This post will be a not-comprehensive rejection of the neocon foreign policy. Twitter for the past week has been filled with neocons trying to justify their unnecessary murder for democracy. Neocon is actually a combination of two words: “Neo” meaning New. “Con” meaning conservative. I believe neocon foreign policy can probably be traced back to the beginning of American foreign policy. (This may be another post) For the purpose of this post, I think the appropriate place to contextualize the beginning of Neocon foreign policy is 9/11/2001. (Some sources say the 1960s were the birth) Yes, the World Trade Center attacks began the Neocon movement. After the attacks in the following months, there was a push for a war against the countries supposedly harboring the terrorists who carried out the attacks. Unfortunately the Bush Administration ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia was actually the home nation of most the terrorists. Very convenient because Saudi Arabia is a close American ally.
The push for war in first Afghanistan and then Iraq was put forth the loudest by conservatives. Historically, there has always been members of congress called War Hawks. There members traditionally are the loudest voices for war. Also just because the term Neocon contains conservative doesn’t mean it only applies to conservative political leaning. Neocon foreign policy is a bipartisan activity. As far as I’m concerned, I think Vice President Dick Cheney was the unspoken leader of the Neocons. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, a well fed (government contracts) military contractor before his selection to VP. He also served as secretary of defense for a stint under Clinton. I’ve mentioned before that Cheney stayed on as a senior advisor for Halliburton even after taking office. He had plenty of motivation to push the US into two more wars.
We also have to remember that the War on Terror as Bush termed it, was against specifically the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who was known to train and hide in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In classic American foreign policy, the Iraq war had shaky grounds for going in. Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction which were never found. The false flag plant is not a new tactic in America foreign policy. Nearly every war has at least one, Vietnam War–Gulf of Tonkin, World War 1– Sinking of the Lusitania, World War 2– Pearl Harbor (US knew Japan would attack), Spanish American War– Bombing of the USS Maine… just to name a few. You can start to see the formula for the necon foreign policy forming.
President George W. Bush might have been the beginning of neocon foreign policy but he certainly wasn’t the only one. After Bush’s presidency, the strategy of trying to prevent future conflicts by invading on the assumption of a threat was given a name. It was called the Bush Doctrine. The funny part of all this is that Democratic President Barack H. Obama really cemented the Neocon foreign policy. Obama use preventative war and drone striking in countries such as Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Plus he continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said Neocon isn’t exclusively a conservative thing.
Now that we understand what Neocon foreign policy is, I think it’s time to completely reject it as a good form of foreign policy. The first thing I want to say is that America has a position in world power struggle as a hegemonic power. Hegemonic means predominant power. The hegemon position allows America to act in ways that would otherwise be checked by similarly powerful countries. I believe once America loses hegemony, the Neocon foreign policy dies with it. (I’d be lying if I said we aren’t close to losing it) When I look around the world, I don’t see any country using the same style of foreign policy. Which is weird, especially if you think about President Trump’s main enemy China.
China is the hegemon in Asia. China controls nearly all of the Asian sphere of influence. There are many differences in America and China but I think there is one similarity which makes this foreign policy comparison relevant. China’s government, the Chinese Communist Party wants to spread communism just as much as American spreads democracy. Hear me out. The CCP approaches foreign policy very differently than America. China uses more soft power to persuade countries to do whatever it is that China wants. Soft power is things like trade deals, sanctions, border controls, and currency or anything not involving the military. Soft power can be both positive and negative in terms of influence. The US only uses sanctions in soft power, and unfortunately for Trump, he wrongly tried to use tariffs. (Protectionist policies don’t work)
The differences in government style definitely affect the ability of the US to use soft power. The Chinese government has very fine control over every aspect of the government and the economy. Most big industries in China are owned by the government like banking and energy. The US democracy is pretty clunky in that every needs to be voted on and leaders change every four years. You’ll notice that you never hear about China in recent years engaging in any kind of war-like behavior. Some Neocons might tell you because the US would rebuttal them. But in all honesty, the Chinese don’t the fear the US military because their military is larger. The Chinese haven’t been ignoring their military, they have built a lot of battleships and aircraft carriers in recent years. The point here is that there is nothing with using soft power.
The neocon obsession with war is sick. The real problem is that most of these neocons probably have never fought in a war. Their children will never go to war. Take it from me, I think that studying war is the most interesting thing in the world. As a kid, I was fascinated by it, I had so many GI Joes. But personally, I probably couldn’t handle a real war. This is the main reason why I’m against it. I’m not willing to fight in one so why should anybody?
I want to conclude on this thought about Neocon foreign policy. Neocon foreign policy has probably killed more people than its set free. Are the countries who America has tried to help by bombing now better democracies because of it? Although I’m against the organization of all forms of government, I think that peaceful means of negotiation exist between both governments and countries. The main problem with Neocon foreign policy is that it kills a lot of people who don’t deserve it. Also that it doesn’t work. If it did work, we wouldn’t still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. Democracy isn’t worth spreading.
Thanks for reading!
Check out my Social Media List/Links page
Also Hit the follow button below!
Technically Analytics 