The article discusses the move to a temporary regime to control Iraq and how the UN (despite the US being pressed by allies) will not play a major role.
QUOTE
Given that possession is nine-tenths of the law, the government of Iraq will undoubtedly be taken over by former General Jay Garner - a protégé of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a unilateralist - and his shadow cabinet of former diplomats and businessmen named as interim authority for Iraq.
Then it discusses which country will be next on the chopping block. The usual suspects:QUOTE
Until now the existence of a \"next\" has been in some doubt. But unless victory in Iraq is marred by a punishing irregular resistance, or a persisting political breakdown and factional struggle, the Bush administration seems likely to proceed with the neoconservatives' program for remaking, by military means if necessary, the political culture of the Muslim Middle East.
That means building on the political reconstruction of Iraq to cause eventual \"regime change,\" spontaneous or otherwise, in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Libya. (North Korea is another problem.)
The most interesting aspect of the article has to deal with the motivations of the neo-conservatives within the administration. He basically points to three things being at play:That means building on the political reconstruction of Iraq to cause eventual \"regime change,\" spontaneous or otherwise, in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Libya. (North Korea is another problem.)
QUOTE
The first is that they act out of fear . They are motivated by fear of terrorist bands, armed by Islamic states, wielding weapons of mass destruction, even though this is politically, technologically and militarily highly implausible.
There is an element of hysteria in this fear , as there was a quarter-century ago when Washington convinced itself that a victory by peasant insurgents in Vietnam would lead to world domination by \"Asian communism\" and to the isolation and destruction of the United States.
Second, they are naive . Krauthammer says it is \"racist\" to think that \"Arabs\" can't govern themselves democratically. The problem in the Middle East is not \"Arabs.\" The problem is a powerful historical culture that functions on categories of value absolutes and religious certainties hostile to the pragmatic relativisms of Western democracy. Military conquest and good intentions will not change that .
Finally, the neoconservatives are fanatics . They believe it is worth killing people for unproved ideas. Traditional morality says that war is justified in legitimate defense. Totalitarian morality justifies war to make people or societies better .
Here is the full text of the article:There is an element of hysteria in this fear , as there was a quarter-century ago when Washington convinced itself that a victory by peasant insurgents in Vietnam would lead to world domination by \"Asian communism\" and to the isolation and destruction of the United States.
Second, they are naive . Krauthammer says it is \"racist\" to think that \"Arabs\" can't govern themselves democratically. The problem in the Middle East is not \"Arabs.\" The problem is a powerful historical culture that functions on categories of value absolutes and religious certainties hostile to the pragmatic relativisms of Western democracy. Military conquest and good intentions will not change that .
Finally, the neoconservatives are fanatics . They believe it is worth killing people for unproved ideas. Traditional morality says that war is justified in legitimate defense. Totalitarian morality justifies war to make people or societies better .
The Neo-Conservative Agenda: What's Next?
Thanks - Outsports moderator