If an open-ended bombing campaign, explicit regime-change rhetoric, and a grand theory about reshaping the Middle East to weaken China doesn’t qualify as neoconservative, then the term has lost all meaning
calling this interventionist war for Israel "America First" is a perversion, since the American people don't want it. A new poll released today by Reuters shows that only 27% of Americans support the war
America First opposes wars fought for Israel, simple as that. That is the core issue that defines Neocon vs. America First, and to pretend otherwise is naive or corrupt. Here is a famous anecdote:
In August 2004, President George W. Bush asked his father what "neocon" means.
"Do you want names, or a description?" responded Bush Sr.
"Description." responded Bush Jr.
"Well, I'll give it to you in one word: Israel." responded Bush Sr.
This isn't a war fought for Israel. Iran has been waging war on us for 47 years. It has killed countless Americans. It was pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. They surely don't need the latter to hit Tel Aviv.
You claim that "ending the regime is the only real way to secure those interests" and just two sentences later also claim the war is "focusing on limited, concrete objectives and allowing our ally Israel and the Iranian people to shoulder the burden of the most direct anti-regime operations". Ending the regime is anything but limited. What you want achieve cannot be achieved through bombing alone. And when it doesn't you will say that some kind of grounds force is required. You are trying to combine two incompatible goals. Wholesale regime change that ends the threat posed by Iran and a limited engagement that puts very little at risk. This is a recipe for failure because it incentives magical thinking and creating situations that you can no longer control. This will be a failure one way or another if this is the level analysis being applied.
> This approach is not a neoconservative one
If an open-ended bombing campaign, explicit regime-change rhetoric, and a grand theory about reshaping the Middle East to weaken China doesn’t qualify as neoconservative, then the term has lost all meaning
calling this interventionist war for Israel "America First" is a perversion, since the American people don't want it. A new poll released today by Reuters shows that only 27% of Americans support the war
If America First is defined entirely by polling, I have bad news about most of the America First agenda!
America First opposes wars fought for Israel, simple as that. That is the core issue that defines Neocon vs. America First, and to pretend otherwise is naive or corrupt. Here is a famous anecdote:
In August 2004, President George W. Bush asked his father what "neocon" means.
"Do you want names, or a description?" responded Bush Sr.
"Description." responded Bush Jr.
"Well, I'll give it to you in one word: Israel." responded Bush Sr.
This isn't a war fought for Israel. Iran has been waging war on us for 47 years. It has killed countless Americans. It was pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. They surely don't need the latter to hit Tel Aviv.
Talk about your stale talking points.
please stop pretending to be America First
Good thing I'm not trying to do that!
The final line of this essay is: "Operation Epic Fury is what America First was always building toward."
You claim that "ending the regime is the only real way to secure those interests" and just two sentences later also claim the war is "focusing on limited, concrete objectives and allowing our ally Israel and the Iranian people to shoulder the burden of the most direct anti-regime operations". Ending the regime is anything but limited. What you want achieve cannot be achieved through bombing alone. And when it doesn't you will say that some kind of grounds force is required. You are trying to combine two incompatible goals. Wholesale regime change that ends the threat posed by Iran and a limited engagement that puts very little at risk. This is a recipe for failure because it incentives magical thinking and creating situations that you can no longer control. This will be a failure one way or another if this is the level analysis being applied.