Isn't it really to Israels and Americas benefit to portray the USA ...

[NNN0LHI]

...as an honest and impartial broker in the Mideast? I mean everyone understands that America is always going to be Israels greatest ally. So what is the advantage to us or Israel to make it appear we are rubbing the Arabs noses in it by not even trying to give an appearance of impartiality here? I don't understand this new apparent blatant one sidedness that does none of us any good?

Any thought or ideas?

Don

[bloom]

1. If the neocons want a war with Iran it makes sense

for them.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Why can't we be an honest broker? Are we attached at the hip

to the government of Israel? Do we not have numerous USA citizens with ME backgrounds and ancestries? Like say TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND caught in a war zone as Bolton eggs Israel's aggressive warfare on in Lebanon. They are also Americans.

Why do we ALWAYS have to be #1 Ally of Israel and not just "an ally?"

[NNN0LHI]

3. I think you mean why can't we REALLY be an honest broker?

I am all for that but I think the odds are against this ever happening. I am just trying to look at this realistically.

I would be happy with just the appearance of an honest broker at this point.

I don't think it is going to get any better than that.

Howard Dean mentioned trying to be an actual impartial broker once it once and was just about lynched over it.

Don

[Emit]

4. I read an interesting book about the transition to neocon foreign policy

in James Mann's book, Rise of the Vulcans (although the book is about much more than that). It was very interesting to me, as in detailing the histories and intertwined roles of 6 of the major figures in the Bush II first administration, Mann also details the shift in foreign policy from Kissinger's 'detente' and 'realism' to the neocons 'morality.'

I lent the book out to a neighbor, so I can't quote from it (he explains it all so well) but here is an interview with him from a Frontline piece which touches upon this notion:

~snip~

What does it mean, this particular strain of conservatism that Wolfowitz attaches himself to?

Strauss is a refugee from Germany and the Nazi regime, and he argues that there's a fundamental moral difference between dictatorships and democracies. His hero is Winston Churchill for standing up to Hitler. And in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as an evil empire, Alan Bloom, Wolfowitz's teacher, cites that as a great example of being willing to make moral judgments. And the critique by the conservatives is that somehow the modern era has lost sight of moral judgments. So there's a whole school of conservative philosophy that centers around dictatorships vs. democracy or moral judgments, good vs. evil.


~snip~

They share a political philosophy which is more Kissinger-like than it is Scoop Jackson-like. Are they realists?

The real realists are Henry Kissinger and the people working for him. What counts in foreign policy is that each country is going to represent its own national interest. You don't want to get too idealistic in the sense of President Woodrow Wilson. Governments are not supposed to push for democratic ideals. They're supposed to represent their own interest, and what counts is a balance of power. That produces stability.

And the critique of that from the neoconservatives is "Well, so what about morality? Do we want to negotiate an agreement with the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union is itself not only not democratic; it's a repressive country. Why should we help them by negotiating agreements with them?" ...

Out of Vietnam, you get these three schools. The first is liberal Democrats: Let's set limits on American power. There's the Kissinger wing: Let's negotiate arms control with the Soviet Union that will preserve American influence, because we're worried about a loss of influence after Vietnam. The neoconservatives: Let's just build up American power and invoke democratic ideals in dealing with the Soviet Union, and argue that they're the evil empire.

~snip~

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/interviews/mann.html


I find it very interesting that when we moved full force from a more rational, realist approach to a moralistic approach, it took us out of the realm of honest broker because we are now judging countries based on "Good vs Evil." Interesting to me because of my interest in religion, and how religion has played a part in all of this mess -- which is based in the "Good vs. Evil" meme (and, of course, because of my interest in learning about neoconservatism).

I'm beat, so I don't know if I'm explaining this very well -- I recommend Mann's book though, for this topic and for an overall good read.