The Clipboard: The Neocons and the Nazis

From an article¹:

People like Rich Lowry are dangerously insane. Let them by all means rant all they like in their little electronic playpens, but let us not make the mistake of following their advice, lest this nation share the fate of Nazi Germany in more ways than it already has. (links)

This one is definitely worth reading, the author is on to something here. Some of these neocons seem to be little better than fascists.

---

Complete text of the article, The Neocons and the Nazis, by John deLaubenfels

You've got to read this column by Rich Lowry of the National Review Online, dated May 28, 2002, to believe it. It's titled "Catastrophe if Bush doesn't Invade." Lowry is absolutely FURIOUS at the possibility that President Bush might be losing fervor for the idea of starting a war with Iraq:

. . . it appears that the U.S. military considers it its role to shape American foreign policy, and talk down those irresponsible firebrands who represent the nation's elected civilian leadership. How dare they give the military difficult and unpleasant tasks!

Here's a better idea, according to Lowry:

[Eliot] Cohen argues convincingly that all great wartime leaders--Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill, Ben Gurion--never left the military to make its own policy, but constantly prodded, challenged, and gave it direction.

Thus, it is clear to Lowry that,

It is Bush, the president of the United States, who should be riding herd over the Chiefs rather than the other way around.

What actually happened, of course, is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that invading Iraq would require mobilization of at least 200,000 troops, and would involve fighting "block by block" with a high risk of exposure to chemical and biological weapons (not to mention the "old fashioned" kind that just go boom and blow one's flesh to bits). They stated that, if we DO start such a war, we should be prepared to pay the necessary cost.

Lowry can't think of enough bad things to say about the chutzpah of these military men. He stops just short of calling them cowards, but the implication is clear.

What is wrong with this picture, other than the fact that Mr. Lowry is happy to send others to their deaths while he remains safely seated behind his computer console? For starters, the list of four men who "prodded" their militaries into alleged greatness leaves out the best example of a leader who "knew better": Adolph Hitler. He always "rode herd" over his generals on how best to waste, I mean spend, Germany's military resources. The results, according to many historians, cost Germany the war.

Make no mistake: Hitler's generals were no shrinking violets. They were well equipped professional soldiers who loved their country and were dedicated to advancing its goals. They were not, however, in favor of squandering their nation's resources, human and otherwise, for little gain. Therefore, they did their best to dissuade Hitler from his most disastrous ideas.

Did Hitler listen? He did not. He was the Man with the Plan, and could see in his mind's eye exactly how everything would unfold, if only those damn generals would stop being such naysayers. It would be glorious! He was also, of course, a fool and a madman, whose head was filled with carnage above all else, and who, in the end, visited that carnage back upon his own nation.

In other words, Hitler bears, in this respect as well, an uncanny resemblance to men like Rich Lowry, with their visions of glory for the New American Empire. The neocons are not quite stupid enough to adopt the word "Fatherland," but the dream is the same.

Do I think Saddam Hussein is a nice person? Absolutely not! I wouldn't want him as a neighbor any more than I'd want a dangerous nut like Mr. Lowry living close by. Let us do a thought experiment on a smaller scale, however, to make clear the morality of preemptive strikes.

Suppose you live in Anytown, U.S.A. and someone moves in next door who makes you extremely nervous. He has visitors who don't seem very savory and are of uncertain occupation. He regards you with evident suspicion rather than trying to become friends. Once when you go onto his property to retrieve a frisbee, he appears and yells at you to get the hell out if you know what's good for you. You suspect that he is in possession of dangerous weapons. You suspect that he is plotting to burn your house down and kill you and your family. Do you:

- Keep watching, and arrest the man if you find him in the act of a crime.

- Launch a "protective reaction strike" (or whatever today's euphemism is; that was Nixon's) and wipe out that guy and his entire family.

Option one is unappealing, because the state of fear is not relieved in any way, and the element of surprise (if in fact an attack is coming) is left to your neighbor/enemy. Option two has much more appeal: You pick the time, you dispatch the "enemy," and you go home and celebrate, having dealt with the "problem." You strut with pride at the manhood you have displayed!

Of course, the only difficulty with option two is that it is an act of cold-blooded murder, based upon nothing but fear and suspicion. Anyone guilty of carrying out option two would rightly be locked away for life.

Why is this easier to see than the same conundrum on the international stage? When a nation starts a war to effect a "regime change," it is engaging in murder on a massive scale. The morality, if anything, can only be worse than killing one's neighbor to prevent an alleged crime-to-be.

Am I afraid of people who mean the U.S. harm? Sure I am. Am I happy about living in a state of fear? Of course not. Do I therefore support blasting at every scary looking person in the world who gives Americans the evil eye? No. That policy is not only immoral, it will achieve the exact opposite of greater security for our children. Either reason on its own is enough for any sane person to reject such a course of action.

Which brings us to an inescapable conclusion, and there is no way to say this gently: People like Rich Lowry are dangerously insane. Let them by all means rant all they like in their little electronic playpens, but let us not make the mistake of following their advice, lest this nation share the fate of Nazi Germany in more ways than it already has.

reference=http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/deLaubenfels/delaubenfels10.html