Wolfowitz cares about Iranian democracy?
Image via Wikipedia
Here they come. The leaders of the conservative revolution, the believers in neoliberal economics as creating “democracy” everywhere, well, if not democracy, at least spectacular profits for the richest members of society. Now they are shedding tears over the horrible scenes of state repression in Iran. The latest lover of democracy is Paul Wolfowitz, ol’ Wolfie, George Bush’s right hand man, the brilliant mind behind the preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Wolfowitz: U.S. should reach out to Moussavi – CNN.com.
Yes, good ol’ Wolfie, who worked for Nixon, for Bush the First, and then really came into his own as Deputy Secretary of Defense with his boss, Donald Rumsfeld. It was while working with Rummie that Wolfowitz came up with something called the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
The Wolfowitz Doctine took a docment called Project for New American Century and translated it into official US foreign policy. The Project for a New American Century was a collection of neocon leaders, including Wolfie, who sat out the Clinton years coming up with an attack strategy. According to the Project, its members believed that
American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
Project for a New American Century released a report in August 2001 saying the US could keep its superpower status through military might, if only some catastrophic event, a “new Pearl Harbor,” allowed for such a show of military power.
According to the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the US, as the only military superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union, should use its military might to keep itself not just a world leader, but the only world leader. Oh yes, and this might involve preemptive invasion. The doctrine stated:
While the U.S. cannot become the world’s policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
So Wolfie needed a “threat” from Iraq and he found one. Wolfowitz testified before Congress that there were good reasons for invading Iraq, that there were surely Weapons of Mass Destruction, that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US, that the US was in danger from the Iraqi regime. All of this turned out to be false, as we now know, but Wolfowitz knew it then.
The Obama administration should change its mind about war trials against the Bushies. It’s time to put Wolfowitz and other leaders of the preemptive, that is, illegal invasion of Iraq on trial. Otherwise, they will remain a danger to democracy at home and abroad.
When Wolfie misled Congress and the American people to justify invasion, he became a war criminal. Not that anyone is trying hard to prosecute him for his crimes. Partly because a huge segment of our political leadership still believes that preemptive attacks that serve US interests are justified.
The neocons will use the horrible repression by the Iranian regime to justify invasion. No one can look at the photos of young protesters being killed and not feel like “something must be done.”
Wolfie and the neocons need permanent war to both keep the American populace from paying attention to the distribution of wealth at home, but also to create new markets for their economic exploitation abroad. War keeps Americans patriotic and waving flags and feeling good about America. But if Americans took to the streets to protest the wholesale transfer of wealth at home that the Neocons arranged over the past 30 years or the systematic violation of civil rights through domestic spying or human rights through torture of prisoners, you can be assured that Wolfie would happily fire the first bullet. Wolfie does not care about democracy in Iran. He cares about profits in his pockets.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Good piece Laurie, I saw the creep yesterday spouting his bullshit on CNN. Why anyone cares about what he has to say is beyond the pale!
I’ll preface this comment by agreeing with you that Wolfowitz and his polices are horrible, tragic, and based on a very flawed worldview.
That said, your post presents a rather simplistic poo-pooing of the Neoconservative ideology that make me wonder if you understand its implication.
I expect a more scholarly attack from someone of your caliber.
elasticsyntax,
While I am far from a scholar, what neoconservative was means far less than what it has become. Irving Kistol may have had a case for rebellion against liberalism and being tough on Commies but his son is an empty suit. It’s thought that religion should play a big part in our value system didn’t quite mean evangelism and the import of Christianity to the world. The victory over communism at all costs was did not square with our values. Supporting death squads in central America sullied neoconservative ideas. Fatal to the cause was the seriousness of some to achieve Pax America at any cost. The philosophy had many virtues but lost its intellectual bearings as much as the Conservative movement has. Any movement that needs a constant enemy I find flawed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Simplistic perhaps- but that is, alas, the nature of writing about 500 words. Also, I am not sure “scholarly” content is what TrueSlant or any publication that is read by more than 100 people at a time wants. I try to do something like “public sociology”- which might be described as overly simplistic analysis of how power operates in the world.
Still, I suppose my dislike of Neocons and their neoliberal economic policies is rather simplistic: I think they’re bad for most Americans (and most people in the world). I acknowledge they might be motivated by something other than greed (although it’s difficult to see from the outside), but in some ways, what they think they’re doing isn’t as important as what they’ve actually done.
In response to another comment. See in context »Few in politics get the chance to come up with a radical theory of foreign policy that strays, no veers uncontrollably off the usual path of American diplomacy and put it in to the test. The results are in, it didn’t work, it got the country in trouble, it killed people, wasted money, it made us venerable, it made a mockery of our values. It should not have been a surprise, the CIA and Pentagon have had many adventures with neocons that turned out badly.
I saw the man on CNN and thought that this country’s media has lost the meaning of disgrace and credibility.
With all the calling for American intervention in Iran, I wonder, is that what they want? Was their goal to create enough of a riot to attract Western attention, then let them roll in, take care of the problems (HAH!), and then let them have fun with their newfound democracy?
Laurie, don’t let the haters get you down. If we want a scholarly approach to something, we read scholars.
WOAH! Shocking ideas all over the place.