JFK and the Neocons-- Two New DiEugenio Essays

[Mark Knight]

On 7/13/2024 at 11:38 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

JD-

You never did.

One of moderators hijacked your thread with comments about Israel. 

How, exactly, Mr. Cole, does the one who originated a thread get accused of "hijacking" his own thread?

I'm not certain that's even possible.

[Benjamin Cole]

17 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

How, exactly, Mr. Cole, does the one who originated a thread get accused of "hijacking" his own thread?

I'm not certain that's even possible.

You are correct. I withdraw the comment. 

[James DiEugenio]

In the third or fourth part of my essay, I will put forth the concept that the Neocon movement was first named as such back in the seventies by Michael Harrington.

At the time he was referring to Democrats who had jumped ship on things like the War on Poverty and the Great Society.

This was really kind of prophetic, since that was just the beginning.  Almost all of Henry Jackson's foreign policy team would later jump to Reagan.

So, its an incredible irony, that the Neocon movement was in reality started by former Democrats. As I will argue, I doubt this would have happened if JFK had lived.

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the third or fourth part of my essay, I will put forth the concept that the Neocon movement was first named as such back in the seventies by Michael Harrington.

At the time he was referring to Democrats who had jumped ship on things like the War on Poverty and the Great Society.

This was really kind of prophetic, since that was just the beginning.  Almost all of Henry Jackson's foreign policy team would later jump to Reagan.

So, its an incredible irony, that the Neocon movement was in reality started by former Democrats. As I will argue, I doubt this would have happened if JFK had lived.

Democrats...I never thought of Democrat Bill Clinton as a neo-con, but Hillary was little warmonger in pantsuits. 

And one of Democrat President Obama's first moves was a "surge" to try to reclaim Afghanistan.  

Of course, the Vietnam War was first prosecuted by Democrat President LBJ. Which was then stretched out for four more bloody years by GOP'er Nixon. 

Oddly, it is the outsider President, Trump, who is not a neo-con, and who is and was loathed, detested and reviled by the intel-state.

But...I think we are into a post neo-con era now, and I look forward to your views on that. 

The world has changed. Putin is a madman who has killed 500k in Ukraine, and the Butcher of Tehran may have died (Zionist weather), but his replacement may be worse. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Korea's Kim. The CCP/Xi Beijing, and Islamists. 

Now...the liberal democracies are worth fighting for, and classic liberal ideals worth vigorously defending.

Many nations are run by no-goodniks, and it is not always Washington's fault. 

The Chomskys, the J. Sachs, the alt-lefters seem to be fading. They are not addressing the world we live in today.

I do not accept Sachs' views that Putin was pushed into invading Ukraine by NATO, or that Israel's only response to Hamas should be to build a stronger wall. Sachs has also been compromised by Huawei $. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the third or fourth part of my essay, I will put forth the concept that the Neocon movement was first named as such back in the seventies by Michael Harrington.

At the time he was referring to Democrats who had jumped ship on things like the War on Poverty and the Great Society.

This was really kind of prophetic, since that was just the beginning.  Almost all of Henry Jackson's foreign policy team would later jump to Reagan.

So, its an incredible irony, that the Neocon movement was in reality started by former Democrats. As I will argue, I doubt this would have happened if JFK had lived.

Yes, it is ironic.  I thought it started with Chenny and Rumsfeld under Nixon.  But thinking deeper now LBJ and Connally were conservative democrats, funded by oil money.  Does it all link back past JFK to what Ike called the Military Industrial Complex and in turn then on to his assassination?

[Kirk Gallaway]

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Coincidentally, Jeffrey Sachs just published an essay today about the Neocons.

Hopefully, Ben Cole won't also misconstrue this Sachs essay as "hijacking" this thread about the Neocons.

Opinion | The NATO Declaration and the Deadly Strategy of Neoconservatism | Common Dreams

I will agree with Ben in that I don't think these labels apply as much anymore. And to all of us,  who feel we've had Jeffrey Sachs, who I generally like, shoved down our throats sufficiently. And while I agree generally about Sach's depiction of neocons.

I did read Jim's substack on Sachs,  and unfortunately any Jim substack on Sachs should probably include in his brief biography of Sachs that his biggest career achievement in his profession of economics was that he  was the wunderkind, probably the single most important American influence to engineer the "shock therapy" on the Russian economy after the fall of Soviet empire. A shock therapy that  paralyzed it for well over a decade and as it turned out and gave rise to Putin.

According to Sachs, it had to be a "shock" or the various heads of Russian government might find time to retrench. Though not all the decisions can necessarily be put on Sach's lap. Before at least the Soviets had a decent safety net because that's sort of job one in a Socialist economic system. But they sort of threw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

I've never heard  Sachs really criticize Putin for invading Ukraine. It was all our fault. I assume that's because after he toppled the Soviet economy  years earlier, he was trying to prove to the Russians that he wasn't out to screw them all long!

heh heh heh

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/27/magazine/dr-jeffrey-sachs-shock-therapist.html

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

That is technically correct.

The first outburst of the Neocons on foreign policy was with Cheney and Rumsfeld under Gerald Ford.  This was when they decided to clip Kissinger's wings because of his detente with Russia.  And they did.

The next move was the Committee on the Present Danger, to turn Russia into a military power the likes of Rommel, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.  

This was temporarily stymied by Carter's presidency.   Which Paul Nitze called McGovernism without McGovern.

But it then exploded under Reagan, and man the defections that followed. American foreign policy has not been the same since.  And what Kennedy was trying was buried forever.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I will agree with Ben in that I don't think these labels apply as much anymore. And to all of us,  who feel we've had Jeffrey Sachs, who I generally like, shoved down our throats sufficiently. And while I agree generally about Sach's depiction of neocons.

I did read Jim's substack on Sachs,  and unfortunately any Jim substack on Sachs should probably include in his brief biography of Sachs that his biggest career achievement in his profession of economics was that he  was the wunderkind, probably the single most important American influence to engineer the "shock therapy" on the Russian economy after the fall of Soviet empire. A shock therapy that  paralyzed it for well over a decade and as it turned out and gave rise to Putin.

According to Sachs, it had to be a "shock" or the various heads of Russian government might find time to retrench. Though not all the decisions can necessarily be put on Sach's lap. Before at least the Soviets had a decent safety net because that's sort of job one in a Socialist economic system. But they sort of threw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

I've never heard  Sachs really criticize Putin for invading Ukraine. It was all our fault. I assume that's because after he toppled the Soviet economy  years earlier, he was trying to prove to the Russians that he wasn't out to screw them all long!

heh heh heh

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/27/magazine/dr-jeffrey-sachs-shock-therapist.html

KG-

I hate to agree with you on anything, but..

"I've never heard  Sachs really criticize Putin for invading Ukraine. It was all our fault."

Yes. In fact, Ukraine barely had a military when Putin invaded, so little that Putin expected his military convoy to drive all the way to Kyiv and install a new regime. Ala Czechoslovakia  1968. 

No one was planning to invade Russia. If Putin had concerns, he could have beefed up his borders. 

I will say this: I suspect Biden's CIA-military-State Dep't is primarily interested in a long, long, long Ukraine war that will seriously drain Moscow, and in this regard they have succeeded, and Putin is trapped in a quagmire 10 times worse than Vietnam. 

Putin cannot quit, but he losing 1,000 soldiers on some days (yes, days, not weeks), and running out of tanks, hard to believe for Russia. They are using 50-year-old tanks out of storage. 

If this war persists another year---and Putin is such a lunatic, it might---we could see a Russian collapse, or putsch. 

I don't see a neo-con angle to this war. Who likes Putin? 

 

[Norman T. Field]

There is an orange complected Republican candidate who apparently thinks the world of Putin. 

[James DiEugenio]

What ultimately happened  was that the Neocons ended up taking over both parties.

This is a theme I will get to in part 4.  

A perfect example is that the three witches--HRC, Power and RIce-- used NATO to bomb Africa.

Let me repeat: NATO to bomb Africa.

When Kennedy intervened in Congo, he went to the UN.

We will also see that although Obama tried to say he fended off the attempt to invade Syria, he did not.  He approved Timber Sycamore, a 1.2 billion CIA covert action which used Moslem Fundamentalists to get rid of a secular MIddle East leader, Assad.

Kennedy advocated the contrary with Nasser.  He wanted to use a secular socialist who went to war with the Moslem Brotherhood to westernize and modernize the Middle East.

This is what I mean about Kennedy being buried and the Neocons taking over both parties.

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:02 PM by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Norman T. Field said:

There is an orange complected Republican candidate who apparently thinks the world of Putin. 

NF:

You are correct, at least in Trump's public statements regarding Putin during Trump's first Presidency.

But, perhaps Trump's diplomacy and flattery worked. Trump may have even taken a page from JFK's book, and tried to defuse situations, rather than aggravate. 

Results: Putin invaded Crimea on Obama's watch, and Ukraine on Biden's watch. 

But, Putin has now invaded Ukraine and revealed himself to be a madman, to whom even hundreds of thousands of deaths means nothing. 

I hope Trump and Vance come to the conclusion that Putin must be blocked somehow.  This stalemate war has been begging for an armistice almost since it started, and then perhaps Putin will fade from the scene and Ukraine can be restored. 

But I agree with you: IMHO, Trump's policy on Ukraine is of concern. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/14/2024 at 8:19 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Hopefully, Ben Cole won't also misconstrue this Sachs essay as "hijacking" this thread about the Neocons.

That was a futile hope.  He's taken Kirks comments about Sachs to he brought us Putin to this:

"I hope Trump and Vance come to the conclusion that Putin must be blocked somehow." 

That is a current politics statement.  That and his other posts are in essence spamming, hijacking the thread.  A repeated theme. 

I don't believe in censorship.  I do believe this thread is interesting and informative.  I'm not going to move it to Political Discussions because of this.  I want to read more about JFK and the Neocons.  I have deleted one post since becoming a Moderator, a distasteful insult of one member by another.  I'm seriously considering Hiding 3-4 posts at the moment to get the thread back on track.  While I seek a second or third opinion there is a short-term solution.  

[W. Niederhut]

6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

That was a futile hope.  He's taken Kirks comments about Sachs to he brought us Putin to this:

"I hope Trump and Vance come to the conclusion that Putin must be blocked somehow." 

That is a current politics statement.  That and his other posts are in essence spamming, hijacking the thread.  A repeated theme. 

I don't believe in censorship.  I do believe this thread is interesting and informative.  I'm not going to move it to Political Discussions because of this.  I want to read more about JFK and the Neocons.  I have deleted one post since becoming a Moderator, a distasteful insult of one member by another.  I'm seriously considering Hiding 3-4 posts at the moment to get the thread back on track.  While I seek a second or third opinion there is a short-term solution.  

Ron,

   It's a very interesting thread, and I'm looking forward to reading James DiEugenio's additional essays.

   It's a broad swath of history, which Sachs extends right up to the present-- i.e., the contemporary issues with NATO and Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

   So, in a sense, it's difficult to fully understand the ramifications of the Neocon movement without some discussion of the 21st century and contemporary politics.

    What DiEugenio is getting at is the history of the how the humanistic, anti-colonial ideals of FDR, Henry Wallace, and JFK got hijacked by militant imperialists.

    How did we end up with the Neocon Project for a New American Century, instead of Henry Wallace's Century of the Common Man?

[Karl Kinaski]

Re: Kennedy and Algeria 

 In his essay "KENNDEY OR NIXON. Does it make any difference?" Arthur Schlesinger wrote (September/October 1960):

 

Quote

 

Hence his (Kennedys)  interest in issues is not only curative but preventive.

He has regularly devoted speeches, for example, to topics whose

only significance lies in the remote future. He manifestly takes

the time to study and, more important, to think, about issues far in

advance of packaged and hackneyed opinion, because they inter¬

est him and strike him as crucial—whether or not anyone in the

audience is ready to respond or to appreciate. Indeed, he seems to

understand that preparing the people for what is going to over¬

take them in the future, and for the demands they are going to

have to fill, is one of the highest duties of the political leader.

Thus he was an early voice calling attention to the gathering

crisis in Indo-China and urging independence for Vietnam, Laos,

and Cambodia—a policy which France eventually followed, almost

too late to do any good. An even more celebrated instance was

his speech in 1957 on Algeria. This was far from a vote-catching

speech: the number of Algerian voters in the United States is

limited. More than that, the speech did Kennedy genuine political

harm. It brought down upon him the wrath of the Establishment in

foreign policy, led by former Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

The Council on Foreign Relations mentality was outraged by what

was termed an irresponsible attack on the policies of our French

ally; after all, Henry Cabot Lodge and Douglas Dillon had ex¬

pressed firm faith in the French Government’s handling of the

matter, and that should have been that.

Rereading the Kennedy speech today, one wonders what all

the shouting was about. It is a moderate and prophetic forecast of

the evolution of events in North Africa. It ably sets forth the

position toward which De Gaulle has been moving since his return

to power; if French governments had adopted it when Kennedy

first advocated it, the Algerian crisis would have been much closer

to solution. As for the alleged “irresponsibility” of the speech, the

only test of that is whether it strengthened or weakened those in¬

side France working for a more rational approach. I happened to

be in Paris when the speech was delivered and can testify that it

was received with gratitude by the opponents of the now discredited

Algerian policy. Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber ran the entire text

in L’Express. When Kennedy said, “Algeria is no longer a prob¬

lem for the French alone—nor will it ever be again,” he signaled

the increasing concern of the Atlantic community in the Algerian

affair. The French critics of the policy felt that only evidence of

such concern could force a revision of the policy. Unfortunately,

too few voices echoed Kennedy outside France, and no revision

took place until De Gaulle came to power. In any case, can one

cite any speech of Nixon’s that provoked a comparable discussion

of serious issues? *

 

 

Kennedy was a foreign policy Maverick. Despite Trump is a very different character, he is a foreign policy Maverick. Kennedy was against the US running around and igniting wars. Trump is against the US running around igniting wars. Both men received bullets for that. 2024 is 1963. 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:05 AM by Karl Kinaski

[Cliff Varnell]

41 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Kennedy was a foreign policy Maverick. Despite Trump is a very different character, he is a foreign policy Maverick. Kennedy was against the US running around and igniting wars. Trump is against the US running around igniting wars. Both men received bullets for that. 2024 is 1963. 

 

So Trump was shot because he's a peacenik?

Trump pulled out of the Iran nuke deal and assassinated the #2 Iranian leader.

Kennedy green-lit the overthrow of Diem, one of the most calamitous foreign policy decisions of the post-WW2 era.

I think folks need to stifle the hero-worship.