Cinnamon Stillwell strikes again!
The San Francisco Chronicle's favorite ex-liberal conservative writes yet another opinion piece.
OPINION: Revenge of the Neocons. 3/9/05
I'm glad the Chronicle is willing to such "red opinions" since it is most definitely in a "blue" market. I do enjoy civilized discourse with conservative neighbors.
I'm also emailing the link to the author.
My point by point rebuttal after the fold.
The original neocons were liberal intellectuals who gravitated toward the Republican Party in the late 1960s and early '70s out of frustration with the Democrats' approach to defense. Distinguishing themselves from traditional conservative isolationists, they later formed the core of the Reagan Republicans. They supported the Reagan administration's strategies toward the Soviet Union, which are now credited in large part with its demise.
In the wake of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, the muscular yet idealistic foreign policy of the neocons has once again come to the fore. Neocons believe it's in the interest of both the United States and the international community to live in a world relatively free of tyranny and simmering discontent. In short, spreading freedom is a win-win situation.
All of this makes the hostility toward them and President Bush for adopting such policies all the more puzzling -- especially when it comes from those who profess an interest in promoting human rights. But as democracy takes hold in the Muslim world before our very eyes, it seems the neocons are having their revenge at last.
The US won the Cold War not through the hard power of America's armed forces but through the soft power of America's culture. By the end of the Cold War, the Russian, East Germans, Poles (you can't forget Poland) and other ex-Soviet Bloc peoples wanted to be like Americans with their MTV, McDonalds and blue jeans.
The President is trying to win this war through brute force, not but cultural power. We are not solving the root problems of terrorism. We ae not convincingly offering an alternative to fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East.
President Bush is only paying lip serivice to the ideals of freedom and democracy. His original intentions to get into Iraq was to get rid of WMDs and a threat to America, freedom didn't really become a big part of the equation until recently. Freedom and democracy are best spread in non-violent ways, like the fall of the USSR and the Orange Revolution. We are not spreading democracy in the Middle East in a non-violent way.
Meanwhile, in Egypt, longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak, bowing to pressure from homegrown protesters and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has agreed to allow multiparty presidential candidates in the next election.
Those Egyptian elections will be a sham, opposition party leader, Ayman Nour, is still in jail. It's just a token move to the the US off Egypt's back. It's not real reform, just the appearance of it. Would there be true multi-party elections in America if Howard Dean and all the other opposition party leaders were in jail? No.
Within days of what's been dubbed the Cedar Revolution, the entire Lebanese government resigned. Ever since then, Syrian President Bashar Assad and assorted diplomats have been scrambling to convince the international community, including Arab nations, that they plan to withdraw. These scenes, reminiscent of Ukraine's Orange Revolution, were broadcast all over the Arab world and may yet inspire similar "peaceful uprisings" elsewhere.
Let's not count our eggs before they hatch. The Hezbollah, which is a legitimate political party in Lebanon (kinda like the Sinn Fein and the IRA) organized a big counter-rally. Syrian troops have yet to really leave the country. Let's hope the situation remains calm over there, it can get ugly.
Furthermore, Islamic terrorism has nothing to offer Muslims in the long run, and they know it. Though the Islamofascists will continue trying to wreak havoc in Iraq and beyond, ultimately, what they're selling has already been tried, and, under the Taliban in Afghanistan, it failed.
Yes, terrorism has nothing to offer muslims in the long run, but in the short term some muslims believe it is their only option. We must convince these people of other more civilized and peaceful options, not by the force of our arms.
Whatever one's reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, to extend that opposition to the wave of freedom enveloping the Muslim world is to place oneself squarely on the wrong side of history. As President Bush recently said, "Freedom is on the march." The question is, are you for it, or against it?
Does this mean that if I disagree with my president that I am somehow less of an American that you are? I am a Patriotic American who disagrees who the leadership of my country. To be a patriot one need to only love their country, and I love this land I live in. Yes, "Freedon is on the march" but whether or not it will stick depends on how freedom is spread. Cramming American-style freedom down the throats of Middle Easterners will not achieve our goals, it may give impetus for even more terrorism. You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.