Tweet
In my piece a few weeks ago about the rudderlessness of GOP foreign policy, I mentioned a National Journal item reporting that several of the neoconservative heavies — Bill Kristol, Bob Kagan, former occupation-of-Iraq spokesman Dan Senor — were thinking of opening a "new conservative foreign-policy think tank-cum-messaging institution." You know, like the Project for a New American Century or the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq? Well, the far-more-innocuously named Foreign Policy Initiative has its big rollout tomorrow, with an Afghanistan panel that I think will be counterprogrammed against the Obama administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy rollout. Here’s how the FPI describes its mission:
- continued U.S. engagement–diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
- robust support for America’s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
- the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
- a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
- international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.
Matt Duss giggles:
On March 31, FPI holds its first public event, Afghanistan: Planning For Success, though, given the heavy representation of Iraq war advocates, I think a far better title would be Afghanistan: Dealing With The Huge Problems Created By Many Of The People On This Very Stage. The broad consensus among national security analysts and aid officials is that the diversion of troops and resources toward Iraq beginning in 2002 was one of the main reasons the Taliban and Al Qaeda were able to to re-establish themselves in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, facilitating the collapse of the country back into insurgent warfare. Having failed to complete the mission in Afghanistan, Bush and the Iraq hawks handed the Obama administration a war that promises to be as difficult and costly as Iraq has been -– if not more. It’s deeply absurd that some of the people most responsible for the crisis in Afghanistan would now presume to tell us how to deal with it.
What the FPI crew might want to ask itself is why the counterinsurgents went to work for the (Democratic-aligned-but-they-don’t-like-when-I-write-that) Center for a New American Security instead of the American Enterprise Institute and other hotbeds of neoconservatism after the neocons went all-out promoting the surge. I won’t hold my breath waiting for weighty introspection about what went wrong during the Bush years from these guys — if I want that, I read Shadow Government — but still.
Crossposted to The Streak.
2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
So unless you have on-background-only reporting, I have to say that the first moves by this think tank don’t seem too terrible. They’ve got Nagl and Barno on their panels for their kickoff event, neither of whom are exactly afraid to voice dissent (look up Barno’s Military Review article on Afghanistan strategy if you don’t believe me), which seems like a decent start.
Admittedly their moderators are neoconservatives, which I get why you see is problematic, but why not spin it as “even the neocons are coming in from the wilderness on Afghanistan”? I know that even many COIN theorists hope we’re never involved in one of these again, but that seems relatively unlikely; why not try to get a bipartisan entrenchment of commitment to COIN fundamentals at the grand strategic level (whatever that looks like – my bet is Kilcullen’s article on “Disaggregation” is going to be the Mr. X piece of this era) just like containment was (broadly) bipartisan in the Cold War era?*
*Yes, neocons originated in dissent from containment with Team B and PNAC and such, sure. That doesn’t negate the fact that they ended up advocating for variations on an old theme, not a new tune.
No, no background reporting, and it’s a good point. We’ll see if they’re coming around. The mission statement didn’t suggest like it.
Good point on disaggregation. But I wonder if the neos would accept it. They haven’t really grappled with Fastabend’s 2007 memo to Petraeus that basically advocating appeasing insurgents. Nor would they be naturally inclined to accept Dave’s view that we’ve been needlessly making enemies around the world that has nothing to do with eschatology. If they do, great. That would be a healthy maturation. But again, not holding my breath.