Diplomatic Solutions Are Never The Goal Of Neocons

As I watched the President’s speech this evening I was pleased by both his passion for maintaining fundamental norms of human behavior and his willingness to seek a diplomatic solution to the current Syrian crisis.  He left no doubt as to who was responsible for the horrific events in Syria.  Yet, at the same time, he discussed a rational and logical solution from a position of military strength.  I finally understood the fundamental difference between a progressive approach to foreign policy and that of the neocons.

It became clear to me that the neocons see diplomacy and all of its institutions as a method of moving  toward armed conflict.  They simply view diplomacy as a means to an end.  During the George W. Bush administration the UN and the building of international consensus through diplomacy was the vehicle through which they were able to develop support to invade Iraq.  The desire to invade Iraq was a forgone conclusion, as is evident in the many documents disclosed in recent years.  They merely utilized the methods and institutions of diplomacy to garner the support to achieve that goal.  There was never a desire to achieve a diplomatic solution.

President George Bush introduces the Joint Res...
President George Bush introduces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002. The resolution was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law two weeks later. White House photo by Paul Morse. Image obtained from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/images/20021002-7_d-iraq10022002-th-1-515h.html. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The progressive attitude towards the utilization of military force is quite different.  The potential for the use of force must be credible, but only used when the potential for a diplomatic solution is no longer viable.  The goal from the progressive perspective is to avoid military conflict, not create a groundswell of support for it by using diplomatic institutions.  The progressives see diplomatic solutions as the preferred end.

It is ironic to see the very people who supported our march to Iraq with blind loyalty, and no concern about the cost or an exit strategy, are the very voices that are loudest voicing those concerns today.  Yet, the neocons are true to form and are only unhappy that the President is not calling for regime change.  It seems that there simply isn’t a war that they don’t love.

While I believe that Assad can not be allowed to step away from  responsibility for gassing almost 1500 of his own people, nearly 400 of them children, I prefer a diplomatic solution that will avoid placing our allies in harm’s way, while diminishing the potential for a repeat performance.  I also hope that there will develop a loud outcry from around the world about the abhorrent behavior of Assad.  Today’s potential for a diplomatic solution would not have been possible without the credible potential use of force.  But, if all else fails, I support the President’s right, with or without congressional approval to remove this danger from civilized society.  We cannot allow it to happen again.


1 Comment

  1. Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed to be at the net the easiest factor
    to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people think about issues that
    they plainly do not recognise about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and defined
    out the whole thing without having side-effects ,
    other people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s