The quoted material was from Congressional testimony on Nat. Security in 1998. So Woflie wasn't trying to smear them during the prelude to war. He was simply stating what he believes to be fact. =:o
>I was not defending the neo-cons.
sorry, I didn't think you were.
> I was not denying their push for hegemony,
> nor that they desire this on their own terms with a profound
>distrust, and even contempt, for most of the rest of the world. I was
>simply confounded by the post I responded to. I did not and do not
>understand how it demonstrated that this was a war for oil. That's what
>I took to be the topic at hand: _how_ is this a war for oil?
oh.
I guess I thought this had been hashed out in the past. Justin articulated the most clear version of it and I recall Carrol vigorously agreeing. This is how I understood it after reading neocon material:
1. they want to make sure that countries like France and Russia have to negotiate with "a new" iraqi regime, one that the u.s. had a, uh, heavy hand in creating. Kagan discusses this, here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm
2. They want another military base in a ME client state. Thare are too many problems in Saudi Arabia.
(speculation: It is also, I suspect, a way to reduce u.s. dependence on Israel and Turkey. The really important thing, for neocons, is to make sure all the beta males vying for alpha male spot are in the weakest possible position. Currently, Israel is too strong from their perspective. But, that's just my speculation. Someone else brought this up last year.)
3. They needed to demonstrate unmitigated force on the world stage. You can't get comfortable as Alpha male because the Beta males will bring you down as soon as you get complacent or one or two will be step in if one of the females kicks you in the nuts. :) After all, this is how the u.s. came to hold it's position as Alpha male.... Kagain discusses this in the link above, too, IIRC.
><...>
Doug has said that he'd like the u.s. back on "normal" capitalist terrain. That suggests, to me, that the neocons are different.
How? They aren't necessarily thinking like capitalists--in terms of making money off oil-- but _using_ geo-political possession of oil-rich territory to control other nation-states. When Fr and Ru merely had to negotiate with Saddam, they weren't operating in our interests. Shame on them!
It seems to me that their biggest fear is that we'll lose our position as Alpha male. They don't want to go the route of Great Britain and France. All other lesser superpowers as the enemy which is what some of the neocon "opinion leaders" make pretty clear in their discussions of Europe.
I don't think Gore would have proceeded in the same way because he wouldn't have selected a foreign policy team that had the same ideas as the neocons have. It wouldn't have been any less horrific for Iraqis. It wouldn't have been any less imperialistic. It just would not have been the pressing issue that the neocons made it. They wrote about the need to invade Iraq by 10/19/01, already pressuring Shrubya. Hell, the neocons were pressuring Shrubya before 9.11. Still, I don't think they would have had the ability to put the same kind of pressure on a Gore foreign policy team and I don't think a Gore foreign policy team would have intimidated the military into compliance.
As I said, I was curious because it was the center of a dispute at a meeting last week. It was actually a discussion of why the u.s. wouldn't leave the region and what responses should be. It touched off old resentments that had emerged over the "no war for oil" slogan.
Kelley