The Village Idiot: US Foreign Policy Makers

[padcrasher]

Yes the American Conservative article is in agreement with Glenn's view. Also Pat Buchanan wrote some good articles in the same magazine criticizing this interventionism. Ron Paul and the late William F Buckley would be in the same camp. But beyond this small group of outcasts, most so called "Conservatives" are completely happy with bullying and cajoling other governments. It mostly has to do with two goals; serving the interests of Israel, and keeping the oil supply flowing.

*******

That quote was from the 2nd link but the full column was here. And it's probably the best of the three making this argument

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ose/index.html

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

People are generally averse to opposing views. Most find ditto-headedness comforting.

For the life of me I just don't get this attitude. I want more than anything for others to challenge my assertions, opinions and positions, because I have an honest desire to find a correct answer or solution that is not merely predicated on just belief. If wrong, then I'm wrong, and then I can cast this notion aside, adjust, and reconsider in order to find a better solution, isn't this kind of the point if we want what is best? Last thing I want is someone agreeing with me for the sake of it, preaching to a choir is not only a waste of time, but it is rather boring, unless folks find a pat on the back more appealing than the best solutions.

Originally Posted by padcrasher

Yes the American Conservative article is in agreement with Glenn's view. Also Pat Buchanan wrote some good articles in the same magazine criticizing this interventionism. Ron Paul and the late William F Buckley would be in the same camp. But beyond this small group of outcasts, most so called "Conservatives" are completely happy with bullying and cajoling other governments. It mostly has to do with two goals; serving the interests of Israel, and keeping the oil supply flowing.

*******

That quote was from the 2nd link but the full column was here. And it's probably the best of the three making this argument

The rigid pro-war ideology of the foreign policy community - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Great piece. I had started to read it before somewhere, but got side tracked and it got lost in the shuffle.

I have to chuckle at the characterization of Paleoconservatives as being outcasts, mostly because in contemporary context they are I suppose. They have been quietly marching on with the same foreign policy message for years, upon the deaf ears of a Neoconservative pro-interventionist series of administrations. There are a few really good writers over there and it is one of the last few places I know of to find a more intellectual bent to Conservative views. Anymore it is a sea of Beck, and there are few places on earth to find a greater anti-intellectual oubliette of idiocy then there.

I know that argument concerning Israel, but I do not believe we do what we do to merely benefit Israel out of austerity, I believe they merely have an incredibly effective lobby that runs rough shod over key areas of foreign policy formation, namely the State Department and the Pentagon, with supporting think tanks and a cast of merrymen like William Kristol and Max Boot.

Someone made an excellent point in a correspondence, that one thing we lack concerning intelligence in foreign lands, is we rely upon Ivy League Phd's instead of indigenous people from the region. What we find is many of the people forming various policy measures have no clue as to the idiosyncrasies of various places like Iraq, let alone the complexity of places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In WWII all the world powers used whatever resources they had available to the best of their abilities, today, we seek someone with a degree instead of any knowledge of tribal factions as they are instead of how they were in a book.

[TnHilltopper]

Having went back and reread this piece, I've taken it upon myself to write the author to ask for permission to publish fully for discussion purposes. Its just an excellent and scathing piece on the mindset the holds the rudder of our foreign policy.

Leebaert regrets the American “penchant for dreaming up conspiracies” and the “steadily mounting overall mistrust of government since the late 1960s.” But the notion that rulers are owed trust is the most expensive entitlement program of them all. Blind trust in government has resulted in far more carnage than has distrust of government

Without a doubt!

The standards for decorum in discussing foreign policy practically guarantee that brazen liars will receive a pass, regardless of how many people perish as a result of their perfidy. Kissinger is now a columnist for the Washington Post editorial page—one of the few non-Fox venues that denies George W. Bush deceived the nation into the Iraq War. It is nonsense to presume good faith in experts who continually make declarations that any 12-year-old with a DSL line could disprove in two minutes

Sadly, the American adult isn't as smart as a 5th grader when it comes to doing research on the internet and most 12 year old's still have open minds that haven't been filled with dogma, and the chalk boards they see each day actually hold information instead of fantasy.

Like the Niger documents that were part of the claim used to justify the invasion of another country and cost the world hundreds of thousands of lives and well over a trillion dollars, was found to be bunk within a matter of hours.