• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

Are Neocons A Threat To World Peace?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 59.0%
  • No

    Votes: 25 41.0%

  • Total voters
    61

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

And

The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.

Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?
 
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US



And



Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.

Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?

No we aren't--and he is right.
 
"neocon" to the dogmatic leftist acts like "liberal" to the mouth foaming dittohead. It is the pejoritive that embodies all manner of evil.

As to the original neocon movement,however, one objective was to liberalize the middle east among other things,and even if this was a display of complete hubris, a more liberal middle east WOULD help deliver peace.

The problem here,is that such a grandiose plan backfired,and the reaction to it has resulted not only in the middle east becoming even more backwards, but a great deal of the world left joining them because, by golly, if the neocons stand for something, they will stand against.
 
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US



And



Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.

Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?

I think this strategy to curb and roll back Russia in the last decade was very short-sighted and stupid, because at that time, Putin was still longing for close cooperation with the West (and the West kicked in his balls instead).

Now we have the mess. At some point, Putin and his advisors felt "enough is enough", now are convinced it's a matter of life and death because the West wants to actually destroy and shatter Russia, and thanks to the useless neo-con wars like in Iraq, we're tired of war so much we can hardly defend ourselves.

So yeah, pretty stupid policies by the neo-cons. However, now it's too late to whine about that and sink into self-criticism.

The Versailles Conditions towards Germany were not smart either, 1918-1933, because it was a severe burden for the democratic system and its legitimacy. But once Hitler was in power and started annexing his neighbors in 1938, it was too late for appeasement and understanding too.
 
The idea of "world peace" is a unicorn. What is achievable is a level of order on the global stage and this may be maintained through international cooperation in standing up for international law. Unfortunately, too often the international community is unwilling to support these laws in whole and allow certain nations to tramp all over them. Neocons believe that the US should maintain a powerful military in order to back the principles that we claim to support and when these principles are being violated, we should act to stop the violation.

The real question is can world order be maintained through brute force? Some say yes and some say no. I think it is much wiser to look at things on a case by case basis. Some international conflicts can be solved through diplomacy, as military action simply leads to more problems down the road. And some nations, like Russia, only respect might and will only respond to strength and resolve. I am not a neocon, but I do believe we should maintain the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, not that so we may constantly fight, but so that we do not have to.

President John F Kennedy believed this as well, and I do not think we would label him as a neocon, would we?
 
The idea of "world peace" is a unicorn. What is achievable is a level of order on the global stage and this may be maintained through international cooperation in standing up for international law. Unfortunately, too often the international community is unwilling to support these laws in whole and allow certain nations to tramp all over them. Neocons believe that the US should maintain a powerful military in order to back the principles that we claim to support and when these principles are being violated, we should act to stop the violation.

The real question is can world order be maintained through brute force? Some say yes and some say no. I think it is much wiser to look at things on a case by case basis. Some international conflicts can be solved through diplomacy, as military action simply leads to more problems down the road. And some nations, like Russia, only respect might and will only respond to strength and resolve. I am not a neocon, but I do believe we should maintain the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, not that so we may constantly fight, but so that we do not have to.

President John F Kennedy believed this as well, and I do not think we would label him as a neocon, would we?

I agree with you. But I'm afraid this is a tightrope walk ... when you on one side aim at defending standards of international law (and "Western" values) with force, you always run the risk sacrificing some of these standards in the process, on the other side. I believe America's loss of public approval in the eyes of many Western people has been considerable during Bush's reign and beyond, and may well turn out to have caused more problems than it solved.

But yeah, problems should be considered on a case by case basis.
 
Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?

neocons aren't the only hawks. interventionism itself can be a threat to world peace in certain situations. other times, it's warranted, such as WWII. there was no way to stay out of that one, but it's debatable whether WWII would have even happened if WWI hadn't occurred.
 
I agree with you. But I'm afraid this is a tightrope walk ... when you on one side aim at defending standards of international law (and "Western" values) with force, you always run the risk sacrificing some of these standards in the process, on the other side. I believe America's loss of public approval in the eyes of many Western people has been considerable during Bush's reign and beyond, and may well turn out to have caused more problems than it solved.

But yeah, problems should be considered on a case by case basis.

The problem with the Bush era is that the US was breaking many international laws. Of course this isn't necessarily a new thing, and I would not suggest that a sovereign nation allow the international community to dictate to it. However, there are a few principles, common to all mankind that may be viewed as etched in stone. The international community should work to preserve human rights, respect national boundaries and sovereignty, and to progress human freedom...etc.

My interest in military might is that the US be like the cobra. Our military power will be our venom, but it will also be our hood to warn those that would violate the principles of freedom and liberty away so that we do not need to use our venom.
 
I think this strategy to curb and roll back Russia in the last decade was very short-sighted and stupid, because at that time, Putin was still longing for close cooperation with the West (and the West kicked in his balls instead).

Now we have the mess. At some point, Putin and his advisors felt "enough is enough", now are convinced it's a matter of life and death because the West wants to actually destroy and shatter Russia, and thanks to the useless neo-con wars like in Iraq, we're tired of war so much we can hardly defend ourselves.

So yeah, pretty stupid policies by the neo-cons. However, now it's too late to whine about that and sink into self-criticism.

The Versailles Conditions towards Germany were not smart either, 1918-1933, because it was a severe burden for the democratic system and its legitimacy. But once Hitler was in power and started annexing his neighbors in 1938, it was too late for appeasement and understanding too.

What leads you to believe Putin was 'longing for close cooperation with the West' or that Neoconservatives were core of the NATO expansion/Russian containment movement?
 
What leads you to believe Putin was 'longing for close cooperation with the West' or that Neoconservatives were core of the NATO expansion/Russian containment movement?

Russia seeking cooperation: A couple of books/journals I read in 2008 when I was writing a paper on the topic. At least that's what I remember.

Neo-cons at the core of rolling back Russia: Hm, I just assumed that, maybe because of the Wolfowitz quotes the OP presented. But yeah, I guess Brzezinski isn't exactly a neo-Con. ;)
 
Militaristic nationalism has always been the biggest enemy of peace and liberty. So, to answer your question, yes.
 
Or if after WWI we would have set in place bases like we did after WWII. You would have thought an educated man like BO would have learned that lesson before leaving Iraq like he did. Some day we will likely have to return there.


neocons aren't the only hawks. interventionism itself can be a threat to world peace in certain situations. other times, it's warranted, such as WWII. there was no way to stay out of that one, but it's debatable whether WWII would have even happened if WWI hadn't occurred.
 
The two selected quotes are expected aspirations for world powers. That it has become taboo to state the obvious is merely hiding the way the world works. It's impolite dinner manners, but it's what each person at the dinner table is thinking.

While I think the Scoop Jackson crowd (to segregate out some "neoconservative" tendencies from others) have frequently been wrong in their policy prescriptions and have overemphasized the ability and perhaps desirability of the United States fostering democratic regimes and idealism throughout the world, I do not think they represent a greater or lesser danger to world peace than other tendencies. They can be wrong a large amount of time, but like anything else, danger to world peace comes in many forms.
 
What leads you to believe Putin was 'longing for close cooperation with the West' or that Neoconservatives were core of the NATO expansion/Russian containment movement?

The school of neoconservatives the OP is using had chosen to argue that Russia, China, and a number of other states or world powers needed to be contained, and if necessarily, replaced-with regimes that were both more congenial to U.S. policy objectives and western democratic ideals. In other words, what was good for the U.S. was good for the world. During the 1990s, Russia was not nearly on their radar as the other states were, but throughout Putin's tenure, the old Scoop Jackson crowd and their intellectual offspring have more or less suggested that old habits die hard in Russia, thus the U.S. needs to remain vigilant.
 
Last edited:
"neocon" to the dogmatic leftist acts like "liberal" to the mouth foaming dittohead. It is the pejoritive that embodies all manner of evil.

As to the original neocon movement,however, one objective was to liberalize the middle east among other things,and even if this was a display of complete hubris, a more liberal middle east WOULD help deliver peace.

That wasn't a real objective of the original neoconservatives. Many had been concerned about the health of the Israeli state, and the defense of western civilization from the Soviet Union, but most of the thrust was on U.S. domestic policy. Even during the early years of the Scoop Jackson Democrats, democracy was an as-needed basis. It was hardly the most important foreign policy objective. Thus they could support authoritarian right-wing regimes, if it meant that the U.S. and its western allies would have friends stopping the spread of the USSR's influence. It wasn't until the democratic elections in the Philippines that someone like Wolfowitz became among the first to advocate for democratic idealism as a precept of U.S. foreign policy. Eventually other like-minded individuals agreed with him.

Even so, the older generation tended to think less about interventionism once the Soviet Union faded (let alone the majority of neoconservatives who were divided on foreign policy and focused primarily on domestic policy). It was Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, and some of the younger pups that argued that the 90's were a needed time for U.S. leadership.
 
Last edited:
World Peace?

How about a threat to America?

These arrogant, insecure, often delusional ignoramuses and their obsession with controlling everything; do nothing more then get brave U.S. military personnel killed thousands of miles from home fighting hopeless battles while costing U.S. taxpayers trillions that they do not have to keep them there...all the while creating more and more enemies by pissing just about everyone else off.
And that is not even mentioning the idiocy of utilizing 'regime change' as an act of foreign policy.

IMO, Neocons are far more of a threat to American greatness (and world peace) then any terrorist organization ever could be.

And if that offends Neocons, good...mission accomplished (pun intended).
 
Last edited:
No we aren't--and he is right.

Yes you are and he is wrong. Why? The problem is that the principle of preventing the emergence of potential competitors, as a policy objective, naturally lends itself to the creation of destructive tension between ourselves and others actors on the world stage. This type of destructive tension is perpetual because the natural tendency of states is to increase their influence. Thwarting the rise of potential competitors thus becomes a zero sum game in which one side wins and the other side loses.

The practical effects of this type of thinking are glaringly on display currently in Ukraine. Instead of focusing on creating a situation in which both sides would benefit, the focus became either we win or lose. Therefore the US went all out, and the result is the current mess.

Preventing the rise of potential competitors should not therefore be a goal of US foreign policy. In areas where we have conflicting objectives with other parties we should first of all carefully assess the situation and place it into one of the following two broad categories:

1. There is a clear threat to our vital interests
2. There is potential risk to our interests

In both cases the approach take the following steps in order:

1. Seek a solution that is a win-win for both sides.
2. Seek a solution in which both sides agree to divide the situation into well defined and respected boundaries
3. Seek to buy out or co-opt the other side.

Having failed in these attempts, if the situation is such that there is only a risk to our interests, but not a clear and present danger to our vital interests, we should maintain the status quo and monitor the situation carefully to insure that it does not rise to the level of a direct threat. However if it is determined that there is a clear and present direct danger to our vital interests, we must then seek a solution that thwarts the power of the other side, even if it involves violent coercion.

Thwarting the rise of potential competitors logical conclusion is the implementation of a dangerous doctrine of pre-emption. Such a doctrine is the catalyst for perpetual war and will likely lead to a destructive world war in the future.
 
neocons aren't the only hawks.

No they aren't, but they are very prominent and vocal ones and we should never forget that they hijacked the US foreign policy apparatus and led us into Iraq on a witch hunt for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
 
President John F Kennedy believed this as well, and I do not think we would label him as a neocon, would we?

I hate to get into that, because it means we have to project a bit after his assassination-which is not fun. Certain neoconservatives wanted to make that argument (hell, everyone wanted to claim Kennedy as their own, so why not neoconservatives?), but it's tricky. Parts of the claim make sense, others won't, while others still require us to project years, perhaps decades after his death.
 
What leads you to believe Putin was 'longing for close cooperation with the West' or that Neoconservatives were core of the NATO expansion/Russian containment movement?

With regards to the neocons, they are certainly part of the core of NATO expansion/Russian containment.
 
No they aren't, but they are very prominent and vocal ones and we should never forget that they hijacked the US foreign policy apparatus and led us into Iraq on a witch hunt for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

"Hijacked" is such a dumb term for this. Every department in the administration was headbutting to get the ear and confidence of the President. Had it been Powell and Armitage that beat Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith few would be using that term to describe it.
 
Prominent neocon Paul Wolfowitz is famous for the following policy objectives for the US



And



Here it is clearly stated that the most important goal is to contain Russia. Furthermore the goal is to prevent any challenge to the leadership role of the US on the global stage.

Do such policies put the US on a collision course with the rest of the world? Naturally everyone will not feel the way we do on certain issues and thus there will be challenges to US leadership.

Are the neocons therefore a threat to world peace?

We just saw how Russia needs to be contained and what happens if it isn't. 50,000,000 Ukrainians were just made perpetual beggars and slave labor to Russia by Russia stealing all the natural gas and resources of Crimea from Ukraine.
 
Americans believe they are entitled to our national wealth for free. Nothing is free.
 
The two selected quotes are expected aspirations for world powers. That it has become taboo to state the obvious is merely hiding the way the world works. It's impolite dinner manners, but it's what each person at the dinner table is thinking.

Although your point is well taken, I don't think it is necessary a given that aspiring world powers have to thwart the rise of potential competitors. Can you demonstrate that powers cannot rise together? If not then why should preventing the rise of competitors be an imperative of the foreign policy for world powers?
 
Although your point is well taken, I don't think it is necessary a given that aspiring world powers have to thwart the rise of potential competitors. Can you demonstrate that powers cannot rise together? If not then why should preventing the rise of competitors be an imperative of the foreign policy for world powers?

I keep thinking of European balance of power objectives through the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
Back
Top Bottom