[Matt Welch] notes that John Mc Cain's claim of the recent Russia And Georgia mess to be "the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" and "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire" to be part of a pattern of NeoCon over-reaction. The case against neoconservative Foreign Policy has never been about an insufficient store of knowledge. You couldn't, for example, accuse Paul Wolfowitz of inexperience with the Middle East. Neoconservatism's problem, and electoral advantage, is one and the same: By escalating international problems into monumental crises and impending threats, interventionists such as John Mc Cain have been able to appear knowledgeable, "serious," and presidentially tough, all at once. Any competitor preaching policy restraint and rhetorical prudence looks like a wuss in comparison. Like Democrats ready to re-intervene in the economy at the first sign of crisis, the neocons' continuing state of red-alert readiness - whether directed at China, Russia, or the Middle East - provides a go-to set of policy prescriptions, expertise, and action items whenever the latest "holiday from history" comes crashing to a halt.

For the [McCains] of the United States navy," [McCain] wrote in his 2002 book Worth the Fighting For, "as well as for many of our brother officers, presidents just didnt get much better than Teddy Roosevelt. He transformed the American navy from a small coastal defence force to an instrument for the global projection of power."

User Options Recent Changes Help Page