“The term neocon originally referred to Democrats and other left-leaning congressmen who joined Republicans in foreign policy efforts during the Cold War. The term is now a nebulous figure for a subset of Republicans who are more hawkish and interventionist, as well as a shorthand insult that usually means a warmonger or authoritarian…”
The elevation of CIA Director-Designate Gina Haspel, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Secretary of State-Designate Mike Pompeo along with the increase of the military budget has led to accusations of an early Christmas for neocons. Noted isolationist libertarian Ron Paul said this horrible spending bill fed the warfare state and military industrial complex on top of piling up money for the welfare state.
Analyst Rania Khalek said, “Bolton is a neoconservative extremist who has never seen a country he didn’t want to bomb…Bolton has expended most of his energy agitating for the US to bomb Iran.” As I’ve argued here on OpsLens, the US needs to better spend its current budget on upgrading and realigning its force structure, so there is no argument from me that the military budget really didn’t need one of the largest increases in history. What really bothers me is the resurrection of the term neocon as a shorthand insult that stigmatizes what should be an important part of American foreign policy.
https://youtu.be/62idTB1YofU
The term neocon originally referred to Democrats and other left-leaning congressmen who joined Republicans in foreign policy efforts during the Cold War. The term is now a nebulous figure for a subset of Republicans who are more hawkish and interventionist, as well as a shorthand insult that usually means a warmonger or authoritarian.
For example, Jack Hunter at the conservative Weekly Standard defined neocon as those who measure American greatness “by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations’ problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world’s top authority.”
Combined with items like blowback, those who use the term neocon argue for an isolationist foreign policy. Hawks and interventionists would counter that the world is a dangerous place. And those problems don’t become a clear and present danger to the US, and make a convincing case for intervention, until the battleships are sunk at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Towers fall in a flaming wreck.
Even then, the United States pays for its isolationist stances in the early years of those conflicts because the outdated equipment, lack of training, and a small peacetime army are often ill-equipped to fight challenges like the Confederacy, Nazis, or North Korea. They go on to argue that it is far better to be active in stopping problems while they remain smaller and easier to solve than letting them fester and become a problem that is much more deadly and dangerous.
A great example of both schools of thought occurred in Syria.
Out of the danger of blowback and resistance to the impression of American imperialism (among other things), President Obama did not intervene in Syria, or even seriously arm moderate rebel groups. As a result, Syria has millions of displaced persons, spawned refugee waves across Europe, became an active training ground for jihadists, increased the strength of Russia and Iran, and exported terrorist threats to the US.
Interventionists would argue that those disastrous consequences could have been avoided with timely and appropriate US intervention. It wouldn’t have to be the size of the Iraq invasion, but could have been rigorously enforced no-fly zones.
Instead of having vigorous foreign policy debates about the benefits and drawbacks of intervention, most people shout very emotional-laden terms designed to shut down debate. Even though President Trump ran on some of the most isolationist Republican policies since Robert Taft, the new appointees are bringing back the term neocon as a shorthand insult.
The new personnel represent an important element that has often been missing from US foreign policy during the Obama administration and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. I would hope that people would try to avoid the use of labels to shut down debate and instead work towards having productive conversations.
