Neocons or just plain 'cons'?

Published: 27/11/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

By James J. Zogby, Special to Gulf News


In a series of articles and interviews, architects of the neoconservative movement have been trying desperately to absolve themselves of responsibility for the mess they helped to create in the Middle East.

Like confidence men everywhere, having sold the "snake oil" and been caught, they are now feigning sadness and innocence, pointing the finger of blame elsewhere.

But the fault is theirs.

The fundamental flaw in the world view of neoconservativism is that it is ideological and non-empirical. Their case for pre-emptive war in Iraq and for the Bush administration's "democracy movement" deliberately ignored regional realities.

Attempting a sleight of hand transfer of what they perceived as former president Ronald Reagan's victory over the "evil empire", they believed and preached that forceful action designed to tear down the status quo in the Middle East would, by itself, usher in a new and more positive era.

Parallels

There are parallels between neoconservativism and other similar apocalyptical movements, such as the Christian fundamentalism. They see the world in Manichaeistic terms - good versus evil. They see a clash between good and evil as both desirable and inevitable.

All that is required, they believe, for good to be victorious is a determined act of the will. This was the a historical lesson they "learned" from Reagan. And this was the lesson they sought to impart to President George W. Bush.

And so it was that Bush bought their "snake oil". He declared a divine mission to promote freedom against its enemies - whom he termed the "Axis of Evil". Shunning traditional diplomacy, the administration instead built a "coalition of the willing".

Using "shock and awe" they brought down the Baghdad regime and declared "mission accomplished", convinced that out of the resultant chaos a new democratic order would spontaneously emerge, not only in Iraq, but across the Middle East.

It did not.

Now four years later, unrepentant, the same neoconservatives who believed that will and force alone were sufficient to unleash freedom, now blame those who bought their elixir.

They are accusing the Bush administrative of poor execution and incompetence. Some blame Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, once their "darling", some blame Bush, some blame both.

To be sure, a few neoconservatives appear to be remorseful, but most refuse to accept responsibility and don't want the administration's failure in Iraq and beyond to discredit their world view.

Others have actually been emboldened, advocating a stepped up offensive by fellow neocons to reassert their mission. But none are able to acknowledge that their dependence on ideology and refusal to understand reality, is what is principally at fault.

The simple unavoidable fact, however, is that the chaos in Iraq, the deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian situation and the worrisome enmity that many have toward the US throughout the Middle East is the world the neocons gave us.

Inspired by their simplistic vision, the Bush administration went to war in a country whose history and culture we didn't understand, unleashing forces we now cannot control.

Emboldened by their view, we and Israel refused to negotiate with what we called "evil" believing that it could be "stamped out". Instead, Bush promoted the absurd idea that the Palestinians had to become a democracy before they could have a state.

And because of the neocons, the administration behaved in an unconscionably heavy-handed and unilateral manner exhausting the world's good-will and especially deepening the gulf between us and the peoples of the Middle East.

I blame the Bush administration for buying and forcing us all to drink this "snake oil", but I can't excuse those who sold it. When it's finger pointing time, it's the "con" men who are to blame.


Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC.

http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10085391.html