Rhetoric  &  Reality

This page offers a collection of readings for fellow conservatives and others interested in the origins and goals of current American foreign policy, especially as related to the Middle East and the war in Iraq.

Since 2002, policies which a  number of key officials in the Bush administration have advocated since prior to the 2000 election, have received increased attention.  Notable is the advocacy of  preemptive war, an emphasis on unilateral rather that multilateral warfare, and an insistence on American dominance throughout all regions of the world, space, and cyberspace. This aggressively interventionist foreign policy is alien to the beliefs of many conservatives, who would consider such policies threatening if they were the held by an ally.

While the Bush Doctrine of preemption sharply contrasts with the "more humble" foreign policy publicly advocated in 2000 by presidential candidate Bush, who repeatedly promised to avoid the interventionist "nation building" exploits of his predecessor, it has a developmental history going back to at least the early 1990's.

Although aggressively interventionist policies conflict with the values of many traditional, small-government conservatives, many supported the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of disarming Saddam Hussein.

The failure to find expected weapons of mass destruction has been disturbing for many who supported the invasion for this purpose.  Moreover:

• as the stated mission of the war was re-defined from the more specific goal of disarming Saddam Hussein into that of "creating democracy" in Iraq, with an indeterminate exit strategy,
• as  increasing majorities of the "liberated", both Sunni and Shiite, have pronounced us to be unwelcome occupiers,
• as promises to bring our troops home promptly upon completion of our specific mission has given way to the prospect of a perpetual occupation,
• as the "occupation" has been re-defined  by the Administration as having "ended" even as troop deployments are increasing and as 14 "enduring bases" are under construction,

many of these former supporters of the invasion have questioned the true intentions of our political leadership.

In this context, a study of the ideology of the civilian, non-veteran "neoconservatives" now holding key positions in the Department of Defense, which culminated the codification of preemptive war, unilateralism and world domination in a new National Security Strategy (NSS) adopted September 20, 2002, and in the Bush Doctrine of preemption, is enlightening.

For a national discussion of the merits of our foreign policy to occur - whether our policies are likely to:
>

•  diminish  or  increase terrorism,
•  nurture  or  alienate allies,
•  encourage a view of Americans as liberators   or   as unwelcome empire builders,
•  promote a view of America as a beacon of liberty   or   as policeman of the world,
  
•  increase our stature as world leaders  or  swell the ranks of those who are bent on bringing us harm,
•  result in preservation  or  erosion of  liberty at home,
  

we must first understand the world view implicit in that foreign policy, and the assumptions and values of those who have brought about its transformation.

“I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you ....but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you…..I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.”
                            George W. Bush
                            Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
                            October 11, 2000

• strong national defense while avoiding injudicious intervention, "nation building", over-extension of our troops, or ambitions of empire
• fiscal responsibility
• respect for individual rights and responsibility

• ideology of global domination
• misrepresentation of motives & goals of foreign policy
• fiscal recklessness
• diminution in civil liberties
  

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that....

....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker ."

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: "Today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during peacetime. I would like to know what you are -- I think we would all like to know what you as president would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world."

BUSH: "If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world."

"Paul O'Neill Tells the Truth", Bill Press, World Net Daily

Al-Qaida is 18,000 strong, War in Iraq Swelling Its Ranks,  Associated Press, May 26, 2004

Terror Attacks Up Sharply in 2003, State Department Admits, CNN, June 14, 2004

"The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year..."

"Most of the major key judgments in the ... 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

As Vice President  Dick Cheney put it several months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the primary organizing dynamic at work in the world today is the creation of “the arrangement [for] the twenty-first century” in which “the United States will continue to be the dominant political, economic, and military power in the world” 

"The President's Real Goal in Iraq", Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 29, 2002
This is an archived copy of one of the first published analysis of the origins of the transformation of American foreign policy.

"The True Rationale? It's a Decade Old", James Mann, Washington Post, March 7, 2004

"The War Behind Closed Doors", PBS Frontline, February 20, 2003, extensive analysis of the evolution of Bush administration foreign policy, chronology, and interviews with leading neoconservatives and critics, and 52 minute video

"Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and Their Blueprint for U.S. Power", Christian Science Monitor, August, 2003, extensive interactive introduction

"Neo-Conned", Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), also here    "The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted....Conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived...."  Congressman Paul 's detailed discussion of domestic and foreign policy aspects of neoconservatism.

"Origins of Regime Change in Iraq", Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 19, 2003

"Was It All Planned? Iraq and Empire-Builders" , Jon Basil Utley, Robert A. Taft  Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, director of the conservative/libertarian Americans Against World Empire, and adviser, Antiwar.com.  The Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, and opposes government intervention as economically and socially destructive.

"How We Got into This Imperial Pickle – a PNAC Primer", Bernard Weiner, Crisis Papers,  May 26, 2003

"Rumors of neocons’ demise exaggerated", Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2004, also here,  and here

-Karl Rove