Is neoconservatism dead?

[pecksniff]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

 

[zipman]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

Yes, instead of spreading democracy abroad, Republicans would rather attack it at home.

 

[ll74]

Yes, instead of spreading democracy abroad, Republicans would rather attack it at home.

Ding ding ding

 

[WillJ8787]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

Of course it is not dead...while dopes run around the Capitol Building thinking they are the source of some powerful movement or that 45 was the coming if the Messiah(lol!) Or that Biden will make all things right again like it was with Obama(please!)...

...the elites, the capitalists have long ago moved to the next Afghanistan to follow and cash in on the biggest purse on the planted...the United States Government funded by the foolish American people. As long as there are big bucks to be made via war/conflicts and politicians are in need of big money backers NeoCons will persists and flourish.

...and party doesn't not matter.

 

[bellisarius]

I hope so.

Re. the comment about republicans, as I recall it was a democrat administration that got us into Syria and Libya and fired up the Egyptian rabble. I also recall that there were more than a few democrats that were all on board for Afghanistan and Iraq. There's more than enough blame to spread around regarding 'nation building.'

The only place we were even remotely successful was the Philippines. They asked us to leave and we left. Then they took a long hard look at the neighborhood they live in and they've asked us back. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vietnam asked us back as well.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I hope so.

Re. the comment about republicans, as I recall it was a democrat administration that got us into Syria and Libya and fired up the Egyptian rabble. I also recall that there were more than a few democrats that were all on board for Afghanistan and Iraq. There's more than enough blame to spread around regarding 'nation building.'

The only place we were even remotely successful was the Philippines. They asked us to leave and we left. Then they took a long hard look at the neighborhood they live in and they've asked us back. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Vietnam asked us back as well.

Very true. In fact one of those Senate Democrats who supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars became Obama’s Secretary of State and later became the party’s 2016 presidential nominee. Another is now POTUS. At one point, Biden wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

 

[Rightguide]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

The Neocons are back in the closet. Regular old fashioned conservatives are re-emerging and have control of the GOP.

 

[schism666]

The Neocons are back in the closet. Regular old fashioned conservatives are re-emerging and have control of the GOP.

good. obama and biden best the last two republican saviours.

 

[FGB]

Yes, instead of spreading democracy abroad, Republicans would rather attack it at home.

Have to get some first.

 

[Dribble]

Too bad there are no true Republicans anymore...only Fascist traitors. You will need more bullets.

 

[Cubantripod]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

When you have dingbats in power, yes. The third and fourth largest economies in the world were countries we built after WW2.

 

[ll74]

When you have dingbats in power, yes. The third and fourth largest economies in the world were countries we built after WW2.

We didn't build them numnuts. They were already the largest economies before the wars and we just gave them some resources to rebuild.

 

[pecksniff]

If neoconservative warhawkery is a thing of the past, maybe it's time to look at paring down the defense budget.

 

[Dribble]

If neoconservative warhawkery is a thing of the past, maybe it's time to look at paring down the defense budget.

I don't know...destroying the planet 10 times over might not be enough

 

[Cubantripod]

If neoconservative warhawkery is a thing of the past, maybe it's time to look at paring down the defense budget.

That was part of the reason for the income tax.

 

[Lazaran]

.
The thing people miss about some of America's more recent military adventurism, is the geopolitical realities that motivated them.

The Iraq invasion was undoubtably a war for oil, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was completely unwarranted. People forget that OPEC was considering moving from the dollar to the Euro as the oil transaction currency standard. America's invasion of Iraq and control of its oil reserves effectively put an end to that idea. There is an excellent article titled "The Real Reason For The Upcoming War With Iraq". If America hadn't invaded Iraq, and OPEC had managed to expand control of the oil markets and shift to the Euro, the world and America would look very different today.

Undoubtably, the United States interest in Afghanistan was also about more than hunting UBL and the Taliban. The country's mineral wealth is undisputed, and there is definitely going to be more fighting over it. The civil war in Afgjanistan is far from over just because America and our allies are leaving.

Considering globalization, it's probably more cost effective to let China deal with the headaches associated with extracting the resources from "the graveyard of empires". Maybe they'll have more luck than we did; or not. America can still benefit regardless of how things turn out.

In a perfect world, Afghanistans natural wealth would be shared somewhat equitably among its people, but that obviously is not going to happen in the cutthroat environment of Afghanistan. Unless the Taliban really have "changed".

Ultimately, the world needs those resources, and there is going to come a time when the violence we have seen in the past is going to seem like polite diplomacy if the Afghanis don't sort their shit out. There has to be a breaking point.

Is that Neo-con enough for you???

 

[WillJ8787]

.
The thing people miss about some of America's more recent military adventurism, is the geopolitical realities that motivated them.

The Iraq invasion was undoubtably a war for oil, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was completely unwarranted. People forget that OPEC was considering moving from the dollar to the Euro as the oil transaction currency standard. America's invasion of Iraq and control of its oil reserves effectively put an end to that idea. There is an excellent article titled "The Real Reason For The Upcoming War With Iraq". If America hadn't invaded Iraq, and OPEC had managed to expand control of the oil markets and shift to the Euro, the world and America would look very different today.

Undoubtably, the United States interest in Afghanistan was also about more than hunting UBL and the Taliban. The country's mineral wealth is undisputed, and there is definitely going to be more fighting over it. The civil war in Afgjanistan is far from over just because America and our allies are leaving.

Considering globalization, it's probably more cost effective to let China deal with the headaches associated with extracting the resources from "the graveyard of empires". Maybe they'll have more luck than we did; or not. America can still benefit regardless of how things turn out.

In a perfect world, Afghanistans natural wealth would be shared somewhat equitably among its people, but that obviously is not going to happen in the cutthroat environment of Afghanistan. Unless the Taliban really have "changed".

Ultimately, the world needs those resources, and there is going to come a time when the violence we have seen in the past is going to seem like polite diplomacy if the Afghanis don't sort their shit out. There has to be a breaking point.

Is that Neo-con enough for you???

Well said!

 

[pecksniff]

So can we safely cut the defense budget, or not?

 

[Rightguide]

If neoconservative warhawkery is a thing of the past, maybe it's time to look at paring down the defense budget.

Can't pare down the defense budget when China, our enemy is increasing theirs. We need to spend more to stay secure. Biden has already reduced the budget to less that the rate of inflation for the ten years. We need instead to stop handing out money to foreigners and stop spending on the future communist aspirations of the Democrat Party.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Defining neoconservatism narrowly, as the idea that the U.S. should use military force to spread democracy and capitalism abroad. Nobody still appears to stand for that as such. PNAC shut down about ten years ago. Is this now a dead letter in American politics?

Neoconservatism is alive and well. Just go read the Bulwark or many of their publications. Neoliberalism is struggling in light of the prolific spending of the last two decades.

Neoconservative is the emphasis on interventionism in foreign policy (of which military force is only one tendril). There are many other tools of intervention - economic policy, fiscal policy, favored-nation trading status, many of the programs (non-military) run by State and assorted NGO's. They are all born in the same mindset "Our way is best and you should do it like we want".

 

[pecksniff]

Can't pare down the defense budget when China, our enemy is increasing theirs.

China is not an enemy. China is a competitor.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

So long as Kristol, Sykes, Goldberg, etc. can get dupes to sign up for cruises and have left-wing billionaires fund their unread mimeographed tracts, there will always be neocons.

 

[pecksniff]

So long as Kristol, Sykes, Goldberg, etc. can get dupes to sign up for cruises and have left-wing billionaires fund their unread mimeographed tracts, there will always be neocons.

Do mimeograph machines even exist any more?

 

[BluesDriver66]

Can't pare down the defense budget when China, our enemy is increasing theirs. We need to spend more to stay secure. Biden has already reduced the budget to less that the rate of inflation for the ten years. We need instead to stop handing out money to foreigners and stop spending on the future communist aspirations of the Democrat Party.

We already spend more than twice as China. The military industrial complex is bleeding the average American taxpayer dry.

https://i.insider.com/55e0c1619dd7cc24008b6c64?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp


They are wasting/mismanaging/stealing taxpayer money hand over fist.


The Pentagon’s $35 Trillion Accounting Black Hole

While it shouldn’t come as a surprise for an organization that has famously failed to ever pass an audit.....

.....the Department of Defense made $35 trillion in “accounting adjustments” in 2019, easily surpassing the $30.7 trillion in such adjustments recorded in 2018.

.....“dwarfs the $738 billion of defense-related funding in the latest U.S. budget, a spending plan that includes the most expensive weapons systems in the world including the F-35 jet as well as new aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines.” It’s also “larger than the entire U.S. economy and underscores the Defense Department’s continuing difficulty in balancing its books.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/pentagon-35-trillion-accounting-black-231154593.html


What they waste at the Pentagon yearly could pay for a decades worth of Universal health care.


How Much Will Medicare for All Cost?

Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a co-chair of the Medicare for All Caucus, released a bill today that would adopt a single-payer system, where the federal government replaces private health insurance companies as the sole provider of most health care financing. While we are not aware of any estimates of this particular proposal, similar proposals have been estimated to cost the federal government roughly $28-32 trillion over a decade.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

 

[Rightguide]

We already spend more than twice as China. The military industrial complex is bleeding the average American taxpayer dry.

A meaningless comparison. The budgets are diverse for a number of economic and political reasons too elementary to mention. The price of military superiority, and our national need and belief that we should remain that way, determine the politics and levels of expenditures.