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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
Are Neocons A Threat to World Peace?
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.
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?
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.
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?
"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.
No we aren't--and he is right.
neocons aren't the only hawks.
President John F Kennedy believed this as well, and I do not think we would label him as a neocon, would we?
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?
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.
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?