[lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:26:44 +0000
What you're saying, Andreas, isn't true. Make an accusation and see what
happens, is that the idea? You're laughing at your own joke. If you could
stop laughing long enough to think, you would recall attacking me several times
over the years for believing in Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilization
position -- which is directly opposed to the Neocon approach. You can't have
it both ways. It is not possible for me to support the Neocon position and the
Huntington position at the same time. In actual fact I have supported neither.
In note after note I have compared the two approaches, Huntington vs Fukuyama,
but have come down on neither side. I do recall saying that I could wish that
Fukuyama were right, but said in the same sentence or one right next to it that
Huntington's view had more evidence to support it.
And you insist on continuing to build upon your taunt rather than read the
material you are ostensibly discussing; which disproves your taunt. If we
assume that virtually all of the Middle East is radicalized (you may recall
that I doubted that there were any Moderates there to speak of), then if we are
going to apply realpolitik we are going to have to support some of them if we
intend to get them to fight each other.
Note that your comment was that "the Bush White House is now arming al
Quaeda-affliated jihadi groups." I did say that didn't sound plausible. You
provided no context, and I couldn't imagine any that made any sense, but then I
read the article (which you apparently didn't) and learned of Hersh's context.
He doesn't say quite what you say. Here is what Hersh wrote: "American,
European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora goernment and
its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni
radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian
refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer
to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda."
Have you learned nothing from all the notes I've written (a rhetorical
question)? The "ideological ties" statement means what to you, Andreas?
Quick! It means the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. It means Islamic
Fundamentalism. How many in the Islamic World share these ideological ties
with Al Qaeda? The estimate I've heard most often is 300,000,000. Osama bin
Laden studied under Sayyid Qutb's brother Mohammad Qutb. The ideology Hersh
sloppily aludes to is Islamism.
But notice what the Lebanese Opinion Writers says: "The Fatah al-Islam story is
based entirely on a quote by one alistair Crooke, a former MI6 agent, who, we
learn, 'was told' that weapons were offered to the group, 'resumably to take on
Hezbollah.' The passage on Esbat al-Ansar is not even sourced.
"The Fatah al-islam story is instructive, because it shows a recurring flaw in
hersh's reporting, namely his investigative paralysis when it comes to Syria.
In articles past, Hersh has acted as a conduit for those defending the
post-9/11 intelligence collaboration between the U.S. and Syria, and lamenting
the Bush administration's subsequent isolation of Damascus in the run-up to and
aftemath of the Iraq invasion. Most Lebanses believe that Fatah al-Islam, far
from being aided by the Lebanse government, is in fact a Syrian plant . . ."
Another comment about al-qaeda in the Hersh article quotes a representative of
the Siniora government as saying "We have a liberal attitude that allows Al
Qaeda types to have a presence here." Have we not supported the Siniora
government against Nasrallah and his Hezbollah? Did Israel not support the
Siniora government against Hezbollah? Does this mean that the Bush
Administration and Israel supported Jihadi Organizations with Al Qaeda ties?
Well. . . sort of, but not in any meaningful way. Ideologically there is
little difference betwen the Islamism of Sayyid Qutb and the Islamism of
Khomeini. One gave rise to Al Qaeda and the other to Hezbollah. Let them
fight it out, and may the better Islamist organization win.
Lawrence
Lawrence
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 12:15 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
>
> Oh, this is too funny!
>
> Realpolitik was the basis of foreign policy of the USA from the 1940s
> to the 1990s.
>
> The Neocons despised Realpolitik because it meant appeasement with the
> Soviet Union,
> peaceful co-existence, and cooperation. They demanded a foreign policy
> based on ethics: the
> USA never tolerates an evil country; the USA has a mission to destroy
> evil countries. Thus
> the Neocons came to power with W. Bush and launched their wars.
>
> For the past five years, Lawrence has attacked Realpolitik. He has
> supported and promoted
> Neocon policy.
>
> And now... he lectures me that Realpolitik is a proper policy for the
> USA.
>
> More than that, he writes:
>
> > But we would also like the Sunnis who are most opposed to Iran to be
> our allies against
> > Iran.
>
> Yesterday: "hardly plausible"
>
> Today: "sensible tactics".
>
> Lawrence is now supporting 9.11 jihadi.
>
> How quickly he flipped. How suddenly he forgot his past positions. It
> only took one day for
> Lawrence to throw everything he believed into the memory hole. How good
> he is at
> doublethink.
>
> Eastasia is our friend! Eurasia has always been our enemy! Long live
> Oceania!
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:44 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Neoconservatism replaced by Realpolitik
>
>
> Andreas:
>
> I don't believe you read Hersh's entire article -- much too long for
> you. This is evidenced
> further by your note below. Do you interact with Hersh, with Young, or
> with me? No, of
> course not -- way too much reading required for that; so you continue
> building not upon any
> of the three notes, but upon your original taunt, a statement not only
> taken out of context
> but plausibly disagreed with by the Lebanese Opinion Editor.
>
> If you had actually read these notes, we might have a discussion about
> realpolitik, and how
> it is a continuation of the European "balance of power." The British
> and Germans were both
> very good at that. Actually, World War One could have been avoided had
> the various nations
> been more open about their treaties and commitments. It does no good
> to swing over onto the
> side of a weaker power if your potential enemy doesn't know it.
>
> Now in regard to the Middle East, I mentioned that one of the reasons I
> never took them
> seriously before 9/11 was that they seemed too busy fighting amongst
> themselves to ever want
> to fight us. After 9/11 we took them seriously, but they have probably
> never been that far
> away from going back to the good old days of fighting amongst
> themselves. From a
> realpolitik standpoint we erred in applying our European approach to
> the Middle East. When
> those pesky Europeans fight they do it in grand style -- best keep them
> away from each
> other's military throats if at all possible, and we have managed to do
> that for the most
> part since WWII, but now that Militant Islam has discovered the joys of
> attacking the West,
> it serves no good purpose from a realpolitik standpoint to keep those
> guys from each other's
> throats. Let them go back to fighting amongst themselves and maybe
> they'll leave us alone.
>
> Hersh's article doesn't describe a clean realpolitik approach to the
> Middle East, however.
> From a desirability standpoint, yes, we would like the Iraqi Shiites to
> gain control of
> their government and remain our allies. But we would also like the
> Sunnis who are most
> opposed to Iran to be our allies against Iran.
>
> Realpolitik works even if the warriors know about it. We supported
> Saddam Hussein against
> Iran because we considered him the lesser of two evils. We didn't
> believe in his ambitions
> and he knew it. He knew exactly why we supported him, but he didn't
> care because he needed
> our support. The same thing applies in the Middle East -- even in
> Shiite Iraq, for example.
> Neocons here in the US believed in the idealism of a Liberal Democratic
> Iraq, but did the
> Shiite Iraqis ever embrace that ideal? I don't think so. Nevertheless
> they need US
> support. They need it to survive, and they don't want to move so far
> toward an antagonistic
> Sharia-Law approach that they antagonize the US. They are well aware
> that we are unhappy
> with Iran for several reasons including Iran's support of the forces
> opposing the US and
> Iraqi forces in Iraq. So we could get by with supporting Shiite Iraq
> and opposing Shiite
> Iran, but where it becomes complicated is in accepting nations like
> Saudi Arabia as our
> allies against Iran. They don't oppose Iran for the same reasons we
> do. They oppose them
> because they hate Shi'ism. That is the part I think difficult to
> manage.
>
> Unfortunately, realpolitik won't help us with Olivier Roy's alienated
> expatriate Muslims.
> Roy, and after him Fukuyama, believes that they rather then national
> Muslims are the real
> Islamic threat. They function as paramilitary organizations and owe
> allegiance to no Middle
> Eastern nation. If they operated out of a Middle Eastern nation like
> Afghanistan or Iran,
> the do it for reasons of convenience and not allegiance. These guys
> are still out there.
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, Mar-11-2007 10:41 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: For Lawrence
>
> From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> Lawrence, what do you say to the fact that the Bush White House is
> now arming al
> >> Qaeda-affiliated jihadi groups?
>
> > On the face of it, it doesn't sound plausible.
>
> Ah, so you admit it's plausible.
>
> Note Lawrence's reply. Lawrence of Arabia doesn't immediately dismiss
> as ludicrous or absurd
> the idea that Bush is collaborating with Islamic jihadi. Instead,
> Lawrence weakly says
> "well... on the face of it..."
>
> Lawrence realizes it is indeed plausible. It was these same Sunni Saudi
> militants who
> carried out 9.11, destroyed the WTC and attacked the Pentagon, but hey,
> what's a little
> misunderstanding among friends?
>
> Bush is preparing for a war with Iran. Bush and Israel are trying to
> provoke a general war
> between Sunni and Shiite. He is gathering the Sunni countries, namely,
> Egypt, Syria, and
> Saudi Arabia, which are threatened by Shiite Iran, into a coalition.
> Bush's tactic to
> support the Sunni jihadi is a short-term move, done in order to annoy
> Iran.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised at all when we find out the US is training the
> prisoners at
> Guantanamo, arming them, and sending them out to wage new wars.
>
> That's it, Lawrence. No more threat-of-militant-Islam from you. They
> are your friends now.
> You will now start cheering jihadi. Yesterday, you hated Leftists
> because they supported
> jihadi. Tomorrow, you'll hate Leftists because they are against the
> jihadi.
>
> This reminds me of something... ah, yes. The Communists. Remember in
> the 1930s how the
> Communists around the world fought against Hitler? And suddenly, there
> was the Hitler-Stalin
> Pact and Communists were dismayed to find they had to suddenly support
> their new allies? And
> then Hitler invaded the USSR and became the mortal enemy once again?
> Whipsawed back and
> forth.
>
> That's Lawrence's situation. The enemy is suddenly his ally, who one
> day will be enemy
> again. Lawrence of clear principles and total certaincy has to switch
> back and forth.
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
Other related posts:
