Well, kinda sorta:
A Questionable Kind Of Conservatism
... Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior. The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. That may be one reason why consideration is being given to a quite optional intervention -- regime change, actually -- in Liberia.
The "triumphalism and crusading zeal" part is certainly true. As is the implied argument that there's not much con in neocon. But it takes quite an intellectual gymnastics routine to arrive at the conclusion that the Bush team went to war to "strengthen the United Nations."
Commentator: A superb backflip and . . . oh, too bad! The judges aren't going to like that landing, Chris.
The reality, of course, is that for the neocons the UN resolutions on Iraq fell into the same category as Iraq's alleged WMDs: they made good selling points for the Sunday morning talk shows. But from the start, the invasion and occupation were designed -- if that's the right word for such a monumental fuck up -- to be an American show, with the credits reading something like this:
Uncle Sam
Casting by
Uncle Sam
Cinematography by
Uncle Sam
Directed by
Uncle Sam
Produced by
Uncle Sam
Uncle Sam's wardrobe provided by
The United Nations
Marginalizing the U.N. is actually more of a sacred tenet (no pun intended) for the neocons than it is for the "realists," (Powell, Scowcroft, et. al.) who understand that at times the U.N. banner can be a very useful flag of convenience for the U.S.S. Superpower. The neocons, on the other hand, prefer the Jolly Rodger -- what the US can't do openly it should do covertly. That's why the good Lord created intelligence agencies.
This is especially true in the Middle East. For the neocons, America's job in the region is to keep the Israelis in, the U.N. out, and the Arabs down -- to paraphrase a British diplomat's famous quip about the role of NATO in Europe.
I don't know why Will feels compelled to fudge the administration's motives in going to war in Iraq. But, given the U.N.'s negative image among the GOP masses -- particularly those of the Jesse Helms persuasion -- it definitely adds a nasty sting to his critique. This is interesting, given that Will himself has sometimes been described as a neocon. Is he the canary in the conservative coal mine?
Could be. Anyone who watched Will distance himself from the first Bush adminstration as it careened towards its doom in the summer of 1992 knows that the sage doesn't suffer losers gladly. And if the news remains bad, we may see more media canaries keeling over before long.
Ironically, Will may end up being right -- albeit for the wrong reasons. As I discussed in this post, and in this one, the neocons may have opened the door for the UN (and Europe and perhaps even Russia) to play a much bigger role in the Middle East than if Saddam and his regime had been left to molder. So the war indeed might end up strengthening the United Nations as the "author and enforcer of international norms of behavior."
Truly, the march of folly can lead to some strange destinations.
The conservatives are lining up to offer their abject apologies now. The important thing to remember is - DO NOT FORGIVE THEM. They will turn right around and stab you in the back again at the first convenient opportunity.
Apologies for the previous (possibly tasteless) post which I wrote. Reading your article evoked memories of some of the best political arguments lampooned in the MONTY PYTHON movies, and from there it was a short hop to the "I'm not dead yet" [whack!].
The cons--neo and otherwise--made their bed; now it's time for them to lie in it, while it burns. I just hope that they flame out before America goes completely down the tubes.
I was going to tell "Uday" that if he's not dead, he's doing a damned good impression of it.
The Will statement about the UN seems to me to be ambiguous. It could be taken as the drawing out of a logical consequence. "If the war was waged to enforce UN resolutions, then that entails an intention to strengthen the UN." If, however, as is manifestly the case, the administration intends to weaken the UN, then it is entangled in another contradiction.
It is absurd to claim to be enforcing UN resolutions, while striving to make the UN irrelevant at the same time.
I think this is not a bad argument, regardless of what Will may have meant.
If we were wrong, that is something I am confident history will forgive.
Damn you, secular infidel, for taking my screen time! I'M supposed to be the Arab martyr!
As is the implied argument that there's not much "con" in neocon.
Au contraire, mon frer! I would argue that there's quite a lot of "con" in these neocons. They conned us into going to war, into believing that Hussein was reconstituting his nukes, into believe that he had tons of biochem weapons...
If we are going to pretend to play along with the UN, shouldn't we be on our way to Israel et al right now? They seem to be in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq was.
A great link:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html
Reminds me of when Shrub tried to bully the UN to "prove it is relevant" by knuckling under and agreeing with him. UN members did indeed prove the UN was relevant by refusing to do so.
Be careful what you wish for...
George Will is Making Sense
Don't worry. It'll pass. Even strong antipsychotic medications only last a short while.
You can tell from the argument about the UN that doesn't make any sense that even strong antipsychotics are not enough for Mr. Will.
A British Conservative MP made this argument before the war. Talking about the Troskyite roots of the orignal neoconservatives he said something like that freedom can happen by a raw exercise of power is itself a leftist idea. He criticized his party for aligning with Tony Blair
I think that Will is misunderstood by the commentator. I think he meant to say something like, "So now the administration is trying to say tha war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior."
IOW: Will's not performing any rhetorical gymnastics regarding UN authorization to war, he's marvelling in a perplexed and flabbergasted way at those who are making such a point.
Read Will's article in its entirety. He's a real conservative who's befuddled at the abandonment of the principles he loves by those who claim most to adhere to them.
I'll give Will some credit for slapping his own party around for violating their own credos.
Let's all give a big round of applause to the pompous ass George Will for writing his bi-annual honest column.
"Let's all give a big round of applause to the pompous ass George Will for writing his bi-annual honest column."
I'll give a one-handed clap for that.
Of course, I think there is much in Billmon's assertion that Will is just the latest rodent to jump off the sinking ship SS Dubya. The only losers he'll stick with are the Chicago Cubs. Even then, I'll bet that as a kid, when the World Series started he always found some excuse to root for the Yankees.
There was a time--before he became such a rabid defender of all things Reagan and defiler of all things Clinton--that Will made sense relatively often. (And no, I'm not talking about his baseball columns.) He never much cared for Dubya's father, but of course that can be said of many conservatives.
They waged the war to enforce UN resolutions? Does the United Nations NOT authorizing force in Iraq sound familiar? Does Bush's whole "we're going to war no matter what you say" thing sound familiar?
I can't believe this guy could say that with a straight face - unless he's employing the Doublethink strategy most conservatives seem to be so adept at.
More and more cracks are appearing in the dam that has been the most known conservative political pundits when it came to criticizing junior.
They almost seem to believe what I do that he will pander to anyone to remain in power and that he has no real guiding principles of his own. Like Nixon I can barely stand to watch him speak though not for the same reason. There is a blankness about him as though he is thinking really hard on how to stay on whatever message of the day he has been given to parrot. In candid moments the smirk comes out that shows his real inner contempt for anyone who is not as 'great' as him.
Billmon, you have seen Bambi Meets Godzilla, haven't you?
L
I like the part of the column where Will mentions that Howard Dean will say anyting to whatever group he's pandering to. They're going for the same smear b.s. used against Gore.
I think the [Technical] President even made mention of Gore/Deans penchant for sucking up to interest groups at that speech at Bob Jones University. Or was it at the American Enterprise Institute? I forget.
What a dickhead.
"You who would cut down every law in England in pursuit of the devil, what happens when you reach the coasts of Dover, and the Devil turns on you? Where will you hide, all the laws having been cut down?"
The right is about to learn that, having cut down every law in America in pursuit of their imagined devils of the left, that the devils of the far right are about to turn on them.
I'm not dead yet.