Are Neocons cooking their own goose?
We have noted in passing (Topic 1) the "National Security Strategy of the U.S." document of September 2002 as a watershed change in our foreign policy. It may be worthwhile dwelling on some of the ideas and people behind that document. This article is from the 27 July 2003 issue of the Sacramento Bee.
While many debate the wisdom of current efforts by neoconservatives in the Republican Party to create their vision of Pax Americana, I wonder if the historical outcome hasn't already been determined.That is, while Republicans on all sides worry about "containing" what was once considered a war behind closed doors between unilateralist hawks (the neocons) and multilateralist moderates in the party over a policy based upon U.S. hegemony -- world dominance -- I wonder if it isn't an already irreversibly failed policy simply because the American people were never seriously included by anyone, even the media, in the discussion.
I wonder if the worldview of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, columnists William Kristol, Lawrence Kaplan, Robert Kagan and other members and leaders of the Defense Policy Board, American Enterprise Institute and The Project for a New American Century is already dead because not only did they not make a case for hegemony to the public, they never seriously attempted to even define the term or explain the concept.
And, now, it is too late. Because the public has little understanding of the depth and breadth of their vision of global politics and is already growing weary of American involvement in Iraq, the neocons' grander plan seems destined to never come to fruition. By choosing to not present it directly to the public at large and thereby commence an examination and debate, they have unwittingly undermined it as a viable theory and now we are witnessing the manifestations of its slow and costly death.
I hope that Roger Patching is right in thinking that since the understanding and acceptance of a hegemonic policy by the American public has not been achieved, the goals of the movement will not be realized. But even if he is correct in that, do we have any idea of what the ultimate cost will be either in dollars or in lives of this experiment in hegemony?
So what is this hegemony theory all about and why is the public's general lack of awareness of it important? While my colleagues may dutifully criticize me for oversimplification, it isn't all that complicated. All governments conduct all policies based upon theories of what is happening, what ought to happen and why. Therein lies the endless debate that characterizes all democracies.The impetus for and nature of current American operations in Iraq and elsewhere are consistent with the theory of hegemony that drives the neocons in charge. While they were not able to sell it to Bush senior or Clinton, they were successful with Bush junior.
Hegemony theory focuses on the rise and decline of global and regional superpowers, or "hegemons." From the Greek "hegemonia" (the predominance of one state over another), it examines the causes and effects, pros and cons, of the dominance of one state over a region or the world. The theory partly attempts to explain global stability and instability during the last few centuries and assumes that stable world order requires a dominant single leader to maintain order. [Emphasis added]
The highlighted sentence on stability is germane to our effort to articulate policy outcomes for American foreign policy.
Americans want to do the right thing and have their government do the right thing, but are becoming increasingly confused. They don't know that Iraq was targeted for our hegemonic expansion, along with other regions, well before Sept. 11, 2001. They don't know that Iraqi oil reserves were central to U.S. energy planning by this administration prior to the attack by mostly Saudis on the Twin Towers. They don't know that we invaded Iraq without an exit strategy because hegemons don't leave and that Iraqi sovereignty is not part of the agenda. They are not aware that there is a global theory at work and Iraq is just part of it.. . .
Worse, in terms of credibility, is the advice provided by Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national security official and key neocon strategist. Author of a 1999 book entitled "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership," and a more recent publication, "The War Against the Terror Masters," he is quite comfortable advising that "lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." [Emphasis added]
Such "strategic deception" is presumably morally justifiable as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. So, given this operational premise, how can one discern, here or abroad, the difference between governmental information and disinformation, truth and lies? While we shall clearly be deeply involved in Iraq for years to come, maybe the end of the necons' global vision is already a done deal. Given the litany of current problems at home and worries of an Iraqi quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam, this is not a good time to explain the true nature, plans and cost of world hegemony. The public has not been prepared for it and now wouldn't accept it.
Go ahead, read the whole article and judge for yourself: can the American public be sold on the idea of American world hegemony? Do you think that the administration will make the effort? What alternative approach might be used?