The New York Times had a good article on Thursday about the two prominent camps in conservative foreign policy, the pragmatists and the neocons, and their efforts to exude influence on the Republican nominee. It sounds like the neocons are winning (who would've guessed?):
But now one component of the fractious Republican partyforeign policy establishment — the so-called pragmatists, some ofwhom have come to view the Iraqwar or its execution as a mistake — is expressing concern that Mr.McCain might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp,the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush’s first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war.
The concerns have emerged in the weeks since Mr. McCain became his party’s presumptive nominee and began more formally assembling a list of foreign policy advisers. Among those on the list are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan, an author who helped write much of the foreign policy speech that Mr. McCain delivered in Los Angeles on March 26, in which he described himself as "a realistic idealist." Others include the security analyst Max Boot and a former United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton.
Bolton was infamous for his complete disdain for the U.N. as an organization; Kagan, of course, was a leading member of the Project for a New American Century, which was basically the incubator for the Iraq mess; and Max Boot has advocated for the use of "American might to promote American ideals," which I'm sure sounds very heroic to him, but which in practice is effectively arguing for imperialism. So, yeah, I'm hoping there isn't anybody left out there who believes McCain would do anything other than continue the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush. Not just in Iraq, but around the world.
The Times piece also pushes this bit of information out into the larger world:
One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate.
Despite the media's adoration of John McCain's national security experience, it turns out that he's ill-informed (we all saw the Iran-Al Qaeda clip), and moreover, doesn't even bother to do his homework on the issues of national security. Hmm... an ill-informed candidate who's overseen by a wide array of neoconservative foreign policy advisers. This sounds a bit familiar.
Cross-posted from The Left Anchor