Say What You Will About Neoconservatism… At Least It’s an Ideology
Richard Pearl explains that neoconservative ideology played a very small part in the invasion of Iraq. I guess he thinks he can wash his hands of the mess that he made and his philosophy will live to fight another ill-advised war some other day. To which I have to say, oh really? No one is buying this. And even if it were true, does it make anything better?
At this point I want the neoconservative movement to fess up to what they’ve wrought. This war was based in an ideology: the neoconservatives believed in a sort of democratizing domino effect that would be triggered by deposing Saddam Hussein. They were wrong, because they had no sense of what a power vacuum in Iraq would look like, but at least it was an ideology.
If neoconservative ideology wasn’t the basis for embarking on our crusade in Iraq, then our invasion of Iraq was inherently nihilistic. We didn’t go to steal their oil, because we haven’t stolen their oil. We didn’t go because of WMDs because there were no WMDs. What we did do was spend a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to just kill some Iraqis and displace all their family members. Oh, and put them in naked human pyramids and point at their junk. If I were better at Photoshop, I think it would be worth it to do some Lebowski, Cheney mashup work…
But rather than just be negative about this whole thing, I’m going to say that a return to legalism as a guiding philosophy is happening. The Panetta nomination makes this clear. It’s not that all wars are bad, it’s that illegal ill-advised wars are bad, and all wars are a last resort, not something to be embarked upon lightly. This stuff is so obvious.
(H/T Sullivan)
