2  0

2  0

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.

1  0