Newt Gingrich Rethinks Military Interventionism (1 Viewer)

[Geoist]

Better late than never I guess, but in an interview with the Washington Times, Newt Gingrich admits that neo-conservative foreign policy may not be so great after all.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.
“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

Mr. Gingrich supported the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he has increasingly doubted the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values.

Read more: Newt Gingrich sees major Mideast mistakes, rethinks his neocon views on intervention - Washington Times

 

[joG]

Better late than never I guess, but in an interview with the Washington Times, Newt Gingrich admits that neo-conservative foreign policy may not be so great after all.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.
“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

Mr. Gingrich supported the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he has increasingly doubted the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values.

Read more: Newt Gingrich sees major Mideast mistakes, rethinks his neocon views on intervention - Washington Times

That is funny. Actually I am surprised how well the Middle East has developed. The only thing wrong with the interventions seems to be their exorbitant soft and hard costs to the US. But the societies have been shaken up and are fomenting. Societies take some time to settle down and find their way. That is what they are doing now and in a decade or two we will be able to judge whether Bush was successful or not. To want to comment on that now is much to early.

 

[jonny5]

Im sure the partisans will be in very soon to criticize his sex life and weight, regardless. I dont really agree that the policy is to export democracy though. Thats simply a bonus. Primarily the reason we intervene is to prevent other countries from being a threat to our security, and to protect ours and our allies economic interests.

I just dont think we can blame anything but Islam as the reason for the violence.

 

[jonny5]

That is funny. Actually I am surprised how well the Middle East has developed. The only thing wrong with the interventions seems to be their exorbitant soft and hard costs to the US. But the societies have been shaken up and are fomenting. Societies take some time to settle down and find their way. That is what they are doing now and in a decade or two we will be able to judge whether Bush was successful or not. To want to comment on that now is much to early.

Not just Bush, though. This goes back to the Brits after WW2, or even before, and specifically Saudi Arabia in the 50s. I think Newt is right to question whether 70 years of trying to control the middle east has been worth it. But who knows whether the Russians or someone else would be using it against us anyway.

 

[Captain America]

Too much, too little, too late.

Newt shoulders a massive amount of blame for this nation's division. That's his legacy as far as I'm concerned.

 

[iacardsfan]

A self-proclaimed neoconservative acknowledging he wasn't right? I never thought this day would come.

 

[joG]

Not just Bush, though. This goes back to the Brits after WW2, or even before, and specifically Saudi Arabia in the 50s. I think Newt is right to question whether 70 years of trying to control the middle east has been worth it. But who knows whether the Russians or someone else would be using it against us anyway.

Oh yes. That is true. We didn't start the fire. And it is totally true, that we will have to redesign our military stance (which has already started, actually) because the US is comparatively less wealthy and cannot afford the costs of international peacekeeping alone anymore. Here I think the question will be if we allow the world to slide into a multipolar order or can structure it to prevent the major wars multipolarity would make so highly probable.

 

[jonny5]

Oh yes. That is true. We didn't start the fire. And it is totally true, that we will have to redesign our military stance (which has already started, actually) because the US is comparatively less wealthy and cannot afford the costs of international peacekeeping alone anymore. Here I think the question will be if we allow the world to slide into a multipolar order or can structure it to prevent the major wars multipolarity would make so highly probable.

We can afford it. We just cant afford it AND socialism. 100% of revenue is already going to income support. Leaving nothing for defense or anything else. But yeah, I just dont know what the world would look like with the US being more like Canada etc.

 

[joG]

We can afford it. We just cant afford it AND socialism. 100% of revenue is already going to income support. Leaving nothing for defense or anything else. But yeah, I just dont know what the world would look like with the US being more like Canada etc.

I think Canada ist one of the very few countries that actually understands the requiremnets of security helps produce it.

 

[jonny5]

I think Canada ist one of the very few countries that actually understands the requiremnets of security helps produce it.

Switzerland then, or maybe Spain. If not the US, then who?

 

[joG]

Switzerland then, or maybe Spain. If not the US, then who?

I am afraid we will have to find a way to produce international security as a global community. Safety does not just happen, as we know from home. Without the police, state prosecutors, judges and prisons, bad men prevail. They do so even with all that law enforcement. But it would be worse.

The same is true in the international arena. Switzerland is the epitome of the small country free riding security it does not pay for.

 

[Smeagol]

A self-proclaimed neoconservative acknowledging he wasn't right? I never thought this day would come.

Based on the local reaction in Kuwait after Saddam Hussein was kicked out there, a lot of people assumed Iraqis and people all over the middle east were longing to be liberated. What we learned is they might want to be liberated but that takes a back seat to Arab/Muslims being free from western/American involvement. It's a very proud culture that embraces segregation and sees US involvement as exploitive and tainting of its purity.

 

[SMTA]

Too much, too little, too late.

Newt shoulders a massive amount of blame for this nation's division. That's his legacy as far as I'm concerned.

That clown's legacy will also include his stature as Moonbase Newtie, divorce-dying-wife-Newtie, and Tiffany's Newtie.

What a moron.

 

[jonny5]

That clown's legacy will also include his stature as Moonbase Newtie, divorce-dying-wife-Newtie, and Tiffany's Newtie.

What a moron.

Nothing about his appearance?

 

[SMTA]

Nothing about his appearance?

That is easily covered in the 'moron' part.

 

[Dezaad]

Im sure the partisans will be in very soon to criticize his sex life and weight, regardless. I dont really agree that the policy is to export democracy though. Thats simply a bonus. Primarily the reason we intervene is to prevent other countries from being a threat to our security, and to protect ours and our allies economic interests.

I just dont think we can blame anything but Islam as the reason for the violence.

That is just ridiculous. Islam is the tool being used to resist our intervention in those country's affairs that we consider to have potential to be a threat to our interests. Those countries are tired of being manipulated by Western powers and are using Islam as a motivator to resist manipulation. To solely blame Islam is to pretend its radicalization arose in a vacuum, which is quite a bit of pretending.

I don't, however, think they are better off with radicalized Islam as opposed to being manipulated. Nevertheless, it is understandable that people desperate to shake off colonialism would make such a miscalculation.

Now you'll say "You're just a blame America first Liberal!!!!" Go on, you know you want to. No. I am a hardened realist. I think the Western powers were correct to manipulate the ME. Any other choice was fraught with greater risks. But, I don't pretend, now, that our policies aren't a huge part of the picture. We made our choices, as good of ones as we could conceive, and now we have what we have in the ME as a result.

As for Neoconservatism: That WAS a mistake. Ultimately, it will always be impossible to tell whether the outcome was better or worse for our interests, but the one thing we will know is that we spent a HUGE amount of money to come up with at best a very muddy outcome. Duh, everyone else knew all this beforehand.

 

[jonny5]

That is just ridiculous. Islam is the tool being used to resist our intervention in those country's affairs that we consider to have potential to be a threat to our interests. Those countries are tired of being manipulated by Western powers and are using Islam as a motivator to resist manipulation. To solely blame Islam is to pretend its radicalization arose in a vacuum, which is quite a bit of pretending.

I don't, however, think they are better off with radicalized Islam as opposed to being manipulated. Nevertheless, it is understandable that people desperate to shake off colonialism would make such a miscalculation.

Now you'll say "You're just a blame America first Liberal!!!!" Go on, you know you want to. No. I am a hardened realist. I think the Western powers were correct to manipulate the ME. Any other choice was fraught with greater risks. But, I don't pretend, now, that our policies aren't a huge part of the picture. We made our choices, as good of ones as we could conceive, and now we have what we have in the ME as a result.

As for Neoconservatism: That WAS a mistake. Ultimately, it will always be impossible to tell whether the outcome was better or worse for our interests, but the one thing we will know is that we spent a HUGE amount of money to come up with at best a very muddy outcome. Duh, everyone else knew all this beforehand.

Its no more rediculous than your own opinion. Its just an opinion. Islam has been causing problems since long before the US came around. It is a religion which preaches violence on anyone who disagree with it. My point is that whether we manipulate or intervene or leave them alone, they will still be killing people. You call it radical. I call it fundamental.

I also dont beleive in this neocon label. Its too simple. However, I agree that we have not solved the problem of the middle east. So its time to try something else (meaning get out and see what happens).

 

[head of joaquin]

Too much, too little, too late.

Newt shoulders a massive amount of blame for this nation's division. That's his legacy as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed, he invented the GOP strategy of using factoids and personal destruction as political discourse. His famous GOPAC memo is the basis for all the ugly poisoned rhetoric of the current pathological conservative movement.

Add his history of unethical and obscene behavior (I won't even get into the blow jobs in his car with his mistresses), and you have the flower of conservative that no decent person should invite over to dinner.

No wonder he's a force in the GOP.

GOPAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dezaad]

Its no more rediculous than your own opinion. Its just an opinion. Islam has been causing problems since long before the US came around. It is a religion which preaches violence on anyone who disagree with it. My point is that whether we manipulate or intervene or leave them alone, they will still be killing people. You call it radical. I call it fundamental.

I also dont beleive in this neocon label. Its too simple. However, I agree that we have not solved the problem of the middle east. So its time to try something else (meaning get out and see what happens).

My understanding is that Islam enjoyed long periods of living up to what some call it, "a religion of peace". The most recent period of that sort ending when colonialism started. It also preserved much of the greatness of the West, when the West sank into the Dark Ages, presided over by the rise of Christianity, when Christianity was the religion of the barbaric peoples.

Religion is merely the tool that the elite use to manipulate the ignorant, in all cultures, in all times. Sometimes it is a civilizing agent, sometimes it makes a society monstrous. Sometimes it escapes its masters, and does more damage than they intend.

And, I never said America started the colonialism. Merely perpetuated it.

 

[jonny5]

Perhaps there were periods of piece, just like Chrisitanity has had periods of peace/war. But (and im going on my personal beleif that religion is all fake), Islam started with Muhamed who said God told him to go to war with nonbeleivers, and within a few years they set off to do just that. Point being that the US is just as happy buying their way into other cultures as they are fighting their way in. Islam is the only one in the conflict whose mandate requires violence.

 

[Geoist]

Im sure the partisans will be in very soon to criticize his sex life and weight, regardless. I dont really agree that the policy is to export democracy though. Thats simply a bonus. Primarily the reason we intervene is to prevent other countries from being a threat to our security, and to protect ours and our allies economic interests.

And yet, terrorism is alive and well:

According to data from U.S. government terrorism experts, which were reported in the Washington Post, in 2000, the year before the war on terror began, 37 suicide attacks occurred worldwide. Since 9/11, the total climbed steadily to several hundred attacks in each of 2005 and 2006 and then exploded to a whopping 658 attacks in 2007. What’s more, the attacks have occurred in dozens of countries on five continents. Yet according to U.S. intelligence officials, two-thirds of all suicide attacks since 1983 have targeted U.S. policy goals. In other words, the war has been disastrously counterproductive.
War on Terror Dangerously Counterproductive by Ivan Eland -- Antiwar.com

I just dont think we can blame anything but Islam as the reason for the violence.

Do you blame Christianity for the violence Ireland experienced throughout the 20th century?

 

[Geoist]

A self-proclaimed neoconservative acknowledging he wasn't right? I never thought this day would come.

Actually, it already did before Newt lol.
Interview with Ex-Neocon Francis Fukuyama: "A Model Democracy Is not Emerging in Iraq" - SPIEGEL ONLINE

 

[Geoist]

That is just ridiculous. Islam is the tool being used to resist our intervention in those country's affairs that we consider to have potential to be a threat to our interests.

But but but... only Muslims can be terrorists! :2razz:

 

[Geoist]

Its no more rediculous than your own opinion. Its just an opinion. Islam has been causing problems since long before the US came around. It is a religion which preaches violence on anyone who disagree with it. My point is that whether we manipulate or intervene or leave them alone, they will still be killing people. You call it radical. I call it fundamental.

Just as how violence was 'fundamental' to the Christian and Jewish faiths?

I also dont beleive in this neocon label. Its too simple.

Tell that to the self-described neo-cons.

However, I agree that we have not solved the problem of the middle east. So its time to try something else (meaning get out and see what happens).

You mean the 'isolationist' (non-interventionist) policies condemned by the GOP?! That could only bring more terrorist to the homefront!

 

[Helix]

Better late than never I guess, but in an interview with the Washington Times, Newt Gingrich admits that neo-conservative foreign policy may not be so great after all.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative hawk and staunch supporter of Israel, says the U.S. military interventions he has long supported to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere have backfired and need to be re-evaluated.
“I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take a deep breath to ask if our strategies in the Middle East have succeeded,” the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful said in an interview.

Mr. Gingrich supported the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but he said he has increasingly doubted the strategy of attempting to export democracy by force to countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values.

Read more: Newt Gingrich sees major Mideast mistakes, rethinks his neocon views on intervention - Washington Times

about time. i hope that this view spreads to others, like McCain and the other hawks. just a few years ago, people like him were asking me why i wanted to help the terrorists just because i didn't support carpet bombing the middle east.