The much maligned neocons
Are the neoconservatives really the cartoon enemy that the left has made them out to be? Surely they are an enlightened and misunderstood bunch of well-meaning individuals? Douglas Murray writing as defence attorney in The Guardian, does a sterling job of correcting the misconceptions that we have of neoconservativist' core values. Because they are so misunderstood and maligned, it is absolutely imperative that they are given space to correct our distorted vision ( in medialens speak).
To kick off, Murray reminds us of the number of times that people have predicted the downfall of neoconservativism only to find egg on their faces years later. The latest prophet of doom is Matthew Paris, who like those before him, will be proved wrong. Not because Doug Murray says so, but because unless you attempt a mass culling, the species cannot help but linger on to influence the future political process. Is this a proof of how neoconservatives are divinely and fundamentally correct and thus their ideology lingers? In fact, if the lifespan of an idea or practice, is proof of its essential truth, then surely crime, torture or prostitution could equally claim the moral high ground. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are not neocons says Mr Murray without saying what classification they actually have. Neocons are people who have a healthy:
“scorn for relativism, disdain for anti-democratic movements, and the belief that freedom in the state, from the state, is the prerequisite for individual happiness. As an instinct or tendency rather than a manifesto, neoconservatism is both idealist and realist. “
The neoconservative voice of wisdom continues..The ship of neoconservatism is not foundering on the rock of Iraq. Rather the future of Iraq, depend upon the intervention and occupation being carried through to its bitter conclusion (as if the present is not bitter enough). Neocons cannot be blamed for Iraq situation, just because they supported the kicking down of the door in 2003. Disappointingly Murray resorts to the usual historical untruths. The door had already been kicked in by the few retired terrorists (such as Abu Nidal) who happened to live in Saddam's Iraq, alleges Murray. Quite how this equates to the situation today is not made clear. If the USA maintain a few sanctions they get accused of murder; when they go in and try and sort Saddam out, they unfairly get accused of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The USA can do no right it seems. At this point Murray, become even more hysterical. A leading medical journal that dared to publish a study of Iraqi mortality, is clearly an activist organisation with deeply left-wing communist/terrrorist sympathies:
“Even the activist Lancet has acknowledged that the vast majority of deaths in Iraq have been caused not by our military, but by "unknowns" and "others" - what those of us less keen on euphemism call terrorists, fundamentalists, sadists and fascists.
For a conservative realist, the presence of all those jihadists in one place, with thousands of our troops there too, presents an opportunity to cut the number of terrorists a bit. For a conservative idealist, the chance to pull apart the jihad in Iraq not only improves our own security situation (unless zero attacks on the American homeland since 9/11 is some kind of miracle), it also helps Iraq recover from decades of brutality.
Thank goodness, Doug Murray has put us right on this issue. All those 'ists' in Iraq, are the people to blame for everything! In fact the bloodbath that is Iraq is not a scene from hell, but an opportunity. An opportunity, to cull the terrorists a bit more without having to visit all the different places. That saves on fuel and helps reduce pollution emissions in line with Kyoto.
We opponents of the invasion, have now veered from the kooky to the wicked because we actually want 'Iraq to fail'. This rhetorical accusation has become rather worn out by those desperate to prove that the invasion was justified in the first place. The lies about WMD, nuclear weapons, mobile biological weapons and connections to 11/9/2001 are conveniently swept under the carpet to be replaced with this brazen accusation. I guess it depends on how you define success or failure and whose viewpoint you are looking at. Perhaps the zionist co-conspirators supported by Murray, would want 'Iraq to fail' because they do not want a neighbouring stable powerful Arab country that could challenge their regional supremacy. This is why they have invested in the zionist lobby and also sent their agents in to Iraq to ensure the mayhem continues. Why would any Muslim or Arab country want Iraq to fail? Why would they want to see the continuing bloodshed of their kin, just to say I told you so, to the imperialist killers who invaded Iraq? Why would western sceptics who predicted the catastrophe happening, want the current situation to continue? Clearly those peaceniks are uniquely evil.
Iraq has failed already because of imperialist aggression, murder and interference. Those who cannot see otherwise need to remove their heads out of their rectal passage and stare the horror of reality in the face. When will the people of Iraq have freedom within their own state? I doubt if the people of Iraq can stand much more of the state of individual happiness currently thrust upon them by Bush and Co.