Among those of us who’ve seriously gone after the neocons, there’s always been a tension between viewing them as, on the one hand, Israeli partisans who use a trumped-up GWOT to pursue policies they think are good for Israel and, on the other, fanatical messianic ideologues who actually believe they might “spread democracy” throughout Babylon, if not the world.
The two views aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, and no one would argue that the neocons aren’t obsessively ideological and/or don’t have a passionate attachment to the Jewish state. Still, different writers tend to emphasize one of the two.
I lean towards the ideological interpretation, perhaps to a fault, and when I come across something like this, written by Commentary assistant editor Abe Greenwald, I’m pretty sure I’m right:
“[The conflict in Darfur] is not an African civil war. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is a struggle between freedom-loving citizens and their Islamist oppressors.”
Not only is there the “freedom-loving citizens” of Sudan line, but Greenwald calls Darfur a “criminally neglected front in the War on Terror” and counsels that we start fighting alongside the Sudan Liberation Movement. He even justifies such a campaign by the great success we’ve been having in Iraq—Onward!
I could go on about the desirability and, more importantly, feasibility of such a venture… But I’ve mainly been racking my brain about how exactly Greenwald’s “save Darfur” proposition might actually be “good for Israel.” I can’t think of anything.
After long reflection, I’ve reached the simple conclusions that, well, these guys actually believe their own stupid bullshit!
Email Subscription
Fill out the form below to be notified when takimag.com is updated.
Are the neocons actually neoconservative?
Among those of us who’ve seriously gone after the neocons, there’s always been a tension between viewing them as, on the one hand, Israeli partisans who use a trumped-up GWOT to … [Read More]
Posted by Richard Spencer on June 18, 2008
The Usual Suspects