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.
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.
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.
Switzerland then, or maybe Spain. If not the US, then who?
A self-proclaimed neoconservative acknowledging he wasn't right? I never thought this day would come.
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.
Nothing about his appearance?
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.
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.
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).
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.
A self-proclaimed neoconservative acknowledging he wasn't right? I never thought this day would come.
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.
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).
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
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?