AJE Op-Ed: NATO summit highlights neo-con/neo-liberal overlap [New]
My latest op-ed at Al Jazeera English is here. It begins like this:
NATO Summit Highlights Neo-con/Neo-liberal Overlap
More similar than different, both of America’s recent imperial ideologies have failed.
By Paul RosenbergAs the general election phase of the American presidential election gets underway, the recent NATO summit serves as a potent reminder of just how little difference there ultimately is between the neo-con extremists who dominated US foreign policy under George W. Bush, and the neo-liberals who run just about everything in the Obama Administration.
Most notably, dozens of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans returned their medals in a mass action that recalled Operation Dewey Canyon III, in April, 1971, when more than a thousand members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War held five days of marches and demonstrations against the Vietnam War in Washington, DC, including a memorial service near the Tomb of the Unknown and a ceremony on the Capitol steps where more than 800 veterans returned their combat medals.
Sgt. Alejandro Villatoro introduced the other veterans at the NATO protests: “At this time, one by one, veterans of the wars of NATO will walk up on stage. They will tell us why they chose to return their medals to NATO. I urge you to honor them by listening to their stories. Nowhere else will you hear from so many who fought these wars about their journey from fighting a war to demanding peace. Some of us killed innocents. Some of us helped in continuing these wars from home. Some of us watched our friends die. Some of us are not here, because we took our own lives. We did not get the care promised to us by our government. All of us watched failed policies turn into bloodshed.”
To read the whole piece, click here.
What Do You Think?
3 Responses to 'AJE Op-Ed: NATO summit highlights neo-con/neo-liberal overlap'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Emocrat [New]
Friday, 1 Jun, 2012 at 11:54 am
Outstanding, per usual! I hope a lot of people are reading your pieces.
A couple minor points (not quibbles at all):
Since both Neos are essentially militaristic and anti-democratic in nature, the reasons for fighting multiple, simultaneous wars is largely a matter of institutional politics. Or at least that’s my take on it. Waging war on a large part of the planet means writing what amounts to blank checks to the Pentagon. This makes that institution tremendously more powerful and over time dilutes civilian authority as a result.
Of course, given the shabby quality of civilian leadership these days, I have brief moments in which that idea doesn’t cause me too much indigestion. Then again, it’s hard not to think that’s intended as a feature, not a bug.
Between their militarism and destructive economic agenda, it seems they’re setting us up for the arrival of the proverbial Man On Horseback.
As for the Neo-con braying over “multi-lateralism,” there are also institutional objectives beyond spreading out who pays the bills. This is why I think their braying is really just for show and thusly not genuine.
NATO has been desperate to redefine itself into something “useful” since the fall of the Warsaw Pact. Neo-Liberal Interventionism, especially in the Orwellian guise of “Right to Protect” (R2P), provides European militarists with the mission they seek–and the institutional power that goes with it–and also keeps the US firmly in control of NATO as well. Personally, I don’t see how this lasts much longer, as the Euro Zone hurdles towards extinction.
This is also why the US is seeking to integrate militaries in other countries much along the old lines of the Cold War–Latin America is huge in this regard. The War On Drugs is just re-warmed Cold War, served up on a tattered old platter.
So it is then, that your concluding graf is so spot on (along with the rest!). Both Neos are just two sides of the same dystopian coin. It’s heartening then to see Occupy and the Quebec student movement (watch that space!), taking their critiques to ever higher levels and even inviting some utopian thinking. Because how else does one defeat a dystopian hegemon, but by offering an alternative of equal or greater value?
It’s obvious now that “leftish” incrementalism is a flop. It’s just too easy to steamroll and doesn’t really capture peoples’ imaginations anyway. This is why it’s such a pleasure to see people thinking in terms of the broader picture.
Your pieces always make me think. I’m sure it’s doing the same for others.
David [New]
Friday, 1 Jun, 2012 at 7:20 pm
I like how you point to the report from the Project for a New America and the continuity it shows. Like the economy, military policy is an area where relatively autonomous policy communities determine the bounds of what’s thinkable (or speakable) and politicians operate within it. Using ‘democracy’ as an analytic lens focuses our attention on the choices not the boundaries. This leads people to miss what is most important.
Saturday, 2 Jun, 2012 at 8:03 am
One little detail that didn’t fit, but is worth mentioning here is that the PNAC crowd wasn’t originally behind George W. Bush in 2000. John McCain was their man. Anyone who remembers his failed attempt to start a war with Russia in the waning days of the 2008 campaign will understand perfectly well what they were thinking.