of countries who have been traditional U.S. allies “believe the U.S. is conducting its campaign against terror to control Mid East oil and to dominate the world.”131 According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a majority of people living in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, all Muslim-majority nations with favorable relations with the U.S, and a sizable number of people in France, Germany and Russia also have suspicions about the campaign against terror.
This small group of ideologues provided the basis for a new overt US foreign policy agenda. To appreciate the significance of 9/11 and how it has been utilized to pursue previously documented policies deserves careful analysis. Individuals such as Paul Wolfowitz were considered fringe members of the Republican Party’s far right-wing. After the 1992 elections, this group was out of power, but began the process of preparing for the next opportunity when Republicans would win back the White House.
In 1997, like-minded members of this group founded an organization called ‘The Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). This group of individuals included an impressive array of politicians and theoricians that included; Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Jeb Bus, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, and Dan Quayle. Despite their reputations and authority, the views of the PNAC group were often regarded as perhaps too extreme by the mainstream conservatives who controlled the Republican Party.
However, following the 2000 election of George W. Bush, these former political “outsiders” became powerful “insiders” within the White House, and were placed in positions where they could exert maximum influence on US policy.
-Dick Cheney as Vice President,-Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz as Deputy Defense Secretary
-I. Lewis “Scotter” Libby as Cheney's Chief of Staff
-Elliot Abrams as the official in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council (NSC)
-Dov Zakheim as comptroller for the Defense Department
-John Bolton as Undersecretary of State
-Richard Perle as chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon
-Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs in the Bush administration.
Members also included Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W. Bush and Governor of Florida, and William Kristol, Editor of the magazine 'The Weekly Standard', and Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne Cheney.
The military-industrial-intelligence-petroleum nexus was also represented in the PNAC by former Lockheed-Martin vice president, Bruce Jackson, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Norman Podhoretz, were signatories to the PNAC policy document. In essence, members of PNAC were able to formulate most of incoming President George W. Bush’s foreign policies.
For the first eights months in power, some of these polices were openly pursued such as insistence on a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, and cancellation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. However, these advisors were not able to pursue the more ambitious aspects of their geostrategy. Within their famous strategy document from the autumn of 2000, 'Rebuilding America’s Defenses', it was lamented that the desired “transformation” of the U.S. military would be a long and difficult process without a massive external threat to provide a catalyst for their larger goals. This PNAC document was released in September 2000, and noted...
"…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
It was the Bush administration’s response to the historical opportunity presented in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks which allowed previously unpalatable foreign policies to be overtly pursued by the U.S government.
Although many Americans are still not familiar with the Project for a New American Century, the information about the U.S. geostrategy espoused in their policy documents is found on numerous websites both here and abroad. Indeed, some comments from European foreign policy-makers reflect significant concern about the transformation of the United States from a largely multilateralist nation to one which openly espouses an eagerness for “endless warfare.” These policies are seen as a U.S. declaration to seek global hegemony and domination – at any costs.
On July 10, 2003 U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Texas-R) gave a powerful speech on the house floor in which he admonished what had transpired within the U.S. government and his own political party. Although Representative Paul’s speech went largely unreported in the U.S. mass-media, the following excerpts warrant carefully analysis:
“Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.”
Rep Ron Paul’s views represent what political commentators sometimes refer to as the traditional, “realists” or “paleoconservatives” wing of the Republican Party. Increasingly this philosophy is more aligned with the Libertarian party in the US, not the contemporary Republican Party. The agenda espoused in neoconservative literature is much more imperial regarding foreign policies. One of the many Internet based websites that analyze neoconservative geostrategy includes Bernard Weiner’s informative website, “The Crisis Papers.” 139 The following article relates to a speech given by Dr. Weiner in Houston, Texas during the autumn of 2003.
“On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” The document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests. No country has ever asserted such a sweeping claim to global domination as is now being made by the United States.
Furthermore, it declares that “The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.” This bold sort of internationalism may appear presumptuous to other countries, governments and religious groups when it proclaims that what ever is good for America is good for the world. As President Bush asserts in the introduction of the document, America’s values “are right and true for every person, in every society...”
While many people from around the world naturally tend to harbor nostalgic notions of their own country, it is often problematic for a nation state to boldly proclaim that its “national interests” and values are “true” for every nation on Earth. The NSS does not address what constitutes US ‘national interests,’ but it is quite clear that “preemptive” warfare is not one of the self-evident truths or universal rights of mankind as declared in our Declaration of Independence. In contrast, the universal ideas expressed by the Founders Fathers of the U.S. are the unalienable rights to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ This is a major distinction.
The essential claim asserted in the 2002 NSS document is the right of the United States to take unilateral military action against another country without having to offer verifiable evidence that it is acting to prevent a clear and verifiable threat of attack. This assertion was used to justify the 2003 Iraq war, and basically states the U.S. has all-encompassing power to resort to violence whenever it decides to do so while using very vague language that cannot withstand the scrutiny of critical analysis or International Law: “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of Mass Destruction.”
This philosophy represents a radical departure from the post-War World Two period, as it does not apply to a nation’s right to self-defense from imminent attack, but proclaims that potential, ambiguous threats at some point in the future will be used to justify U.S. military action. From a hardcore perspective geostrategic, this policy appears to be an attempt to use military action to overrule economic reality. As U.S. policy makers lose confidence in the economic strength and competitiveness of the American economic structure vis-à-vis its major international rivals, policy makers may increasingly be fearful of dislocations within the domestic social structure. The ruling elites may view the application of US military power as the mechanism by which it can counteract some of the troubling economic reality.
******next segment****
George Washington was the first of a handful of generals ever elected to the presidency and Dwight D. Eisenhower was the last.
Both these warriors bequeathed to posterity a signal warning concerning militarism in their farewell addresses. Washington addressed the dangers of a large standing army and Eisenhower warned of our burgeoning military industrial complex. Absent a radical reverse and transformation of our government, Johnson Chalmers argues four “sorrows” will befall America: 1) it will be in a state of perpetual war, inspiring more terrorism than it can defeat in passing; 2) there will be a loss of democracy and constitutional rights; 3) truthfulness in public discourse will be replaced by propaganda and disinformation; and 4) we will be bankrupt. Under these situations, there would be only one way to accurately describe the proposed form of government: Authoritarian Fascism.
“It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, must use deception on their population to initiate a war. No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.
It is naive, not to mention racist, to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we're Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people. And unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgement with which we look back on the 1930s Germans. It is said that each of society's institutions is a crystallization of the dominant values of the culture. If so, we appear to be living in the time of the lie.”
In the background we have the philosophical "imperatives" for war.
We have numerous Bush officials as followers of the fascistic Straussian imperatives for "externalizing" the threat to the nation state as a means of maintaining political control. The Straussian imperatives are further advocated with Brezinski's famous book on the "Grand Chessboard," which advocated as an "imperative" that the US seek to maintain its hegemonic role by controlling the large area referred to as Eurasia. These last two "imperatives" can only be fulfilled by taking control of the Caspian and Middle East regions with military force. All of it designed to hide the reason for almost all wars in modern times: control over resources.
Our nation was founded on principles which are openly hostile to the Straussian/ Machiavellian philosophy. The ideology of fascism gains its appeal from reacting against from desperate people anxious and angry over their perception that their social and economic position was sinking and frustrated with the constant risk of chaos, uncertainty and inefficiency implicit in a modern democracy based on these principles. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy. We fought a war against it not half a century ago; over 50 million perished as victims of fascism and champions of liberty.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(409 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
