If you haven’t come across it yet, I recommend (as does Michael Blowhard to whom my thanks) William Shawcross’ 2003 Harkness Lecture, delivered on March 27th, in other words just as the public bit of the war was getting seriously under way, but before it had been successfully concluded. It is a very good brief summary of the state of the world now, as seen through the eyes of the USA’s neo-conservatives, and it is particular good as a brief introduction to neo-con ideas and attitudes:
I don’t want to say that they all believe the same things. They don’t, but there are some common threads in their views.
They tend to believe that we live in a special moment of history, one which is characterised above all by America’s unparalleled military power and the opportunity to expand the boundaries of democracy around the world. This is the time for a grand strategy to assert Pax Americana. This is the decisive decade in human liberty.
They value strategic thinking and the setting of priorities. They are wary of permanent alliances and are attracted to bold geopolitical moves for the expansion of American values. They are not wedded to stability. Conversely, they are not afraid of challenging the status quo. As we are seeing in Iraq.
They see American values as universal values and believe passionately in the special mission of the United States to bring American style democracy to the rest of the world. That is particularly true since 9/11. They, like President Bush, tend to see the world in very straightforward terms – even in terms of good and evil. They do not believe that evil governments can be reformed. Sovereignty is relative – the more evil the state the less sovereignty to which it is entitled.
They are particularly close to the state of Israel, in some cases to the Likud party, and they see the defence of Israel as a test of America’s willingness to defend American values. They believe that Israel will achieve peace not through compromising with her enemies, but through a grand re-ordering of her environment, through overwhelming force, and through daring strategic moves.
Even before the agonising rows over Resolution 1441 and Iraq’s lack of disarmament, they had no great regard for the United Nations. They see it as filled with undemocratic or anti American nations which seek to use it to constrain the United States.
In other words, it won’t end with Iraq.
We live in interesting times.
Very good article. Thanks for the link.
I read the lecture with interest. It seems to be a rational argument based on (mostly) observable facts or issued statements of intent. Its projections would seem to be a logical progression from the staus quo.
However the quotes about American intervention (or lack of it) in Rwanda are rather revisionist. “America did not take the lead” is indeed one way of putting the story. There is at least one other version open for inspectionin in the records.
As for Kosovo. Well things there aren’t exactly a stroll in the park. Albanians murder Serbs and have even been involved in fermenting unrest and invading neigboring countries. But who cares about Serbs. Ther’re all ex soviet agitators and we can therefore legally shoot em
And that is what depresses me… Thousands of years of human evolution produces a great nation whose government’s sole purpose would seem to be to make an even bigger stick to beat everybody else with.
Will the last person to actually leave the cave blow out the burning tourch. please.
“Thousands of years of human evolution produces a great nation whose government’s sole purpose would seem to be to make an even bigger stick to beat everybody else with.”
Actually, defense spending is only about 18% of the US government budget.
So, oppressed foreign dictator, don’t feel too bad: We Americans spend most of our tax dollars finding new sticks to beat each other with. Or redistributing sticks from the hafts to the haft-nots.