> Where you say: "If anything, John is a foreign policy conservative --
> not a neocon, a mindset that appalls him, but an old school American
> intellectual concerned for the fate of his country."
>
> Doesn't he know that there's no such thing as neoconservatism? Carrol
> Cox just told us.
John told me about his battles with the self-described neocons at U of Chicago, where he teaches. Among them were Saul Bellow, whom he didn't like on personal grounds, and Allan Bloom, who was one of John's best friends. And of course, there have been the ongoing attacks, which will accelerate once his and Walt's book comes out.
> You also say: "We talked about many topics, with Juan and John
> locking horns over the role of oil companies in the Iraq invasion.
> (Juan believes there was some pressure from big oil to invade, while
> John said that he has yet to see any compelling evidence that this
> was so. I land somewhere in between. Centrist!)"
>
> Does this mean you've seen some evidence, only that it isn't compelling?
While I believe that oil was a chief reason for the invasion, I think it had more to do with the ongoing geopolitical battles and positioning. The sanctions against Saddam were crumbling as Russia, China, and the EU were looking to bring Saddam back into the global system. The US was very much opposed to that, for obvious reasons. Plus, I don't think big oil gives orders which are dutifully executed. It's a big, fluid mix of concerns and interests. Thus, I land somewhere between John and Juan.
Dennis