Bullish on Neocon Strategy
Cutler: I agree with particular solutions for particular problems, but I am rather bullish on Neoconservatism as a mindset.
The fundamental tenet of neocon-ism is that stability itself is not a good strategic objective if it is not coupled with the implementation at the state level of internal mechanisms of progress. Ad hoc dictatorships are never permanent solutions, only temporary fixes in a time of trouble. During the Cold War, many things were justified that can't be today, etc. etc.
What we cannot do is accept short-term solutions that lead to long-term problems. The reverse, accepting short-term problems for long-term solutions, is something we can now entertain because of the current circumstances of the world: our immense power, public support, no counterbalancing superpower, communicaton tech., etc.
Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote a short book, The Islamic Paradox (available online at aei.org), where he argues that the process put in place in Iran by the fall of Shah and the implementation of Islamism actually creates a firmer foundation for a long-term reconciliation with that country and its people. There are no people in that region that are as pro-US as the Iranians. And it is precisely because the Iranians have experienced the bad reality of something that looked good on paper that Islamism, if Iran does go democratic, will be so delegitimized.
The mindset, then, is not the problem. It is the implementation where we must be judicious. Places with real high short-term costs will have to be handled with kid-gloves (Pakistan, maybe Saudi). But overall, I think the strategy is a winner.
The fundamental tenet of neocon-ism is that stability itself is not a good strategic objective if it is not coupled with the implementation at the state level of internal mechanisms of progress. Ad hoc dictatorships are never permanent solutions, only temporary fixes in a time of trouble. During the Cold War, many things were justified that can't be today, etc. etc.
What we cannot do is accept short-term solutions that lead to long-term problems. The reverse, accepting short-term problems for long-term solutions, is something we can now entertain because of the current circumstances of the world: our immense power, public support, no counterbalancing superpower, communicaton tech., etc.
Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote a short book, The Islamic Paradox (available online at aei.org), where he argues that the process put in place in Iran by the fall of Shah and the implementation of Islamism actually creates a firmer foundation for a long-term reconciliation with that country and its people. There are no people in that region that are as pro-US as the Iranians. And it is precisely because the Iranians have experienced the bad reality of something that looked good on paper that Islamism, if Iran does go democratic, will be so delegitimized.
The mindset, then, is not the problem. It is the implementation where we must be judicious. Places with real high short-term costs will have to be handled with kid-gloves (Pakistan, maybe Saudi). But overall, I think the strategy is a winner.
posted by John Aristides at 3:01 PM
4 Comments:
Interesting, so is this your new blog? If so, I'll definitely blogroll you, you're definitely a heavy thinker.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cutler: thanks for stopping by. I just visited your blog too, and whenever I actually create my blogroll I will, of course, return the courtesy.
Hi there! While out blog surfing today for specific info on gift basket supply, I ended up on your page. Your site shows that I ended up a little off base...funny how we end up finding things while we surf. Should you ever need it, there is plenty of information on this site about gift basket supply.
Post a Comment
<< Home