Response to Dave

I often wish that Shahram would keep some of these items up a little longer on the main page – especially when the responses are still actively coming in. Nevertheless I wanted to have a chance to respond to Dave’s last post because I am happy to have generated a response from at least a “moderate conservative” on this forum. I am gratified he took the time to respond to me with his opinions. I would hope to treat his response with the same courtesy he showed me. It is refreshing to have a rebuttal from the right that shows an interest in discussing the actual issues at stake here without a resort to a personal attack. Thanks Dave! 
 
The first issue I would take up is that of whether the real conservatives in the Republican Party are really in charge. It appears that not just the moderate but the real conservative elements in the Party seem to be deserting Bush and the Iraqi war. I think that the closer to ’08 we come, the longer the list of Republican defectors will be. I, and many of (what I would call) my conservative friends, would assert that those so-called neoconservatives never represented the true principles of conservatism – certainly not on the international scene. I would also question whether the Democrats’ going along with the Bush doctrine on terror (especially in Iraq) represents not so much the endorsement of the incursion into Iraq as much as an inability to stand up against a bully who is willing to exhibit his own unique kind of domestic executive terrorism. 
 
Dave agrees with me that the Iraqi war was intended to primarily maintain a steady flow of oil. I think we would seriously disagree with whether this is a good thing to do, whether it is a thing that is possible to do and whether it was something that Bush should have honestly told the American people about in the first place.  
 
That being said, I want to say that, for some time, I have been toying with the idea of writing an essay that puts forth what I believe are the most credible points of Bush and Company visa vie the Project for the New Amerikan Century. Back in the days of Debate Club in High School, it used to be necessary for debaters to articulate both sides of an argument. Do they even teach Debate or rhetoric in H.S. any more? I don’t think an advocate worth his/her salt should even be able to argue a position until theyare able to state the other position at least as well as their opponent. That is why I think so many on both ends of the political spectrum are so prone to throw around such vitriolic personal attacks with such impunity – they haven’t even taken the time to seriously examine the assertions of the opposition.  
 
Let me then attempt to state the neocon’s argument in defense of the Bush position visa vie the Iraqi incursion. 
 
I think that a somewhat cogent argument could be made for the establishment of the United States as the sole, all-powerful, dominant empire on earth in the 21st Century. I think however whether such a goal is achievable, desirable by a majority of humanity or even moral would be another issue.  
 
Given the option that the Amerikan way of life is non-negotiable [1], meaning that energy conservation is off the table and any change of lifestyle to reduce the lion’s share of the world’s resources we squander daily... Given also that our refusal to seriously develop alternative energy and transportation technologies will soon have all the major energy consumers playing an ever more frantic game of Mideast musical chairs... It then becomes more and more imperative that we acquire dominance of that area of the world by whatever means necessary. The same argument can be made for our establishing dominance by (force if necessary) of other equally “unstable” resource rich areas of the world as well. Since most Americans are blissfully unaware of our more than century-long “Monroe Doctrine” of imperialism over most of the globe and since awakening them to the reality of our many past and present atrocities in pursuit of this policy would cause unnecessary consternation, a public disinformation campaign is essential for the pursuit of this program in our ostensibly democratic country. The myth of America as a gift of the gods to the freedom seeking people of the world as well as an unswerving trust in the doctrine of presidential infallibility is absolutely necessary and desirable. In an age of even as vestigial a free press as we possess today there is always a possibility for the people to rise up and naively think they are wiser than their rulers, a system of un-refuted propaganda, regulation, surveillance, censorship, citizen “reprogramming” and incarceration must gradually be increased. All these things are accomplished not for the harm of the people but for their ultimate benefit and as the only way to guarantee that the material comforts of the American way of life will not be compromised. After all who among us would be foolish enough to exchange our cable TV for something as ephemeral as freedom? 
 
Sorry Dave, if my satiric pen has added a bit of negative spin to the neocon argument. I believe that this is what, in their heart of hearts, the neoconservatives do believe. I know that while some, like Cheney, may be motivated solely by an obscene acquisition of wealth, influence and power until the Lord takes them, there are still others who just as passionately believe the only way for our survival lies in the ideas advanced by the PNAC documents and position papers. I do agree with the neocons’ belief that the traditional concept of constitutional, representative democracy is anathema to Bush’s dreams, domestic and foreign. We only disagree on whether such a putting aside of our traditional values is a good or a bad thing. Speaking of Bush, it is interesting to see how many prominent neocons have disserted him and his bungling of Iraq. To my understanding it is not so much an argument over principals as results.  
 
I realize that I have not properly responded to your points concerning the need to support our president right or wrong; that Iraq is “battle-hardening” our troops rather than decimating them for future events (including the health, safety and defense of the homeland) [2] or that dissent in this country is a form of self-hate that weakens our credibility on the world stage. I really wish you would review your statements in view of a little bit of a recent historical perspective (Johnson, Nixon &Vietnam?) and get back to me with your revised statements. [3]  
 
Once again, thank you for your feedback on this forum. I would hope you will continue to read and share your ideas. These days I am less interested in who is Red or Blue, conservative or liberal than in the quality of their argument and their willingness to express and discuss them in the free marketplace of ideas such as MWC News. 
 
Peace, 
 
Bob Boldt 
 
Footnotes: 
[1] Vice-President Dick Cheney, who before becoming vice-president had been leader of the largest oilfield supply company in the world. Dick Cheney said regarding the goals of "terrorists" and the "appropriate" American response: "The American way of life is non-negotiable".  
That mindset explains why President Bush AND presidential nominee John Kerry BOTH favor continuance of the American war in Iraq and why vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said at the Boston convention: "We are going to WIN that war!" 
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/ temporary_continuance_of_the_american_way_of_life_at_state_i n_iraq 
 
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_01292006_520.gif 
 
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

Guest