Category Archives: NeoCons

Let’s re-invade Iraq! What could go wrong?

Just how insane and detached from reality are Neocons? Apparently, they’re sufficiently delusional to call for putting American boots on the ground in a country the US Embassy is now evacuating. And for what purpose? Why, to enforce “inclusiveness.” Sound like a worthy military goal to you? It does to Fat Freddy Kagan:

The U.S. has been pushing for an inclusive political settlement in Iraq that brings the Sunni into the government and denies ISIS popular support. The current crisis has resulted in considerable part, in fact, from Maliki’s sectarian actions and systematic exclusion of Sunnis from political power and influence.

Like all apologists for empire, Kagan is mortified at the prospect of self-determination. “Inclusion” is how proponents of Big Government justify their one-size-fits-all ideology. What people like Kagan cannot comprehend is that the people of the Middle East had little to say about the borders they have to live in, and are resorting to violence to win what has been denied them. The brutality going on now is the direct result of past interventions by those who thought they knew what was best for the people of the Middle East. Kagan thinks we haven’t done enough harm to these people, and like the kid with nothing in his tool box but a hammer, wants to intervene yet again:

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required.

Why not? Why, it’ll only take a few regiments. It’ll be a cakewalk. Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion. And the American people will cheer on the troops once news of easy victories come rolling in. Yeah.

Fat Freddy Kagan is calling for an unwinnable fight for an impossible goal that has no popular support.

Tony Blair Blames Non-Intervention for Iraqi Chaos

From Tony Blair’s website:

Highlights:

Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.

Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.

My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.

——-

Additional:

Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.

My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.

This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.

Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.

Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.

My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.

Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.

My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.

Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.

Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.

My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!

24 Commentary

**** SPOILER ALERT ****

#JackisBack was all the rage yesterday on FaceBook, Twitter, etc. I says screw Jack. I’m rooting for the new blonde chick!

Kidding aside, I do think there is some truth to the criticism that 24 operates on neoconish/security state premises. That its routine to subvert laws against torture by turning captives over to extra-national entities for “enhanced interrogation techniques.” That the release of classified information in an attempt to bring transparency is bad. That major existential terrorist threats exist and are plausible/likely. That beefed up intel can prevent such things. Etc. I did find it interesting that they cast the generally well like and sympathetic (if annoying) character of Chloe in the Edward Snowden role.

That said, sometimes you just have to put politics aside and relax and enjoy something for what it is. I like 24 and will no doubt watch and enjoy it. I think the first couple of seasons of 24 was some of the best series television ever. It did get repetitive after a couple of seasons, so I think this extended break has been good for the series.

U.S. could free Israeli spy in deal to save peace talks

One thing’s for sure: The U.S. most definitely has a “special relationship” with Israel. It’s similar to the kind of relationship you see in the beaten wife syndrome, as this nauseating news nugget makes clear:

An Israeli spy serving a life sentence in the United States and groups of Palestinian prisoners could be freed under an emerging deal to salvage Middle East peace talks, sources close to the negotiations said on Monday.

The sources, who spoke as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry prepared to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders, said under the proposed arrangement that Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. Navy analyst caught spying for Israel in the 1980s, could be released by mid-April.

In addition, Israel would go ahead with a promised release of a fourth group of Palestinians, among the 104 it pledged to free in a deal that led to the renewal of peace talks last July. Another group of jailed Palestinians would also go free – and the peace talks would be extended beyond an April 29 deadline, the sources said.

What a deal – Israel gets its hero, the Palestinians get their people, and we get the greatest prize of them all: We get to maintain our “special relationship” with Israel. Win-win-win!

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what Jonathan Pollard – an American citizen, at least on paper, if not in terms of loyalty – did to his country:

Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified. Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number. The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives. Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

But what do you want to bet that the Israel-Firsters will meekly accept this outrage while screaming for Edward Snowden’s head?

Hard times for Neocons

The most vivid illustration of how unnatural and unstable the DC regime has become was the orgy of mutual recrimination that followed the collapse of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. As the flimsy lies that united the bizarre coalition of war supporters became too glaring to deny, public support evaporated. Those who had convinced their constituencies to overlook their differences and rally ’round the flag quickly resorted to demonizing their former bedfellows. It got nasty at times.

You can deny reality for only so long. Really now: How long could we pretend the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan could hide behind such fantasies as Andrew Sullivan’s War of Global Gay Liberation, Charles Johnson’s Crusade against Tradition, and Free Republic’s Great Patriotic War?

Little wonder that the War Party is descending these days into increasingly shrill and unhinged attempts to revive public support for perpetual war. The silliest in recent memory is Michael Gerson’s warning that Americans have  “overlearned” the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, to paraphrase Gerson, “Americans made a huge mistake in 2003: They trusted us Neocons. But that doesn’t mean you should never trust us again when we want to attack another country that has not threatened or attacked us.”

Even worse, says Gerson, by not invading Libya, Georgia, and Syria, just to name a few countries begging for another US-led “liberation,” Americans are increasingly showing “tolerance of crimes against humanity.” Yes, that’s what he said.

If we really cared about the people in other countries, we’d bomb them. Keeping out of other people’s wars demonstrates a lack of compassion.

Of course, Gerson somehow forgets the ACTUAL results of past US interventions. Just to list a few:

- Vietnam, 1960-75 — Two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war.
 - Indonesia, 1965 — CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in 1965 resulted in estimated death of one million people.
 - Cambodia, 1969-75 — US carpet bombing killed two million people.
 - El Salvador, 1981-92 — troops and air power assisted death squads, 75,000 people killed.
 - Serbia — Clinton’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Air War in 1999 killed 6,000 Serbian troops and 2,000 civilians.
 - Iraq — US-led sanctions result in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003. And the Iraqi invasion and occupation has killed over 700 US troops, 5,000 Iraqi troops, and 8,000 civilians.

But Neocons, like the leftists from which they mutated, are at war with reality. We’re supposed to focus on the nobility of their theories, not the real-world consequences of their policies.

Students for Liberty vs. Ron Paul on Crimea

In case you haven’t been following this, there has been a bit of a dust up in non-interventionist circles. Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin publically criticized Ron Paul over his statements on the Crimean situatuion. Since then, it has been time, as they say, to “get the popcorn.” I’m working on a longer response to this. As you probably guess, I side with Ron Paul. But I figured I need to cover this situation so here is a list of links.

Here is the original McCorbin post that got it all started.

Here is the original, as far as I can tell, reaction from BuzzFeed.

The (anti-Paul) Washington Free Beacon quickly picked up the story.

Reason chimes in.

Ron Paul’s Institute responds. (Perhaps too harshly?)

McCorbin replies.

Dave Weigel of Slate opines. (Weigel is interesting in cases like these. Weigel currently has anti-paleo biases, but because he once traveled in our circles before going a different dirrection, he gets the subtext better than most.)

Justin Raimondo is his typical firey self at Anti-War.com.

John Glaser says not so fast.

Raimondo steps on the gas.

Anthont Gregory calls for a truce.

Robert Wenzel sides with Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com

Whew! See what I mean about getting the popcorn?

Neocon Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

As a Southern paleocon who has often argued with Unionist neocons over the virtue of the Union invasion of the South and the merits of Lincoln, the current events taking place in Ukraine and the neocons’ reaction to it has me scratching my head. Let’s see…

Neocons, especially those of the Straussian variety, allegedly oppose secession. They oppose the historic secession of the South and reject secession as a legitimate political option for US states at present.

As a result of their inherent nationalism and opposition to secession, neocons venerate Abraham Lincoln above any other American.

Ukraine is a product of a quiet recent, historically speaking, secession from the former Soviet Union.

Putin is reoccupying part of Ukraine.

Therefore, if neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they support Putin as a Lincolnesq figure attempting to restore a political entity, the USSR, that traitorous upstart secessionist in Ukraine have recently ripped apart? And just as they should view Putin as a modern day Lincoln, shouldn’t they view the Russian Army as a modern day equivalent of the Union Army, and the Ukraine military as a modern equivalent of the Rebel Confederate Army?

But instead, the neocons are supporting the former secessionist Ukrainian revolutionaries and opposing Lincolnesq Putin’s attempt to reoccupy a former Soviet territory.

Hmmm…?

In a similar situation, Bill Clinton’s ordered American troops to intervene in the Balkans.

In the Balkan intervention, American troops were facilitating the secession of Bosnia from part of the former Yugoslavia.

If neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they have opposed the secession of Bosnia? Shouldn’t they have likened the US forces in the Balkans to the Confederate Army for facilitating secession and Clinton to Jefferson Davis?

Instead, neocons enthusiastically supported Clinton’s Bosnian intervention even while many conservatives at the time were returning to their non-interventionist roots and opposing the action.

Hmmm…?

Perhaps it isn’t really secession that neocons oppose. They seem quite happy with secession when it is breaking up countries that they view as challenging US hegemony. Perhaps the real problem they have with the secession of the South or the modern secession of US states is that it challenges their (mistaken) conception of America as a unitary modern state with a special mission to spread the values of liberal democracy across the globe.

Hmmm…?

Originally posted at Intellectual Conservative.

Archived at www.danphillipsmd.com.

Resistance to DC rising

“The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around.” Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

Pat Buchanan has a must-read piece that is perfect in every way except for its inappropriate title, “Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring.” My nit-pick is that “isolationism” is what interventionists use to slam those who question their endless wars. It’s the equivalent of the use of “racist” to put down anyone who objects to socialism — which is exactly what that term means. And as I’ve argued before, the interventionist abroad validates and reinforces the interventionist at home. Both have an other-worldly ideal that mere humanity never quite lives up to, requiring the noble idealists to spill a little more blood. All in the name of doing good, you see.

Pat points out that the interventionists have directly harmed this country. The facts he presents cannot be argued:

We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.

Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya.

Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:

A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

While America was caught up in these wars, China swept past Britain, France, Germany and Japan to emerge as the second largest economy on earth. Using her $250-$300 billion annual trade surpluses with the United States, she has been locking up resources across Africa, Latin America, Australia and Asia.

Now Beijing has declared its own Monroe Doctrine to encompass the East and South China seas and all islands therein and to challenge the United States for hegemony over the Western Pacific.

The Afghan and Iraq wars, we should note, were supported by big-government interventionists of both the left and right. What’s scary is that the same coalition is still at it today, demanding war on Iran, and blasting those who courageously uncover illegal surveillance by the federal government. Despite their differences, the left and right interventionists are united in their support of a powerful centralized government and the demonization of dissent.

The bottom line is that they’re both cheering while the federal government chips away at what’s left of our liberty. That makes them part of the problem, not the solution. Let’s not forget that.

We need a dictator!

David Brooks is frustrated. Congress won’t grant amnesty to all those potential Americans “hiding in the shadows,” it can’t pass gun control, and it hasn’t given us any fun wars lately. Brooks is also disappointed by the American public’s lack of enthusiasm for DC’s military adventures. Members of Congress, always mindful of the next election, aren’t about to further alienate voters. That makes Brooks sad. Brooks, a thorough Neocon, gleefully backed the Iraq War as a means to achieve “national greatness.” To him, a strong central government is the answer to everything, since, in his own words, “ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.”

The solution? Brooks says it’s time for the president to assume more power and get things rolling again. Here’s his argument, from an opinion piece entitled Strengthen the Presidency:

Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything. Second, executive branch officials are more sheltered from the interest groups than Congressional officials. Third, executive branch officials usually have more specialized knowledge than staffers on Capitol Hill and longer historical memories. Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks.

What should Obama do, in Brooks’s opinion? Simple: “So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility.”

Yeah — nothing like a few “executive branch power grabs” to liven things up.

Don’t dismiss this as just the ravings of a typical government supremacist. What Brooks is advocating is a very real, very frightening possibility. Obama is already taking steps to do exactly what Brooks is talking about. Obama has appointed long-time DC insider John Podesta to his senior staff. Podesta has long been an open advocate of a powerful chief executive. In a Center for American Progress paper in 2010 entitled, “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” Podesta wrote: “Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Liberty activists should fear this man. Podesta’s progressive ideology is a blueprint for the welfare-warfare state:

In 2008, Podesta authored his book The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country. In it, he articulates a vision of progressive values based on four core lessons: 1) Progressives stand with people, not privilege; 2) Progressives believe in the Common Good and a government that offers a hand up; 3) Progressives hold that all people are equal in the eyes of God and under the law; and 4) Progressives stand for universal human rights and cooperative global security.

(Catch that last line? And some people don’t believe me when I argue that civil rights and militarism are DC’s yin and yang.) Like all DC insiders, John Podesta knows how to deploy his noble-sounding ideals to turn a buck:

Since President Obama entered office in 2008, Boeing has spent $840,000 on The Podesta Group’s services, relying on the firm to lobby in favor of lucrative defense appropriations at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

What can we expect from Obama in the coming months? More wars, more forced multiculturalism, more authoritarian government.

In other words, what we can expect from ANY administration.

Paul Gottfried Responds to His Critics at Free Republic

Prof. Gottfried saw our post below, and passed along this response (very slightly edited) to his critics at Free Republic, where the review was posted:

In his very generous, widely distributed review of my book on Leo Strauss and Strauss’s effect on the American conservative movement, Jack Kerwick observes that amidst our ideological division, my study stands out as “model of civility.” Apparently this judgment didn’t sit well with some commentors at freerepublic.com who weighed in against me as a nasty controversialist. Among my transgressions is to have defended the notorious anti-Semite Joe Sobran. Further, in my presumed attacks on Leo Strauss in a book that my ungrammatical critics never bothered to read, I besmirched a true patriot, who loved our liberal democratic government. Since Strauss defended what he thought America had been set up to represent, he must have been an authentic conservative, and it was therefore wicked on my part to challenge his political credentials. One critic even went so far as to describe me as driven by “anger,” that is, as someone who is no longer capable of rational judgment. This rant replicated almost word for word the unprofessional opinions that had been sent by a referee for an outline of my (then unwritten) book on Strauss that had been submitted to Yale University Press three years ago. Although my alma mater was about to give me a contract for the book Cambridge later brought out, after the receipt of the poison pen letter, the editor broke off negotiations.

These comments occasion certain thoughts, or more accurately, force me to revise certain preconceived notions. Up until a few days ago I had assumed that my adversaries in the conservative media simply ignored my critical writings. They treated me as an inconsequential rightwing kook, whom they had no interest in calling attention to. Last week I encountered a young gentleman who told me how at “conservative” youth conferences he attended, he was warned against my uncooperative attitudes. I was certainly a presence at these events, in the same way that Goldstein was in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. And I suspect I enjoyed about the same degree of popularity among the organizers as Big Brother’s straw man.

For the record, my well-prepped critics are wrong on two points, in addition to their egregious syntax. One, I never defended Joe Sobran as an “anti-Semite” or as a critic of the policies of the Israeli government, which for some of my critics are the same. I simply noted somewhere that Sobran was unjustly treated by the movement to which he had devoted his life. I never expressed approval of his judgments about Israel, which I do not happen to share. Two, my work on Strauss, which my detractors obviously never looked at, is every bit as civil as Jack Kerwick suggests it is. One would be hard pressed to find a single snide comment about my subject and in fact one encounters in the biographical sections many empathetic remarks about Strauss’s treatment as a scholar in Germany before he was forced by the Nazis to leave. I note parallels between my family’s experiences and those of Strauss and stress repeatedly the breadth of Strauss’s erudition. I have absolutely no idea how anyone but a driven fanatic could find anything demeaning about my descriptions.

My downfall with this book is that I’m not a Straussian or someone who interprets Strauss and his disciples as “conservatives.” Since as an intellectual historian I treat even classical Marxists with sympathy, the fact that I don’t characterize the Straussians or their master as conservative should not be viewed as an insult. But it may be a costly faux pas. Strauss’s more prominent disciples are used to being slobbered over in certain magazines conventionally associated with the right. Unfortunately for my sales, I don’t follow this party-line.

Townhall Publishes Review of Paul Gottfried’s Book on Leo Strauss – Progress?

Recently I asked if Townhall’s publication of an anti-neocon article represented progress? Now they have published a review of Paul Gottfried’s Leo Strauss book (which is now available in paperback and reasonably affordable.) I don’t know if Townhall just likes Jack Kerwick and publishes most of what he sends them, or if this demonstrates some sort of progress. Thoughts?

One thing that I think is hurting the neocons with the activist base, is that they are being increasingly associated with the Establishment faction in favor of moderation, compromise and coming to terms with big government. This association is not at all unfair as most of the notable neocon spokesmen sided with the Establishment against Cruz and the defund ObamaCare effort. I don’t believe that most of the base has abandoned interventionism in theory, but I do think they now have little stomach for actual wars as demonstrated by their strong opposition to intervention in Syria. And I do think they are becoming increasingly aware of the budgetary consequences of our current policy. This linkage of the strongly interventionist faction with the centrist faction can only help the cause of non-intervention.

Op-ed Specifically Denouncing Neoconservatism Published at Townhall.com

Townhall.com is as generic a movement con organ as you can find, yet they published this op-ed from Jack Kerwick specifically condemning neoconservatism. This is progress. I don’t think this would have passed muster five years ago, certainly not ten years ago.

If the Democratic Party’s control of the presidency and the Senate can succeed in provoking the base of the GOP to reevaluate its collective political identity, then it all may just have been worth it.

Maybe—maybe—the internecine conflict currently on display in the GOP indicates a breakdown of that political philosophy that has dominated Republican Party politics, as well as the so-called “conservative movement,” for decades.

The name of this philosophy is neoconservatism, and it isn’t a version of conservatism at all.

Read more …

The truth that neoconservatism is not a form of conservatism is one that can’t be repeated often enough, even though it’s a point that is well understood by most readers of a site like this. Sometimes repetition is necessary if people have repeatedly been told the opposite.

A Little Strauss Bashing and Paleo Inside Baseball all in One

Here is a slightly dated essay from Paul Gottfried that appeared at VDARE. I don’t know how I missed it when it came out. I post it now because any opportunity to take a swipe at Strauss and the neocons is a good one. And also because it recounts a little paleo intrique that not everyone may be familiar with.

Here’s the inside baseball stuff. I like Cleas Ryn. I think his insight into the neocons as modern day Jacobins is spot on. But this episode was pretty wimpy:

Full disclosure: Professor Ryn and I have known each other for more than thirty years and spent considerable time together, socially and professionally. In 2007, we cofounded the Academy of Philosophy and Letters , aiming to fill the Philadelphia Society’s former role as a forum for conservative discussion, before it fell under neoconservative control.

But we came to a parting of the ways when Professor Ryn and an assistant,  NHI President Joe Baldacchino, demanded the removal from our organization of anyone who had addressed the IQ question or even been present at conferences in which this delicate subject was broached. My admission that I did indeed believe that individuals and ethnic groups have differing cognitive abilities resulted in Ryn’s unexpected insistence that I myself should leave.

 I took along those who opposed the censorship and set up the H.L. Mencken Club.  From what I can determine, our side has many more members than APL—and more open discussion. (HLMC has its sixth annual conference in Baltimore November 1-3—register here!).

And here is some Strauss/neocon bashing:

Conservatism Inc. has been so totally infiltrated from the Left that those ideas that used to define the Left—abstract universalism, the rejection of ethnic differences, the moral imperative to extend equality to all human relations—has spread to the official Right. The political debate in America now centers on Leftist propositions. Accordingly, someone like Bloom, who could barely conceal his animus against what remains of a traditional Western world based on what Ryn rightly calls a “classical and Christian” heritage, could be featured in the late 1980s as an American patriot and cultural traditionalist.

My Letter to My Two Republican Senators on Syria Intervention

Dear Sen.,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the resolution to attack Syria.

First, it is not at all clear that Assad was responsible for any chemical weapons attack that may have taken place. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense that Assad would order such an attack and invite reprisal. Even mainstream sources are suggesting the possibility that this was a false flag attack perpetrated by the Rebels. Pardon me if I don’t accept the “evidence” presented by my government at face value, but it doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to evidence used to justify wars of choice.

Second, even if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible, there still would be no reason for the US to attack. Syria is not threat to the US and we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. Neither side here is the “good guys,” but if we had to chose a side we are better off with Assad than with the Islamist Rebels. As Sen. Rand Paul has pointed out, at least Assad has protected Syria’s Christian community. Our interventions in the Middle East have systematically been bad for Middle Eastern Christians.

Third, the Republican Party is supposed to be the conservative party. Contrary to the mistaken belief of many modern conservatives, foreign policy interventionism is not the authentic conservative position. The assumptions that underlie interventionism are profoundly not conservative. Interventionism is inherently globalistic, hubristic and downright Jacobin. This is not conservative. Non-interventionism and avoiding “entangling alliances” is the position that arises from a conservative mindset properly understood. Voting no on Syrian interventionism can be step one in righting the course of the GOP and the conservative movement so-called and putting them back on track toward the authentically conservative position of foreign policy non-interventionism.

Sincerely,

“Red” Phillips
Managing Editor,
www.conservativetimes.org

Quote of the day

“These are children of the civil rights era, remember, taught from childhood that good people must go out and confront evil. They believe that’s what they should do, even when evil is minding its own business in some obscure foreign nation.” John Derbyshire, on Obama and other supporters of attacking Syria.

The Civil Rights Revolution and the Global Democratic Revolution are indeed one and the same.

Ratman and Bombin’ want another war

Yes, the Dubious Duo is at it again! Realizing he had a war to sell, Obama summoned John McCain, the Ratman, and Lindsey Graham, aka Bombin’, to the White House to rev up war fever. Once again, these Neocon heroes have answered the call.

Both are now busy spreading rumors of dire consequences if Americans fail to “stand behind the president.” McCain is painting Assad as — wait for it! — the new Hitler who must be stopped now before he goose-steps his way into Nebraska. And Graham is singing a similar tune, warning that those eeevil Iranians will pounce on obvious American “weakness” if we fail our moral responsibility of bombing another country that has not threatened us.

And when they’re finished with Syria, the Dubious Duo can go back to working on amnesty for illegal immigrants. So much to do…

Pat Buchanan: Syria Gas Attack “Reeks of a False Flag Operation”

Pat Buchanan says the Syria gas attack “reeks of a false flag operation.”

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

See more…

When I first saw the stories about a chemical weapons attack in Syria, my very first thought was “false flag.” It just didn’t make any sense to me. Why would Assad do that so openly and risk retaliation? How would it benefit him or his cause? He is reportedly winning the war. But I’m skeptical and not inclined to believe the official story when it comes to dragging us into another war in the Middle East. What has surprised me is how many people are throwing around the “false flag” allegation. Normally mainstreamish types avoid that charge directly so as not to get themselves labled as conspiracy theorists, but with regard to Syria I am seeing people saying it with impunity. Has there been a sea change when it comes to peoples’ willingness to believe the official story.

Ron Paul has also called the attack a false flag.