Podhoretz, like Bush, is staying the course.
By Ted Belman
Ever since being introduced to Commentary Magazine in the sixties I have been an avid reader of Commentary and fan of Norman Podhoretz. Tonight I attended a lecture given by him.
You may recall he was responsible for preparing the intellectual groundwork that enabled Ronald Reagan to win the Whitehouse. He led the battle against Oslo. Unfortunately he also supported the disengagement from Gaza.
So where is he at now aside from being appointed by Giuliani as policy advisor?
1. He believes that history will vindicate Bush much as it did Harry Truman. Truman had to fight Communism and developed the doctrine of containment. He had many detractors from such policy and lost the elections to Eisenhower who was vocally against containment but once in office, made no changes to the policy. Similarly, Podhoretz believes that the Bush Doctrine, which he identified as pre-emption militarily and democratization politically, will be continued by the next administration be it Democrat or Republican.
2. He had great praise for the American soldiers and their patriotism. He suggests that these young people are reflective of the American heartland from which they came. They and the heartland have the right stuff. He reminded us that a NY Times writer remarked, after Nixon won office much to the consternation of pundits, “I don’t know anyone who voted for him”. Hopefully the Democrats today are similarly out of touch.
3. He is very hard on Condi. He says she used to be a realist in foreign policy having been mentored by Scowcroft. Then, when she came over to the Whitehouse, she abandonned such thinking. During Bush’s first year in office, he had to endure a State Department and CIA which were openly hostile to his policies that it was their duty to uphold. He sent Condi there to whip it into line. Unfortunately it whipped her into line. Bush has absolutely no confidence that anything will come of Condi’s efforts. Now is just not the time to expect progress. He is letting her run with it expecting her and her policies to crash and burn taking the realists down with them. For him that would be a good thing. It would restore the Bush Doctrine.
4. Olmert, he says is, partly to blame because he is too eager for for a settlement. Its not just American pressure.
5. He recently wrote an article that the only thing worse than bombing Iran is not bombing Iran. He expects Bush to order an air assault before he leaves office.
5. Everyone believed that Hussein was developing WMD’s. While this was one of the reason’s for invading Iran, the main reason was to start the process of democratization as a means of transforming the ME. Podhoretz and Bush both believe in the Bush doctrine.
6. He did not get a chance to comment on Bush’s relationship with the Saudis but he did comment that neither Saudi Arabia or China would bring the US down, economically, because they too would suffer.
Tags: , Norman Podhoretz
November 11th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Podhoretz is correct on the USG’s geopolitics but the “democratization” of the Middle East is veneer.
I call the “democratization” of the Middle East by my coined-term; the “compressed liquids doctrine”. Do not anticipate Jeffersonian democracy arriving in the Muslim lands.
Bush & Co., concurrently with keeping the US on a guns and butter economy, obtained control over the easy to reach Iraq oil pools and reconfigured the US Government departments to support this. The Bush administration accomplished an undertaking as fast and nearly as large as FDR’s war mobilization.
America’s job base is slowly improving. Pensions are being paid on time. Social Security checks are also timely. The medical bills danger is still present but being addressed and I believe we’ll see a bipartisan solution to this in the next administration(Middle Class will pay the bills via more taxes, fees, rationed health care and overall reduced standard of living).
Bush & Co. disestblished the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and transferred the functions to the Defense Dept’s new Special Operations Command. HQ SACLANT was abolished for the new Allied Command Transformation. The Justice Dept’s sieve lost it’s real intelligence function. DOD rules the scene.
America’s traditional largest and richest minorities, blacks and Jews, respectively,
were replaced.
SecState Rice is a product of hagiography; a television, photo op symbol for opinion molding influence, a black, female, intellectual, single and daughter of a minister of theology. Here, too, hagiography is at work. Dad was a public school guidnce counselor and part-time preacher.
The reason Norman Podhoretz didn’t get a chance to commend on the Administration’s relationship with the Saudis was by speaker arrangement.
Oil governs.
Kol tuv,
November 11th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“Compressed liquids doctrine…” A clever analogy…
November 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
So Bush is setting up his own Secretary of State for a major fall? As much as I don’t like the policies Condi is promoting, this is quite a sleezy thing to do to someone who is supposed to be your friend, which Condi supposedly is to Bush.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Laura:
1. Pragmatism
2. Rice seems to have become something quite different from the person originally hired for the job. Not surprising (to me) given the fact that the State Department seems to be running the country its own way, and that its influence on its political leaders seems to be - to say the least - hypnotic.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Bush has a small coterie of supporters — some even as clever as Podhoretz — who still believe that his long series of colossal geopolitical faux pas are due to others in the administration who 1) do not share his “enlightened vision” of a West-friendly and democratized Middle East, 2) constantly offer bad advice on how to implement this vision, and/or 3) unilaterally pursue policies which are antithetical to his vision. These apologists peddle this line when they are not otherwise fatuously arguing that events like Annapolis are actually all part of a complex and brilliant Bush strategy to save Western civilization from Islamofascism. Magical thinking at its most childish and destructive.
As most recently evidenced by the fact that the WH has apparently put the Golan Heights on the Annapolis agenda in order to seduce Syria into attending the conference, Bush is entirely on the same page as that of the Iraq Study Group, his father’s confidant James Baker, and the “realist” school of geopolitics otherwise known as feed the alligator. Israel is to be the sacrificial lamb in this tragedy which by the denouement, will almost certainly lead to the once-Jewish state being overrun by barbarians and the exact opposite of the outcome hoped for in the “Bush doctrine”, a victory and vindication for the ideology of Islamofascism and its modus operandi: terror.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
By the way, from Bush’s perspective, Annapolis is quintessential to the “Bush doctrine”; that is, demonstrate to the Arabs that by participating in the political process (with the implicit threat of violence if it fails), they can achieve all of their political objectives.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Shalom Charles,
True, but the alligator provides for nice alligator skin purses at Nieman Marcus and nice cowboy boots at the country and western clothing stores.
The alligator oil company stocks also supports the huge US pension funds like California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and New York Pension Fund (2nd largest institutional investor in US after CalPERS).
Why shouldn’t Israel be sacrificed for the oil trade? US national commentator Alan Dershowitz said Israel was founded by Jewish terrorists. There are “Jewish” organizations fighting the Christian Zionists. American Jews vote and donate money to the other political party.
In the current US Congress there are more Jews than Episcopalians.
Don’t blame the Bush administration.
Our problem is internal.
Kol tuv,
November 12th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Shalom South. I’m not sure if you are serious or playing agent provocateur here. If the former, have you now adopted the antisemite’s rationale for liquidation of the Jews? The Nazis euthanized the retarded; shall we as Jews agree to the same collective fate by order of George Bush because a few of our own are misguided, or mentally defective, or kapos? Or because as a people without oil resources, we stand “in the way” of Western economic durability and Arab hegemony?
I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you are too smart to accept such a bankrupt notion intellectually so you have either succumbed to battered wife syndrome or are simply attempting to get a rise. If the former, I can suggest a good psychotherapist.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Shalom Charles,
You’re not using the correct term. “Agent provacateur” isn’t what you want to use.
My goal here is to provoke thought. Actions without clearely thought-out matters fail.
I challenge the believe that it’s “a few”. The misguided will always be with us. Re kapos; Yamit summed it up best in a nearby post of today. We are addresing the decision-makers with options - NOT those who are involved in the circumstances of their environment.
It is more than “a few”.
We can handle the Arab barbarians. We are being destroyed by the Ira Formans, Abraham Foxmans, Alan Dershowitzs, etc.
Please prove me wrong.
Hopefully, others will add to this thread to amplify both our views.
Kol tuv,
November 12th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
The only ones Bush will sacrifice here if he gets his way is :Abu Mazzen and Olmert. Olmert is shackled from doing anything too stupid, if he wants to keep his government intact. This seems to be guiding wisdom of most pundits.
We also know that right after, if not before the Annapolis sham is over, all hell is liable to break out here with unknown consequences!
This meeting then in Annapolis has the potential for creating positive(for us) set of circumstances. It appears that this time Bushes and Condis plan for us may backfire on all who contemplated other results.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
South
I use the term agent provacateur because when you ask,
you are not simply provoking thought but also provoking action, inciting for the extermination of the Jews. We don’t need a parroting of the parlor talk of the James Bakers and French ambassadors and filthy oil sheiks who ask the same question and use their vast wealth and power and political connections to steer the world towards the next Holocaust or WWIII. Some of us have been following this drama for the last 40 years and most of us are vigilant and informed enough to understand the stakes for Israel and the disgusting rationales advanced for selling her out.
America has more than its share of useful idiots: the Noam Chomskys, Jimmy Carters, Dennis Kucinichs, etc. Every nation has its fifth column, its corrupt politicians, its progressives. These elements are generally not a danger to a country the size and strength of the US. But for a tiny beachhead surrounded by 7th century barbarians and dependent on military spares and resupply operations from abroad, there is no room for error: any betrayal or threat of abandonment from the benefactor carries existential risks.
Bush knows this and exploits it because he is venal and Machiavellian and entirely owned by elements outside of the US electorate.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Shalom Charles,
You’re completely in your rights to believe my posts are geared to “provoking action” and “inciting …extermination”.
I can say the above ONLY IF I reject your 12 Nov 07 9:13 AM post’s paragraph 2.
There will always be James Bakers. There will always be French Ambassadors like Daniel Bernard (”That sh*tty little country Israel”). (Although the danger is when former French PM Rocard said “Israel is an historic mistake.” 16 June 04).
You are making a major mistake to comingle the gentile political power personalities such as former Pres Carter with Chomsky. The PR battle is configured differently.
You are wrong that Pres Bush is “owned by interests outside of the US electorate”. Pres Bush is a Rockefeller Republican. The US electorate dissolved circa after FDR changed the government functions and moved America’s solar plexis from NYC to Washington, D.C.
Israel is such a small nation under seige, it is the Chomskys and Dershowitzs creating the danger. After all, small size has been our status for 3 thousand years.
Kol tuv,
November 13th, 2007 at 7:53 am
As a noted neoconservative, it is not surprising that Norman Podhoretz would be aligned with the “Bush Doctrine” and that he expresses the belief that Pres. Bush will ultimately be vindicated for his having by his policies, brought neoconservative ideology from theory into reality.
A major treatise by the noted neoconservative scholar, Joshua Muravchik appeared in Commentary Magazine under the title, The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism at:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm?id=10935
On October 26th, 2007 on Israpundit, in critiquing Muravchik’s essay wherein he posits that neoconservatisim is the West’s salvation, I raised many questions and concerns, both with fundamental concepts of neoconservatism and neoconservatism’s stand in practice on the “Bush Doctrine” and as regards what the West and America have done and should be doing to combat and defeat radical Islam in all its guises. See:
http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=6285
It would of course be helpful if Muravchik and Podhoretz answered questions and addressed my concerns raised, however my forwarding my critique to Commentary magazine brought no reaction from Podhoretz.
If recounted accurately it is puzzling that Podhoretz condemns Condi Rice as having become unrealistic in the direction she is leading the President, inferring that she is leading President Bush away from and not in furtherance of the Bush doctrine. While there are many who would equally damn Rice for wallowing and flailing away within the realm of delusions, denials and willful blindness, she does so in furtherance of pushing the Bush doctine, part of which entails bribing the Middle Eastern Muslim nations to transform towards democratic political structures with appeasement, her own money and the weakening of Israel as a bargaining chip.
It is startling for Podhoretz to say that Pres. Bush knows full well how deficient Rice’s leadership and advice is and that he is allowing her to run with it right off a cliff to fall to her humiliating demise, thereby allowing him to restore the Bush doctrine. Really? That makes no sense at all.
If Rice goes down in disgrace over her counsel and leadership, so too will the fortunes of Pres. Bush and the Republican party.
There is good reason for Podhoretz’s claim that Olmert cannot lay off all the blame on America for his policies that further American interests more then Israel’s. That however is also the case with previous Israeli leaders and administrations whose policies also furthered American interests more then they did Israel’s and in the result Israeli policies have strengthened Israel’s enemies and that includes the Palestinians.
It would be interesting to know whether Podhoretz’s brand of neoconservativism is completely in synch with that of Joshua Muravchik and if not, what not and why not.
Further I wonder whether Podhoretz sees Israel’s salvation in American policies driven by neoconservatism and if so, how.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Well said Bill. You are quite right to point out that the fall of Rice is also the fall of Bush. That being said, there is no denying that Bush has been totally silent on the current peace process. Others beside myself have dismissed the idea that this is about forming an anti radical alliance (Israel Matsav). As I havew have also written it is not about acheiving a final peace agreement.
The only thing that is left is “wiping Israel off the map”. If this conclusion is resisted, the only other reason is to please Saudi Arabia in and off itself. But no one would say this.
Now if one still argues it is about achieving “peace” and therefor a legacy, what kind of a legacy is it to be the one who weakened Israel so much that another war breaks out for its destruction.
November 21st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
His daughter, Ruthie Blum, of the JPost gave him a tough interview a few months ago.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960633885&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
I hope that she doesn’t change her tune after “a certain age.”
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Even after “disengagement” and PA elections produced a clear debacle for Israel, Podhoretz has chosen to cover his tuches and continue to whisper comforting words of encouragement into the president’s ears and ours too. In other words, Podhoretz has chosen to stay in Bush’s court rather than admit his terrible mistakes and try to correct them for the sake of America and Israel. That’s not an honorable man, that’s a political leech.