Friends like these (II): Neocons embracing Obama

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, December 14, 2009 - 5:32 PM Share

William Kristol -- yes, that Bush Doctrine-supporting, America-excepting, neocon warmonger -- is just smooching all over President Obama's Nobel speech:

There was a fair amount for Bush Doctrine-supporters, American-exceptionalist patriots, and neocon warmongers to like in Obama's Oslo speech. He sounded hardheaded and pro-American, certainly by contrast with his previous rhetorical forays abroad -- his utopian world-without-nuclear-weapons remarks in Prague in April or his apologetic speech to the Muslim world in Cairo two months later."

So does Robert Kagan.

I expect the left to start demanding that a few bones be thrown its way. I've seen references to "O=W" bumperstickers appearing. Easiest sop to left-of-center would be lifting the ban on being openly gay in the military -- which also can be justified in terms of readiness.

Photo: World Economic Forum/Flickr

EXPLORE:NORTH AMERICA, BUSH'S LEGACY, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, POLITICS

(9)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

SMCI60652

6:08 PM ET

December 14, 2009

I just don't get it

I think his speech was nuanced to the point where it's clear that he admits that the US does and has historically made mistakes, but its over-arching contributions have been for the betterment of the world.

He's repeatedly stated that Iraq was not only a mistake, but a disaster. What more do we want?

I mean are there honestly people out there that lack the sense that just because he disagreed with the war that he should pull out every last soldier by the end of his first day in office?

As for Afghanistan, never once during his campaign did he say he was just going to ratchet down our committment and bring the troops home. On the contrary, I remember him getting flack for saying that we need to lower the level of troops in Iraq so we can 'transfer' them and raise levels where they're REALLY needed: Afghanistan.

And I also recall thinking that when he said that he'd order SOFs into Pakistan if the Pakistanis refused to act on credible intel and eliminate Al Qaeda operatives - that maybe he just slipped up and accidentally said something that he'd never seriously do, but apparently he knew exactly what he was saying back then... and McCain chewed him out for it.

So thus far, he hasn't tricked anybody. He's done exactly what he said he would. And we still voted for him. So just because the some folks in the left wing of his party don't like it, it doesn't mean they have free license to go associate him with the worst, most belligerent individuals of the neo-cons.

SCHMEDLAP

10:00 PM ET

December 14, 2009

Ready for what?

"... lifting the ban on being openly gay in the military -- which also can be justified in terms of readiness."

Yeah, thrusting the military into the middle of a polarizing political debate always helps readiness.

SCOTTGOOSE

3:54 AM ET

December 15, 2009

Ha, good point

I don't really have an opinion on the issue of gays in the military in general, but I agree that McChrystal has enough to worry about already. No need to add anything more to the list; especially if its so volatile.

GRANT

12:21 AM ET

December 15, 2009

I've also noticed plenty of

I've also noticed plenty of bumper stickers lately with the Biblical references "Psalm 109", referring to a verse on the killing of an evil leader.

On another matter, Alistair Horne noted that left-wing leaders in democracies sometimes are forced towards supporting increases in wars that their right-wing predecessors couldn't necessarily do, with the cases of Algeria and Vietnam.

SCHMEDLAP

5:29 AM ET

December 15, 2009

Yup

It is sometimes much easier for a liberal to pursue conservative policies and conservatives to pursue liberal policies. That's why we didn't get welfare reform until a liberal President in 1996 decided he was going to co-opt a pet issue of a conservative Congress. That may also be why the allegedly conservative GW Bush oversaw 8 of the most fiscally irresponsible years in our federal government's history.

CHARLIEFORD

1:27 AM ET

December 15, 2009

I can't figure out ...

... whether the folk who are saying Obama's gone neo-con on us are indulging in self-interested spin, or if they're just stupid.

Hey, why not both?

They want people to believe there's no alternatives in-between (or maybe outside) those of Saddam-hugging, Chamberlain-style appeasement and defeatism, and their own Teddy-Roosevelt-on-steroids-with-us-or-against-us-preventive-unilateral-interventionism.

If they can get that message accepted, they win all but the farthest on the left.

But there's also plenty of evidence that they're just plain stupid. Their brains simply cannot comprehend the more complicated positions out there, of which Obama's is one.

If they could comprehend these things, they wouldn't be neo-cons!

The fact that Obama is a Niebuhrian, as is Bacevich to some degree, and the fact that Bacevich and Obama differ so resoundingly on the wisdom of an Afghan-surge reveals how far beyond simple neo-conism we've come.

Here's a little evidence for the stupidity thesis (pulled from Daily Dish, I think):

Abe Greenwald at the National Review:

"... it is not just neoconservatives who believe in an America that conquers evil abroad. In fact, that conception of American morality is older than the relatively new one Obama espouses. War presidents have appealed to this aspect of American exceptionalism for centuries. Among other things, the War of 1812 was an attempt to eradicate the evil of monarchic rule . . ."

Daniel Larison at the American Conservative calls a spade a spade:

"Abe Greenwald reminds us that neoconservatives have the historical understanding of five year-olds . . ."

As for lefty-ish discontent with Obama, the smartest of the left (that would be historians) saw this coming even before he was the nominee, to wit,

http://www.cafepress.com/edgeofthewest.278096071

CHARLIEFORD

2:41 AM ET

December 15, 2009

I think I'll have to go with ...

... stupid, having just read Kagan's piece linked above.

Look at this: "Nor did [Obama] shy away from the Manichaean distinctions that drive self-described realists (and Europeans) crazy, insisting that "Evil does exist in the world" and can neither be negotiated with nor appeased."

Obama's a Manichean?! How tin-eared and flat-footed can you get? Talk about things that can drive you crazy. Because one believes in evil, doesn't mean you think the enemy embodies (only) it or that you're immune to it.

Andrew Sullivan said it really well:

"And this is the critical distinction between Bush and Obama: Obama is far more conservative than his predecessor. He sees that the profound flaws in human nature affect us as well as them; that we 'face the world as it is,' not as we would like it to be; that the decision to go to war is a moral and a pragmatic one; that ends have to be balanced by a shrewd and sometimes cold-eyed assessment of means."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

JPWREL

5:03 PM ET

December 15, 2009

Because American political

Because American political and military leadership trapped themselves in a snare of their own making and lacked the moral courage to change their minds even when they recognized futility. The fathers, sons and brothers who died in that war were cheated out of their lives by the mendacity of those whom they had trusted.

COURTNEYME109

9:38 PM ET

December 15, 2009

44's Double Epiphany?

A case could be made that by the time China topped the agenda, 44 was dealing with the feeling that often accompanies a double epiphany:

The world is full of crazy regimes and 44 was crazy for thinking he could Hopenchange 'em