Ranting of a Former Neocon.

[Lone Pawn]

I have two political personalities, both of which vie for my political attentions. Both are social liberal, fiscal conservative. But foreign-policy-wise, one's a hawk and one's a dove. The hawk used to be a neocon. But no longer. He hasn't been since 9/11. Anyway, he/I have to get something off our chest.

----------

Look, I'm not outraged about the Marine shooting.

It's a casualty of war. Regrettable on a moral level, perhaps, but nothing worse than anything else that's happened. The Marine spooked and as a result another man is dead--but no more or less dead than any of the scores of thousands of dead that have resulted because of this war.

But I'm not that outraged about that either.

I'm not outraged about Abu Ghraib. It was a failure of leadership, true...but I'm dead to it. Evidence of evil doesn't hurt me anymore. I'm used to seeing it happen to others.

Hell, I'm not even outraged about the war itself. The photos mean nothing to me anymore. I read what I wrote back in the pre-war buildup and barely understand the rage I felt. I don't feel anything morally about this war. One would think that's what Bushco's aiming for.

But I don't feel any outrage about the terror attacks against Iraqi civilians or the rebellion against our soldiers. And I don't feel any outrage about the beheadings, or about the jihadis, or the Red Cross, or oil-for-food, or kidnappings, or hostages, or really anything they throw at us.

But the fact that I've lost outrage doesn't mean that I don't care.

I've become too immersed in it. For two years now I've looked at every fact, figure, and article I could about this war. And it's no longer a real thing to me. It's a fucking game. I see this entire thing as a motherfucking game. Some pickup match in the sand, of which military action is only a tiny part. I want victory. I want victory more than anything else because victory in the long run--the victory the intellectuals who duped us into this thing want--would mean a peaceful, democratic middle east. And that's a very good thing.

Because in 30 to 50 years, the Middle East is going to run dry. No more oil. And when that happens, there better be a damn strong social order there, or it'll become worse than Africa is now. There will be genocide, tribal war, famine, and terrorism like we've never seen. We should have started preparing 50 years ago. We should have put some thought into the decolonialization. But we didn't, and now we're trying to quickly put things right. Being stuck in a half-stable Middle East is bad. Being stuck with a non-stable Middle East is worse. Imagine a region-wide Somalia. And we can't just "escape" it. Pulling out is a start towards noninvolvement, but as long as we're the most powerful nation, we're the easiest target to rail against. Yeah, the Islamist movement is a threat to both us and them. I never had a problem with the neocons on principle.

What I had a problem with, both now and then, is that they did an absolute terrible job of "fixing" the middle east problem. They haven't "fixed" anything. It was a nice proposal, guys: go in there and turn 'em to our side, and in return they'll be economically dependent on us. They can't go after us because they need us for their economies. Nice idea. Too bad it didn't work at all. At all. The invasion of Iraq was the worst policy mistake since LBJ decided that what we really needed was a war in Vietnam. Possibly worse.

Because it didn''t work. Why? Outrage. But not ours. Muslim outrage. And that's the only outrage that really matters. The war in Iraq immediately defeated the war in Iraq. Perhaps we should have realized that our plan for winning the peace was pretty much the Israeli plan for "calming down" Palestine: indiscriminate justice. Blowing the shit out of anything that moves within a quarter-mile from the last place you saw a guy with a gun. Absolutely great. Too bad that made Iraqis angry. And too bad the Sunnis got pissed off that we kicked them out of power for a Shi'a-led government, and too bad the Shi'as want a theocracy, and too bad that military action only further turns the Iraqi populace against us.

And the worst part is the atrocities we've committed. I really couldn't care less that we've committed them. It's a fucking war. People fucking die. We knew that going into it that we would kill people. You can't fight a guerilla war against an enemy that blends into the populace without murdering the populace. We knew that in '02. Everybody knew that. We'd have soldiers die. We knew that then. We know that now. But we can easily afford this loss rate. No harm done. A few sad people, but no harm done to the nation. I told you this was a game to me.

But what pisses me off is the fact that people focus on the above paragraph as a dismissal of the importance of the photos and videos coming out of Iraq. Because, while true, it doesn't mean anything. Muslim civilians won't think, "Oh well, it's war. People die." They think, "How could any man be so cruel? How could the Americans be so cruel?" And really, when it keeps slipping out that we're pretty damn cruel, the entire Muslim world starts getting pretty damn outraged. Forget the beheadings--they don't give a damn. That's morally wrong of them, but morals don't change things. When it comes to geopolitics, truth is useful only for scoring points in debate. But we don't seem to get that. We go "Oh, yeah? Well they're worse! Where's their outrage?" I'll tell you where their outrage is, asshead. It's directed at us. And telling them "Now, now, your rage is misplaced. Your kind is much worse than our kind." doesn't go that far. But still my fellow hawks resort to that idiotic thinking instead of thinking about how to fix the damage caused. Yes, we're held to a different moral standard. Because we fucking invaded them as humanitarian liberators, and they expect us to be pretty damn humane. And if we aren't, they'll just assume we're lying invaders, and treat us as such. But no. No, no, no.

And the best part is the anti-American sentiment is spreading exponentially through the mideast. We're not winning. We're losing. And it's because of this motherfucking war.

These photos and videos worry me, but only because of what they mean to the game. They hurt our position. Come on, guys! Wake up! Stop defending it and start fixing it!

We're supposed to be the fucking cold-blooded ones! We're supposed to be the clear-eyed realists who cast aside all thoughts of emotion and compassion in order to find the greatest good. Isn't it time we start talking about the failures in Iraq and the lessons we've learned? No, of course not. Because you're just as emotionally invested in supporting this war as those peacenik hippies are in opposing it. Asshats.

--------

This has been a public service message from the Lone Pawn Neocon Mentality to freepers. Thank you.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Why aren't you outraged at failures of leadership?

[Lone Pawn]

3. I'm not outaged at all.

I see them as a loss, certainly, but not an outrage. Outrage has no place in foreign policy.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Does rational leadership have a place in foreign policy?

[Lone Pawn]

13. Ideally, yes

Decisions made that are not entirely rational and that do not take societal emotions into account are bound to failure. Emotional decisions lead to emotional actions--the desired action for many, but this may easily have an undesired result. Rational decisions lead to the desired result, but often at the expense of the desired action.

[Deja Q]

2. Matthew Shepard's killers used the 'spooked' defense as well...

Didn't work, so now they're saying it was a mugging that went awry. :eyes: (Yeah, muggers usually beat the shit out of a person to a bloody pulp and then string them up on a fence to die in agony. x( )

And the concensus is right. The problem IS the leadership - there is none of it. It's nothing more than moral squandering.

[Lone Pawn]

4. "Spooked" doesn't mean it wasn't illegal, and doesn't mean it's not bad

for our position. But not because it was henious, but because they perceive it as so.

[Deja Q]

9. Why is it not illegal? But I will say this,

Bush had to keep changing excuses for the war because facts kept coming up that made him look like a slithering liar. Given who Bush had spoken to in order to get his little war, not forgetting that he has Saddam's pistol on his wall in the White House (which is yet another questionable act), I don't see how the war is legal.

And the actions of late, starting with Abu Gharib, rather suggest we are not there to liberate the people.

But I will say this: We are now there. We're stuck in a quagmire. We need to fix the problems that our leadership created. Every day that passes only seems to make us that much worse. And if Bush wants to whip the war horse to go nagging into another country, especially while we're in the Iraq mess, that's going to have severe repercussions from the rest of the world.

Darn right I'm afraid.

I am hoping and praying that TRUE justice prevails. So far it's been dismal, and 59+ million people who had shown the world they want more of Bush is very damn scary, (nothing has happened yet to prove that my fears are rational, but his 2nd term hasn't started - and we've 4 years to go. And given the number of ways our country can descend into economic ruin and chaos, my fears are just as rational as anybody else's - for they are not irrational but precognitive.)

[Lone Pawn]

10. It was illegal. I said the defense DIDN'T mean it WASN'T illegal.

eom

[crasmane]

5. And what exactly is the game?

Quote:
These photos and videos worry me, but only because of what they mean to the game. They hurt our position. Come on, guys! Wake up! Stop defending it and start fixing it! end quote.

First of all, I don't believe that international relations amounts to some sort of game. You've been watching too much Star Trek, taking in too many Romulans. The international community is no set of rivals, and we are immersed in no game. We have a position, we are the newest criminal regime of the world, the next totalitarian nightmare.
There is no defending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
There is no simple way of fixing whatever you're trying to fix.
The neocon idea of world domination for the simple and good life is a pipe dream.
So stop dreaming it.
So stop trying to fix it.
Resist this regime instead. There is no ground, no ditch to stand in across the divide.
The United States must, must see itself again as a nation among nations rather than a nation above nations.
Every leader and actor in the war crimes we have committed must be turned over to the mercy of the world court.
Period.
Just my prescription for the simple and good life.

[Lone Pawn]

8. I fully agree with you

I think that the neocon mindset is entirely wrong and entirely dangerous.
But I haven't watched Star Trek...well, ever. The problem is I've read too many international-politics journals, and it all looks like a game. From a certain perspective.

Usually, I see things from the sane, normal perspective. It's why I post here instead of on Free Republic. But occasionally, I have to let the neocon out. And even he doesn't like the neocons.

[K-W]

14. It's about looking past elegant generalization.

You seem to be saying that it is so cool, you think it is true sometimes.

This describes the exact reason people get sucked into supporting the bush administration. Thier ideas are so tempting and so well and thouroughly presented, that they interest people and cause even people who reject them to be influenced strongly by them.

The neocon model has a certain elegance and a certain appeal. But you have to be able to look past that realize that it is literally insane. Any approach to foriegn policy resembling that defies reason.

Edit: for some reason im being unintentionally mean tonight

[Lone Pawn]

16. No, not cool at all.

What defies reason about the principle of trying to mold a friendly world? What defies reason is the way we go about doing it. What defies reason is the simplistic, short-sighted way we go about doing it, for much the same reasons you posted above.

[DireStrike]

7. Sounds about right to me.

Nobody wants to fix it. I don't think GWB wants to fix it. I think he wants to joyride this country into the ground, fill the pockets of his weapons contracter pals, and move on to another country.

[Deja Q]

12. Bush has said he wants the4 Iraqis to govern themselves.

Funny then that he's taking sides in the civil war HE created, while itching to get the troops out. (With Syria, N Korea, Iran, and Palestine on his dinner plate, he's going to have to drop the dirty dishes or conjure up more troops - which means a draft and he won't want to betray the kiddies who voted for him because of the draft fear. Not yet.)

[JudyM]

11. One more notch in george's belt; iraqi famers are being forced to purchase

seeds from US companies, rather than continuing their own seed lines. I heard this today and it made me outraged. Just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure. Do you feel any outrage now?

[Lone Pawn]

15. Certainly not.

I think this is a very, very short-sighted policy. I would fix it immediately if I had the choice, because it will lead to outrage against us if continued. But I personally really don't feel that much. Tomorrow when my sanity returns I will, but as of now I don't.

[Pig_Latin_Lover]

17. I see what you mean

The way I see it, in order to effectively argue with the neocon shitheads and other Bush supporters, you have to take a step back and detach yourself and see things from a cost/gain scenario.

Certainly, there is the human side which is very much at the heart of why this situation is wrong, but the fact is that these fascist jerks don't want to have any human identification with what's going on. So, when arguing with them, you have to put things in the coldest, most logical terms in terms of, as you called it, "the game."

How are we going to win in Iraq if we keep killing the people we're trying to liberate? It's a very self-defeating strategy. How can we possibly even win this "war" on terrorism by conquering a nation? We haven't had one success by capturing Iraq in this war. This Zarqawi guy, who probably doesn't even exist, isn't in a brig. Saddam Hussein being in our custody doesn't stop the spread of terrorism in any way. What exactly is our objective here?

The very few successes we have had in this "war" haven't been the result of conquering a nation. It's great that we took out the Taliban in Afghanistan and put our puppet in charge over there, but let's not forget that the terrorists were also trained right here in the United States.

We won't "win" until we actually THINK. The Bush Administration doesn't want any thought.

[NuttyFluffers]

18. this doesn't seem targetted for this audeince...

but that said i guess this is the closest a 'cold-blooded one' can come to screaming against the myopic close-mindedness some of these 'hawks' in an attempt for them to wake up to reality.

i am saddened by the lack of empathy throughout this. it shows exactly where the problem lies. those devoid of empathy cannot be left in charge of major decisions -- they do not have the sense to understand people and anticipate their actions. they do not know how to effect change with people, only on people. in positions of authority they will forever be inable to produce excellent results -- they are human sledgehammers incapable of finesse. and humanity is nothing if not a big ball of finesse.

in hands of people like these, no matter how capable, talented, perhaps even 'lovable,' we would be perpetually doomed to a vicious cycle of numbing violence. we need to re-instill empathy -- *humanity* -- back into human culture. and the culture at the moment most devoid of such a basic need is now our american culture. a truly saddening condition indeed.