01 February 2011

Problems with Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy


First, there is no doubt that the Soviets, along with all other Marxist-Leninists, would like to replace all existing social systems by Communist regimes. But such a sentiment, of course, scarcely implies any sort of realistic threat of attack — just as an ill wish in private life can hardly be grounds for realistic expectation of imminent aggression.

This is one of the more common mistakes in neo-conservative foreign policy analysis. Sure, the Iranian government may want to lash out at America, but they lack the ability to do so.  The same is largely true of North Korea.  Why then is it so necessary to threaten war?

Another interesting facet of neo-conservative thinking is how they will defend domestic gun-ownership in order to ensure that people can both defend themselves from bad guys and provide resistance in case the government oversteps authority.  Yet, they don’t want foreign countries to get ahold of nuclear weapons since they might “threaten America” with the nukes.  They are able to recognize that widespread weapon ownership helps to ensure peace and civility on a micro level, but seem unable to understand that widespread weapon ownership also ensures peace on a macro level as well.

Of course, other nations having nukes makes it more difficult for the US to impose its imperial will on the rest of the world.  But that’s what causes the problems in the first place.

No comments:

Post a Comment