The neocon movement and Kerry

[mmonk]

Can anyone provide any substantial evidence that Kerry rejects their ideas about an American empire? I'm voting for him but I'm not satisfied that he isn't influenced by their world view.

[Cocoa]

1. it should be the other way around

if you are suggesting that someone subscribes to the radical, dangerous neoconservative worldview, then YOU should make YOUR case.

[mmonk]

2. I used the word "influenced".

I also have the concern of further troop buildup and the unwavering support of some of Sharon's policies. I do understand that he said the troops will be out of Iraq by the end of his term. There also seems to be a big interventionist movement within the democratic party. While this movement has its differences with neocons (and some areas, no differences), I would like to have a better overall view of where we are heading.

[Cocoa]

5. further troop buildup

there's nothing ideological about that, that is merely a logistical move to address the lack of troops there. Almost everyone from almost every school of thought thinks that there aren't enough troops there. In fact, the people who misunderestimated the number of troops needed were the neocons.

Support of Sharon. As far as I know, Kerry's position on the ME is consistent with U.S. policy since the founding of Israel. Strong support of Israel is not equivalent to neoconservatism.

[Nadienne]

7. We need more troops there?

I thought our presence there was what was pissing them off, and making it easier for terrorists to recruit.

[Cocoa]

12. lack of security is also pissing them off

the debate about troops is open, but many many people are calling for more troops and it's not a neocon position.

[mmonk]

11. You can support Israel,

defend Israel, etc. and not endorse every move of Sharon and Likud without serious question. Why would you need to build up troop strength if you plan to leave? Where do the extra troops go after you leave? Is Kerry for the shift of troops to bases in the middle east? While there can be valid explanations, my questions are still unanswered. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking questions. No need to flip the question. If I had the answers, I wouldn't post the question.

[Cocoa]

14. tell me how Kerry's ME policy deviates from traditional US policy

regarding troops, the additional troops are necessary, according to the people who hold that view, because the violence in Iraq is out of control NOW. The idea is that with additional security, the violence will decline and the country will stabilize and then the troops can come home.

That's a military concept, not an ideological one.

[mmonk]

15. answer the question if you can.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Troop Build-Up

Just a note: the resistance you are getting to this question is based in part on the fact that it has been asked and answered -- and essentially ignored -- a number of times in this forum, yet the notion persists that the reasons behind it are somehow mysterious. This plays into the idea that there's no real difference between Bush and Kerry ... and ... and ... I'll let those who desire to do so follow that slippery slope.

In any case, regarding increasing troop levels, there are several reasons. Not inclusive and in no particular order:

1) Many current regular army positions concerned with modern national security and intelligence gathering needs remain empty. As far back as 2002, Kerry identified some 15,000 positions requiring specific language proficiencies which the Pentagon had not made a significant effort to fill. (While not strictly related to the size of the military, another 2,000 - 3,000 similar positions in the State Department were likewise without staff members, indicating a lack of concern among the Bush administration of the importance of these elements.) This is over a third of the 40,000 number commonly floated.

2) Of particular concern to a potential Kerry administration would be Afghanistan, which is once again rapidly descending into the kind of lawlessness that gave rise to the Taliban and allowed what government there was there to be in effect controlled by al Qaeda. This is largely due to BushCo stripping the country of even the minimal force necessary to attempt to stabilize the region.

3) Iraq will not be immediately abandoned militarily in toto unless some significant and dramatic changes occur between now and January, which is unlikely. However, with current troop levels, the reserves and national guard are unduly burdened with the duty, and regular army forces are stretched to such extremes that should there be a real emergency somewhere in the world, the ability to the American military to respond is severely limited, if not curtailed entirely. A significant portion of the proposed increase would likely be used to reduce the reliance on part-time forces and to bolster the regular army's numbers in Iraq until such time as they can be relieved according to the Kerry administration's goals.

Whether you agree with the specifics of this kind of reasoning, it differs substantially from a PNAC/Neo-Con centered agenda.

Joshua Marshall published an excellent article on this subject in a recent issue of The Atlantic. I'm sure few here will agree with all of it and may in fact retract in horror to specific elements, but I urge everyone interested in this question to read it to the end. It's not a soundbite, rather a thorough and reasoned analysis, and it clearly describes the differences between a proposed Kerry foreign policy and the current neoconservative/Bush policy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/marshall.htm

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. The existence of Will Marshall makes that case

Marshall is a DLC/PPI official. He is a PNAC signator. He is writing Kerry's foreign policy. He is a treasonous shitbag who has no place in the Democratic party.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. That certainly counts as evidence against Kerry taking a sane approach to

foreign policy.

[corriger]

8. re the sane approach

traveling down this path the US will continue to marginalise itself but I think that everyone here already knows this

[Cocoa]

6. that's a flawed game

neoconservatism isn't an infectious disease. The presence of one PNAC signatory doesn't taint any organization just by his presence, any more than the presence of one communist in the State Dept. meant that the USSR had infiltrated the U.S. in the 50's.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. We aren't talking about a GOP intern who has infiltrated the ranks here

This guy is at the top of the heap and has a huge amount of influence over Kerry's foreign policy plans.

[RoyGBiv]

17. Writing his foreign policy?

My understanding is that Rand Beers is presently Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser and that the entire team consists of a number of people with varying viewpoints, many of whom trace the genesis of their ideas to the Clinton administration.

It's likely that Marshall has some influence, given who he is, but I'm just curious of what the basis for this assertion is.

[bryant69]

9. My guess is that

Kerry isn't a pacifist. He isn't going to immediately pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I guess part of the question is whether or not you had a problem with what President Bush did or how he did it? I mean let's be clear, Saddam Hussein was a bad man and a danger to the region; it was a good foreign policy goal to elminate him or to minimize his power in the region. I think even former president Clinton would agree with that statement. '

The problem is how did the administration accomplish this goal? Well in the interest of time I'll list 4 big mistakes although there are many others i could name

1). They decieved the American people about the WMDs in order to create a false sense of urgency about invading.
2). Because of said false sense of urgency, we invaded with very little international support, and in fact alienated many countries we were allied with.
3). We failed to plan for the occupation of Iraq, assuming, apparently, that it would be a cakewalk.
4). The most important lack of planning was in how we would gather information and how we would treat prisoners; this culminated in teh Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse / Torture.

Anyway if President Bush had worked to this goal in a less boneheaded, decietful and arrogaunt way he might have not needed to invade and cause the loss of life both among American troops and Iraqi civilians. But he didn't. But that doesn't mean that the goal might not have been a good one but more that he was incompetent to carry said goal out.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[corriger]

16. thanks for providing your questions and your answers

to them. Bloody hell. All of this, everything these wankers have done has been flawed from the very beginning. To address point by point the detritus of it all is to become lost for the trees. I agree with your summation except to say that given the realities then as now, even that the goal was as stupid as the execution.

[Crachet2004]

13. You are pointing to what may be the rat in the ricebag.

Vietnam had bi-partisan support. Kerry has made the statement 'we can't' just leave Iraq...which of course, is Bullshit. The video of helicopters being dumped from Carrier decks during the Great Skedaddle in Vietnam, say otherwise. It is really only a question of how much honor and dignity we get to leave with...which in turn, is inversely related to how long we stay there. Kerry knows all that, I am sure.

I hope what is going on, is that John Kerry, the astute politician, is not allowing himself to be painted as a weak-kneed liberal, like they painted Michael Dukakis.

Once elected, I hope we see a different set of priorities from Kerry; and at the very least, no MORE wars, and no draft. Wars like with North Korea and Iran.

We will see.