[Peace-discuss] What élites are thinking…

[David Green]

I would suggest that the "wise men" are back to put a "realist" face on all of this, saving us from taking the ideological debate too seriously. Just see Baker as George Kennan, Christopher as Averell Harriman.
   
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
   
  DG

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Mort is right on the terminological point, but the article at best begins the 
discussion. Here's an attempt to sketch the difference:

[1] The only important political struggle in the US is happening within the 
executive; the Congress, the courts, and of course the populace are generally 
irrelevant to it.

[2] There are two principal factions in the executive who nevertheless share a 
general agreement on US policy, particularly on the bedrock principle that the 
US must control, by any means necessary, the energy resources of the Mideast, in 
order to control its principal competitors in the world, viz., the EU and NE Asia.

[3] An earlier political rhetoric might have called them "tendencies," but 
almost any terminology will do, so long as here's agreement on its meaning. 
"Neocons" and "elite," if you wish, altho' the first is too narrow (is McCain a 
neocon?) and the second, too broad (are neocons not elite?).

[4] The first faction ("neocons") are New Cold Warriors, who want to 
reestablish the geopolitics of a fantasized Eisenhower administration with Iraq 
as a settled and compliant US satellite (like South Korea) and Iran taking the 
bete noire role once played by the USSR. They dream of nuclear weapons but in 
fact act cautiously.

[5] The second faction ("elite") are New Fronterriers, who want to reestablish 
the geopolitics of a fantasized Kennedy administration with Iraq turned over to 
death squads (as Kennedy did Latin America) and "forward defense" expanded in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan (as Kennedy did in SE Asia). They dream of special 
operations and in fact act with a covert belligerence.

[6] The two factions inter-penetrate, but to the first belong the Office of the 
Vice President, Rumsfeld civilians in the Pentagon, and the Petraeus set of 
military philosophers. To the second belong the foreign policy establishment in 
the State Department, Gates' civilians in the Pentagon, and many flag and 
general officers (including most of the JCS).

[7] The second faction in general has the agreement of the "humanitarian 
interventionists" like Samantha Power, much of the CIA and foreign policy 
intellectuals in the Democratic party (e.g., Clinton's Richard Holbrooke and 
Obama's Anthony Lake).

I'm not finally very happy with this sketch, nor am I entirely convinced that it 
works; I'd be glad to see a better one -- but it would have to "save the 
phenomena." --CGE

Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> By Max Elbaum. What Elbaum calls the élite, Carl calls "liberals". This 
> is a sensible article, but how does he know?
> 
> Here's an extract: (the complete article in pdf form is at 
> http://www.war-times.org/pdf/WT%20MiR-Jun08.pdf )
> ...

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080708/16fdc5ca/attachment.htm