DOCSLIB.ORG

Neoconservatism's Deadly Influence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neoconservatism's Deadly Influence HISTORYHISTORY— PAST AND PERSPECTIVE U.S.S.R. founder and former commander of the Soviet Army AP Images Leon Trotsky, a Bolshevik revolutionary and Marxist intellectual Neoconservatism’s Deadly Influence A look at the roots of neoconservatism and the reasons why this deadly movement must be rejected in favor of the true conservatism as envisioned by our Founders. by John F. McManus respects from the conservatism of the didly presented the movement’s attitude Republican party. We … accepted the in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol’s A neoconservative is a liberal who New Deal in principle, and had little journal, The National Interest. Boldly has been mugged by reality. affection for the kind of isolation- calling for the integration of the United — Irving Kristol ism that then permeated American States, Europe, and Japan, he yearned for a conservatism. “super-sovereign” state that would be “ec- he above definition has joyfully and onomically, culturally, and politically he- repeatedly been cited by many de- There you have it: neoconservatism’s most gemonic in the world.” Not satisfied with T fenders of neoconservatism. They prominent adherent wants it to be linked such a novel creation, he further urged a consider their branch of political thought to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal “new universalism [which] would require a benign movement even though its clout socialism and, because of its rejection of the conscious depreciation not only of has been recognized as dominant over the “isolationism,” to be further identified as American sovereignty but of the notion Bush administration. Kristol likely hopes a champion of meddling in the affairs of of sovereignty in general.” And he added: that everyone who learns of his quip will other nations. The opposite of isolation- “This is not as outrageous as it sounds.” emit a slight chuckle and remain con- ism, of course, is interventionism, a tactic Maybe not to a neoconservative, but a real vinced that neoconservatism is no threat favored by all neoconservatives. Earlier, conservative and especially a constitution- to the nation. in 1983, Kristol claimed that “a conser- alist wouldn’t hesitate for a moment in la- But Irving Kristol, who has willingly vative welfare state is perfectly consistent beling such ideas “outrageous.” accepted the title of “Godfather of Neo- with the neoconservative perspective.” conservatism,” earlier produced a more Old-line conservatives would justly label Neoconservatism’s Roots incisive definition of the movement he the phrase “conservative welfare state” a During the 1960s and into the 1970s, the helped to create. In his 1995 book Neo- classic oxymoron. By 1993, in a piece he “small but talented and articulate group” conservatism: the Autobiography of an authored for the Wall Street Journal, the Kristol haughtily described sought a new Idea, he wrote: Godfather lauded Social Security, Medi- home for its ideology. Leftists to the core, care, food stamps, and Medicaid, even a most were followers of Leon Trotsky, the It describes the erosion of liberal faith cash allowance for the children of unwed revolutionary communist leader who was among a relatively small but talented mothers. Virtually any socialist program expelled from Russia following a power and articulate group … (which grad- can count on support from the neoconser- struggle with Stalin in the 1920s. They ually gained more recruits) toward vative camp. didn’t like Stalin, but they did like the style a more conservative point of view: As for interventionist meddling, neo- of communism advocated by Trotsky. In conservative but different in certain conservative Charles Krauthammer can- his 1995 book Neoconservatism, Kristol 36 THE NEW AMERICAN • JANUARY 22, 2007 HISTORYHISTORY— PAST AND PERSPECTIVE proudly stated, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” As students of the communist movement well know, Trotsky broke with Stalin in 1927 merely over which tactics would best succeed in achieving the world domination each sought. Run out of Russia by his former partner in monstrous crime, Trotsky ended up in Mexico, never renounced his desire to communize or so- cialize the world, and went to his Maker when one of Stalin’s henchmen plunged an axe into his skull in 1940. The Trotsky link provides a key to un- derstanding neoconservatives. Writing in 1995 in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs The countercultural excesses of the New Left during the 1972 Democratic candidacy of Sen. about John Erhman’s The Rise of Neocon- George McGovern (center) encouraged neoconservatism’s godfather and others to move to servatism, reviewer John Judis confirmed the GOP. Pictured at McGovern’s right during a campaign stop in Little Rock, Arkansas, is a that “the other important influence on neo- youthful campaign worker named Bill Clinton. AP Images conservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism anti-communist GOP conservatives who controls, and the use of America’s military including The Public Interest founder Irving seemed oblivious to the fact they were under UN auspices to build George H.W. Kristol … were either members of or close welcoming socialists and internationalists Bush’s “new world order.” (Though Bush to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and into their midst. never defined the term “new world order,” early 1940s.” Other important early lead- Neocons didn’t exert much influence it has long been known to mean socialism ers of the movement included Commentary during the Ford- and Carter-led 1970s, al- and world government, the cardinal tenets Editor Norman Podhoretz, his wife Midge though many more moved into the GOP. of neoconservatism.) Newly identifiable Decter, Ben Wattenberg, Edward Luttwak, They found they had a good friend in Ron- neocons in the first Bush administration Elliott Abrams, Carl Gershman, Michael ald Reagan when he courted them during included Defense Department leaders Ledeen, and Nathan Glazer. Among later his 1980 campaign and then gave several Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Rich- adherents could be found Michael Novak, of them administration posts when he tri- ard Perle. Delighted to be in charge of the William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel umphed. Long on pleasing rhetoric but world’s only remaining superpower, they Moynihan, Wall Street Journal editorialist short on comparable performance, Rea- set out to use America’s armed might to Robert Bartley, and Kristol’s son William, gan named Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador force their brand of “democracy” on the who currently presides over The Weekly to the UN, and Richard Perle and Elliott world. Standard. Abrams were given posts in the Defense Buckley’s little-known preference for Many of the early neocons were Demo- Department. To a man, neocons joined the neocon agenda, both its foreign and crats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by Kristol in praising Reagan for being “the domestic policy elements, deserves men- the Democratic candidacy of George Mc- first Republican president to pay tribute to tion. In 1952, while he was serving in the Govern because of his isolationism and his Franklin D. Roosevelt.” CIA in what he later termed a “deep cover” embrace of the countercultural excesses assignment in Mexico, the widely accepted of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical More Neocon Successes leader of American conservatism wrote in feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they No review of the rise of neoconservative Commonweal magazine of the need for saw propelled the early neocons to seek a prominence is complete without noting the “Big Government for the duration,” and for new home in the Republican Party. Irving role played by William F. Buck- Kristol explained that the South Dakota ley in bringing it about. In 1991, senator’s strident opposition to the Viet- Buckley sponsored an invitation- In a 1996 edition of The Essential nam War and willing acceptance of the only, three-day conference for two Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark New Left’s attack on traditional values dozen conservative Republicans. “signified that the Democratic Party was Enthusiastically described by Kris- Gerson jubilantly observed, “The not hospitable to any degree of neoconser- tol, the event saw attendees arrive neoconservatives have so changed vatism.” He wrote that he and a few others as conservatives first, but “by the arrived at the “obvious conclusion that we end of the meeting, a significant re- conservatism that what we now would have to try to find a home in the versal had occurred.... Most were identify as conservatism is largely Republican party.” Find a home they did! Republicans first and conservatives And they were giddily accepted, not only second.” They would now accept what was once neoconservatism.” by liberal Republicans but also by many increased taxation, more federal THE NEW AMERICAN • JANUARY 22, 2007 37 HISTORYHISTORY— PAST AND PERSPECTIVE “large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington — even with Truman at the reins of it all.” Even before Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and other neocon lu- minaries, and even before anyone had even heard the term neoconservative, Buckley was promoting its agenda. More than any other individual, Buckley succeeded dur- ing 50 years of clever duplicity in taking real conservatives away from their roots and into the grasp of the neocons.* In a 1996 edition of The Essential Neo- conservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed, “The neoconserva- tives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. Pied piper: National Review founder William F. Buckley led conservatives astray to a And in so doing, they have defined the thinly disguised liberal/internationalist ideology now known as neoconservatism. He is shown here when he ran for mayor of New York City in 1965.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:06-Cv-00596-RCL Document 65 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 48
    Case 1:06-cv-00596-RCL Document 65 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ELIZABETH MURPHY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 06-cv-596 (RCL) ) ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction. This case arises out of the October 23, 1983, bombing of the United States Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon (“the Beirut bombing”), where a suicide bomber murdered 241 American military servicemen in the most deadly state-sponsored terrorist attack upon Americans until the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001. The Court will first discuss the background of this case: the commencement of this case by plaintiffs, the later inclusion of plaintiffs in intervention, the retroactive application of recent changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the judicial notice taken of findings and conclusions made in a related case, the entry of default judgment, and a summary of the claims made in this case. Second, the Court will make findings of fact. Third, the Court will discuss the Court’s personal and subject- matter jurisdiction. Fourth, the Court will discuss defendants’ liability under the federal cause of action created by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Finally, the Court will award compensatory and punitive damages as appropriate. Case 1:06-cv-00596-RCL Document 65 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 48 II. Background. This case contains two complaints: one by the plaintiffs, the other by the plaintiffs in intervention (also referred to as “intervenor plaintiffs” or “intervenors”). The terrorism exception to the FSIA, as recently amended, applies retroactively to claims made by both plaintiffs and intervenors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neocons… They're Back
    Published by Americans for The Link Middle East Understanding, Inc. Volume 45, Issue 3 Link Archives: www.ameu.org July-August 2012 The Neocons… They’re Back By John Mahoney The Link Page 2 AMEU Board About This Issue of Directors Jane Adas (Vice President ) The names of those pictured on our refugee camp, when a 15-year-old stone- Elizabeth D. Barlow front cover are, on the left, from top to throwing Palestinian told a Wall Street Edward Dillon bottom: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Journal reporter that he’d like to become Lewis Libby, and Douglas Feith; and on a doctor. Inspired by that account, Fahim, Rod Driver the right, from top to bottom: David a Palestinian-American living in Virginia, John Goelet Wurmser, William Kristol, John Bolton, along with his wife Nancy, founded the David Grimland and Michael Ledeen. Hope Fund. By the time of his death on Richard Hobson ( Treasurer ) April 16 of this year, the Hope Fund had Each of the above played a prominent made it possible for 32 impoverished Pal- Anne R. Joyce role in the buildup to the U.S. war in Iraq, estinian refugees from the West Bank, Hon. Robert V. Keeley as detailed in our Sept.-Oct. 2004 Link Gaza, Jordan and Lebanon to obtain un- Kendall Landis “Timeline for War.” Eight years later, dergraduate education at American col- Robert L. Norberg (President ) Americans are again being told that an- leges. We are pleased to note that, as a other Middle East country is threatening Hon. Edward L. Peck result of Fahim’s Link article, the Hope us — and Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Chapter 1
    Notes Introduction 1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1970). 2. Ralph Pettman, Human Behavior and World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1975); Giandomenico Majone, Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 275– 76. 3. Bernard Lewis, “The Return of Islam,” Commentary, January 1976; Ofira Seliktar, The Politics of Intelligence and American Wars with Iraq (New York: Palgrave Mac- millan, 2008), 4. 4. Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in Amer- ica (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000). 5. Bernard Lewis, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” Atlantic Monthly, September, 1990; Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs 72 (1993): 24– 49; Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Chapter 1 1. Quoted in Joshua Muravchik, The Uncertain Crusade: Jimmy Carter and the Dilemma of Human Rights (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Press, 1986), 11– 12, 114– 15, 133, 138– 39; Hedley Donovan, Roosevelt to Reagan: A Reporter’s Encounter with Nine Presidents (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 165. 2. Charles D. Ameringer, U.S. Foreign Intelligence: The Secret Side of American History (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1990), 357; Peter Meyer, James Earl Carter: The Man and the Myth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978), 18; Michael A. Turner, “Issues in Evaluating U.S. Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 5 (1991): 275– 86. 3. Abram Shulsky, Silent Warfare: Understanding the World’s Intelligence (Washington, DC: Brassey’s [US], 1993), 169; Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H8337
    September 22, 2005 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H8337 power which constitutes the greatest threat Contrary to their claim of nation-building visional ethnic terminologies have become to Israel’’ and that a division of Iraq ‘‘into in Iraq and nurturing democratic institu- conspicuously common in daily political dis- provinces along ethnic/religious lines . is tions, the neoconservatives have made sure course. possible. So three (or more) states will exist that every effort must be made to prevent Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing around the three major cities: Basra, Bagh- the Iraqis from exercising their rights to run debate concerning the constitution, the dad and Mosul, and Shiite areas in the south their own country and establish an open and neoconservatives have already inflicted dam- will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish free country. When General Jay Garner at- age to the fabric of Iraqi society. north.’’ tempted, in early 2003, to allow Iraqis to Fragmenting Iraq and kindling sectarian/ Critics and political commentators agree chart their own destiny, he was immediately ethnic discords are weapons of cultural and that the neoconservatives are obsessed with replaced. His successor, Paul Bremer, closely national destruction, a menace to civiliza- a grand design to militarize the globe and followed the neoconservatives’ agenda. tion. They represent a threat to American globalize fear. Knowledgeable observers, The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported interests and to regional stability. More im- however, acknowledge that the core of the (June 3, 2005) that the occupational author- portantly, they evidence a purposeful activa- neoconservatives’ thinking revolves around ity has institutionalised corruption. The cor- tion of the clash of civilizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    OUP UNCORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Sat Sep 19 2020, NEWGEN C& Introduction Christopher McKnight Nichols and Andrew Preston C&.P' What is grand strategy? What does it aim to achieve? Does it have relevance— and, if so, applicability—beyond questions of war and peace? And what di!erentiates it from normal strategic thought— what, in other words, makes it “grand”? C&.P( In recent years, historians and other scholars have o!ered useful de"nitions, most of which coalesce around the notion that grand strategy is an ampli"cation of the “normal” strategic practice of deploying various means to attain speci"c ends.1 “#e crux of grand strategy,” writes Paul Kennedy, co- founder of the in$uential Grand Strategy program at Yale University, “lies . in policy, that is, in the capacity of the nation’s leaders to bring together all the elements, both military and nonmilitary, for the preservation and enhancement of the nation’s long-term (that is, in war- time and peacetime) best interests.”2 John Lewis Gaddis, the program’s co- founder with Kennedy, de"nes grand strategy succinctly as “the align- ment of potentially unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited capabil- ities.”3 Hal Brands, an alumnus of Yale’s program and a contributor to this volume, observes that grand strategy is best understood as an “intellectual architecture that lends structure to foreign policy; it is the logic that helps states navigate a complex and dangerous world.”4 Peter Feaver, who followed Yale’s model when establishing a grand strategy program at Duke University, is somewhat more speci"c: “Grand strategy refers to the collection of plans and policies that comprise the state’s deliberate e!ort to harness political, military, diplomatic, and economic tools together to advance that state’s na- tional interest.”5 International Relations theorist Stephen Walt is even more precise: “A state’s grand strategy is its plan for making itself secure.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Policy Toward Iran—Next Steps Hearing
    UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAN—NEXT STEPS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 8, 2006 Serial No. 109–183 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 26–438PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 21 2002 12:49 Aug 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\FULL\030806\26438.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, HOWARD L. BERMAN, California Vice Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California Samoa ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California PETER T. KING, New York ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DARRELL ISSA, California BARBARA LEE, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JERRY WELLER, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B.
    [Show full text]
  • Does China Pose an Immediate Threat to U.S. Strategic Interests And, If So, Will the Envisioned Asian Pivot Address Such Concerns?
    February 2014 | Issue 11 1 Does China pose an immediate threat to U.S. strategic interests and, if so, will the envisioned Asian pivot address such concerns? Strategika CONFLICTS OF THE PAST AS LESSONS FOR THE PRESENT Issue From 11 the Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict at the HooverFebruary Institution 2014 Image: Poster Collection, CC 75, Hoover Institution Archives Military History in Contemporary Conflict As the very name of Hoover Institution attests, military history lies at the very core of our dedi- cation to the study of “War, Revolution, and Peace.” Indeed, the precise mission statement of the Hoover Institution includes the following promise: “The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man’s endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life.” From its origins as a library and archive, the Hoover Institution has evolved into one of the foremost research centers in the world for policy formation and pragmatic analysis. It is with this tradition in mind, that the “Working Group on the Role of Military History in Contemporary Conflict” has set its agenda— reaffirming the Hoover Institution’s dedication to historical research in light of contemporary challenges, and in particular, reinvigorating the national study of military history as an asset to foster and enhance our national security. By bringing together a diverse group of distinguished military historians, security analysts, and military veterans and practitioners, the working group seeks to examine the conflicts of the past as critical lessons for the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Ledeen, the Neoconservatives, and The
    Hugh B. Urban such conservative think-tanks as the American Enterprise Institute and 321.64:321.7 the Project for the New American Century, counting among their ranks politicians and militarists including Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rums- feld, and Dick Cheney, as well as such intellectuals as Irving Kristol, HUGH B. URBAN William Kristol, and (until recently) Francis Fukuyama. Despite their many ideological, cultural, and socioeconomic differences, these two factions have come together in the current White House and have found common ground in the policies of George W. Bush. Indeed, Bush represents a kind of structural link or ligament that helps tie these two, otherwise very different factions together: He embodies the MACHIAVELLI MEETS THE RELIGIOUS ideals of piety, morality, and family values that appeal to his strongest RIGHT: MICHAEL LEDEEN, THE base of popular support among evangelical Christians, while at the same time embracing the aggressive militarism and nation-building NEOCONSERVATIVES, AND THE POLITICAL agenda promoted by the Neoconservatives. The result is what David USES OF FUNDAMENTALISM Domke has called a kind of „political fundamentalism,” that is, „an in- tertwining of conservative religious faith, politics, and strategic com- munication.”5 In this essay, I will expand Domke’s notion of political funda- Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of mentalism by examining what I will call the political uses of funda- every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not mentalism6—that is, the strategic manipulation of religious beliefs, America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity ..
    [Show full text]
  • Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1980
    Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1980 Robert L. Richardson, Jr. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2009 Approved by, Michael H. Hunt, Chair Richard Kohn Timothy McKeown Nancy Mitchell Roger Lotchin Abstract Robert L. Richardson, Jr. Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1985 (Under the direction of Michael H. Hunt) This dissertation examines the origins and evolution of neoconservatism as a philosophical and political movement in America from 1945 to 1980. I maintain that as the exigencies and anxieties of the Cold War fostered new intellectual and professional connections between academia, government and business, three disparate intellectual currents were brought into contact: the German philosophical tradition of anti-modernism, the strategic-analytical tradition associated with the RAND Corporation, and the early Cold War anti-Communist tradition identified with figures such as Reinhold Niebuhr. Driven by similar aims and concerns, these three intellectual currents eventually coalesced into neoconservatism. As a political movement, neoconservatism sought, from the 1950s on, to re-orient American policy away from containment and coexistence and toward confrontation and rollback through activism in academia, bureaucratic and electoral politics. Although the neoconservatives were only partially successful in promoting their transformative project, their accomplishments are historically significant. More specifically, they managed to interject their views and ideas into American political and strategic thought, discredit détente and arms control, and shift U.S. foreign policy toward a more confrontational stance vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Killing Hope U.S
    Killing Hope U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II – Part I William Blum Zed Books London Killing Hope was first published outside of North America by Zed Books Ltd, 7 Cynthia Street, London NI 9JF, UK in 2003. Second impression, 2004 Printed by Gopsons Papers Limited, Noida, India w w w.zedbooks .demon .co .uk Published in South Africa by Spearhead, a division of New Africa Books, PO Box 23408, Claremont 7735 This is a wholly revised, extended and updated edition of a book originally published under the title The CIA: A Forgotten History (Zed Books, 1986) Copyright © William Blum 2003 The right of William Blum to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Cover design by Andrew Corbett ISBN 1 84277 368 2 hb ISBN 1 84277 369 0 pb Spearhead ISBN 0 86486 560 0 pb 2 Contents PART I Introduction 6 1. China 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid? 20 2. Italy 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style 27 3. Greece 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state 33 4. The Philippines 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony 38 5. Korea 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be? 44 6. Albania 1949-1953: The proper English spy 54 7. Eastern Europe 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor 56 8. Germany 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism 60 9. Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings 63 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Luttwak Distinguished Adjunct Fellow
    Edward Luttwak Distinguished Adjunct Fellow Dr. Edward N. Luttwak is a Distinguished Adjunct Fellow at The Marathon Initiative, a policy initiative focused on developing strategies to prepare the United States for an era of sustained great power competition. Previously, Luttwak has served on U.S. presidential transition teams, testified before committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and has advised the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. National Security Council, the White House Chief of Staff, and several allied governments, including Japan. Luttwak is the author of several books, including Coup d’état: A Practical Handbook (Penguin, 1968), which derived from his work as a London-based oil consultant; The Israeli Army, with Dan Horowitz (Allen Lane, 1975); The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), which derived from his Ph. D. dissertation; The Pentagon and The Art Of War: The Question Of Military Reform (Simon & Schuster, 1985), which was a cited source of the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act; Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987), which is widely assigned in professional military education programs; Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy (HarperCollins, 1999), which introduced the concept of geo-economics, the logic of war in the grammar of commerce; The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009); and, most recently, The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012), which derived from a study for the U.S.
    [Show full text]