[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting, I'll have to read this book.  Seems like a very neoconservative agenda being advocated here. 

Orion, are you familiar with the Project for a New American Century think tank?  I recently posted the following on another SOLO thread, but I think it has some relevance:


Bush's Middle East policies are dictated by neoconservatives in his defense cabinet.  The neocons have been itching to invade Iraq and topple Saddam long before 9-11 (many of you are probably aware that this 1998 letter to President Clinton, urging the overthrow of Saddam, was signed by prominent neocons such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, all of them senior defense advisors in the Bush administration. Wolfowitz is widely regarded as the chief architect behind the Iraq war concept).  

Iraq is simply part one of a larger neocon program of global military domination.  Mind you, it's not exactly a policy of conquest and imperialism, rather, it's more a view that the United States should spread democracy and serve as world's policeman (and reap the economic benefits and clout that such a position manifests).  Project for a New American Century, a defense-oriented neocon think tank, wrote a policy paper in 2000 called Rebuilding America's Defenses, which effectively outlines this view of the role of American power in the post-Cold War era.  Both Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby (chief of staff to Dick Cheney) were major contributors to this paper. 

In light of these facts, do you really believe that the underlying reasons for the Iraq war were exclusively related to defeating Islamic terrorism, or do you think perhaps the neocons are in fact also taking advantage of 9-11 to begin implementing their vision of a more powerful and globally-entrenched US military? 

I have wrestled with the answer to this question myself, but I must admit that it does currently seem to me that the latter scenario is at play to a reasonable degree.  And this is precisely what is troubling many libertarians such as myself, as we tend to view defense policy as the Founders did: that America should avoid military adventures abroad. 

 




Post 1

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete-

I didn't want to be the first to post here, but my first thoughts when I read this were, "but it played so well in Syracuse."  

Pyrophora of Cyprus  {))(*)((}
I blame Athens for everything!





Post 2

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

Yes... well, of course that's right.  This book is not called The Grand Chessboard for nothing. 

In this book, the writer (I'll just call him "the writer" instead of constantly trying to spell his name) presents his main point that it is the area of southwest Asia (you know, Iraq, and the 'Stans and all that east and northeast of the eastern shores of the Mediterranean) which is the seat of geopolitical power. 

And the writer is a heavyweight influence in Washington.  However, I also wonder if bin Laden's people also know of this book and -- despite appearing to his people like another charismatic lunatic -- are also trying to control the same critical territories.

I see bin Laden's influence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and so on.... these are all part of that "sweet spot" the writer speaks of.




Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.