..out of the dark

Recently - as in the past ten- fifteen years - there has been what can only be called an infinite stream of exposure of views from the american foreign policy establishment. In that what was before only suspected was the driving force behind fairly large parts of that community, has now become pushed to become popular and public selling points. Take Ledeen, Pollack, Perle and Kagan, for instance. The views they proclaim as sanity in an insane world - and which the president at one point became exceptionally popular for echoing - have moved from obscure conspiracy theory and over to acceptable public discourse.

What exactly is the substance of this change, though? Was it not the case that foreign policy in this context always has been "hawkish", or espousing the view that military power can be used for specific and various good deeds around the world? Or that the power to wield such a formidable influence should only rest on US hands, due to the inherent goodness of the US? Of course.

But these views were tempered - occasionally - by other views. Such as that in order to maintain the moral high ground, and so the firmament of the expansive foreign policy, there was a need to follow the rules just like anyone else. Or if nothing else, that the appearance of following them would be inexpediently beneficial.

This is now past. With the current establishment - what they appear to call the neocons - the old orthodoxies have been challenged. No more is the appearance of following the rules necessary - no, to them there is need for honesty and leadership. To break through the double- talk and dispense with the public face of being a benevolent superpower. Because this does not keep american interests, as it may well be argued.

And the failure to understand this, and the failure to understand just how unfathomably popular the Bush- administration was... *wave* in the long long ago - is what prevents us from truly assessing the basis for the current unpopularity of the Bush- administration in the US.

Because the views they espouse are not extreme in the context of US foreign policy. They set out to do good, to contribute to the world in general - and ultimately make a definite difference for the greater good. And there's absolutely no question that views of this sort - including the outspoken option to go ahead and use military power for that purpose, in defence or attack - is completely bipartisan.

Similarly, only the recent failure of the Bush- administration is the reason why they are now at 25% in the polls. There just is no disconnect between these orthodoxies and the american public - specially not now, for the mentioned reasons: that the previously covert foreign policy has been transponded over and into the public sphere. Of course, no doubt are there those who categorically oppose war for the mentioned purposes, and have done so from the very beginning - but the vast majority either still holds the other fundamental view, or believe that these theories are being "hurt" by the Bush- administration by their inept - and unarguably disastrous - handling of "the foreign policy".

Here, for instance, is Ken Roth's statement re. the war in 2004. Where he laments how the inept handling of the war will harm "humanitarian interventions" in the future - necessary ones. For those who do not know, he is the head of "Human Rights Watch", a much enamoured facilitator of western style low key intervention in heathen lands, if you'll believe certain US state department officials I shall not name.

But why is that this kind of policy is so popular? Why is it that Karl Rove and the Bush White House managed to make use of this policy to achieve two resounding election victories? Why is it that even now, when defeat is so present even the US military starts to rebel against the policy- makers - the public has difficulties with truly rejecting these views?

Think about that.


Here, for no particular reason, is a coloured in picture of a handbook on smiling and happy nazi- youth.