A neocon speech

David Cameron's foreign policy speech is worth reading in full, when you next have the time. A good summary can be found here.

The speech may be seen as distancing conservatives from neoconservatives. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Instead it is endorsing neoconservatism and then trying to distance it from the conduct of foreign policy by George Bush and Tony Blair.

Can this be done?

Well, certainly there are powerful criticisms that can be made of the conduct of the Iraq and (to a lesser extent) the Afghanistan campaigns. It is also right to argue, as Cameron does, that building a free and civil society is about more than holding elections (indeed this is a central proposition of Natan Sharansky in his brilliant book The Case for Democracy). And it is always possible to demonstrate that a government has shown too little humility and patience.

However one blogger described (in a US context) this sort of criticism of Mr Bush's policy as "the incompetence dodge". In other words, when a tough policy runs into difficulty you blame it all on the competence of execution, when, in fact, difficulty was inevitable given the basic decision. If David Cameron in government had been faced with making a decision on Iraq, it is conceivable he might have acted differently. It is hard, however, to see the outcome having been hugely different. More humility and patience would not have reduced the number of marchers or furious Muslims. More soldiers would have helped, but Britain might have had difficulty prevailing on this matter over a US Secretary of Defence.

So Mr Cameron has made a good speech, cleverly positioning his party ideologically and politically. But his speech should be seen for what it is - a restatement of a neocon foreign policy.

Comments

[Karen Dressler]

I am glad they have edited the 9/11 program to not blame President Clinton for what happened 5 years ago, after all how long had President Bush been in power at that time? He had ample time to do something, do anything. This was pure and simply stated a retaliation for what the 1st President Bush had done. We should never be so complacent again. The United States just can't do anything they want to do, and not expect some retaliation and be watchful for it to come back at us. Not to mention since we all have satellite dishes, so do they. The media needs to back the hell off, leave some element of surprise to our military.

KarenDressler@comcast.net

[Tom Lyle]

This article would be more convincing if you could justify your claim that this is a neocon speech. At present you offer no reason at all to think so.

This is important since Cameron explicitly disavows, with argument, being a neocon.

Is your view that he is making a mistake or being disingenuous, or neither? If it is a neocon speech, how and why does it differ from Dubya's professed neoconservatism?

[william rees]

Thatchers 100% correct.The AMERICANS supprted us in the Falklands war and World War 11.Cameron is a "WEATHER VANER.He supported the war in Iraq and now changes his policies depending on public opinion.He is a "SPINNER"with no depth in policy.The UK public have made a big mistake in taking a ANTI AMERICAN view.After all they are ANTI EUROPEAN as well.Well done "JOHN BULL"

[Anthony Cormack]

I liked it. It was mostly fluff of course, but by and large he said what I had hoped he would. The fact that the two main people he cited were John McCain and Chuck Hagel is spot on, stakes out just the right territory and claims just the right friends. He also highlighted the failings of the PM's performance without being overly heavyhanded.

The problem now is to develop a coherent, holistic policy that will translate general statements of principle into a serious and sustainable strategy.

On the issue of whether it was a "neoconservative" speech or not - it seems to me that down thar route lies endlessly circular arguments and extreme boredom. The utility of the term "neoconservatism" has become terminally undermined. It is rarely used in any coherent manner and has become so broad a catchment as to be almost meaningless (Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, for example, are often alleged to be "neo-cons" in spite of the fact that they are not in any vaguely coherent sense) - generally it seems to be applied to people by their opponents as a pejorative in the same manner as "militarist" and "fascist" are deployed by grotty teenagers in Che Guevarra t-shirts.

As for "Dubya's professed neoconservatism", as far as I'm aware he has never professed to be a neoconservative. Again, it is a label that people tend to apply to him, largely without any particular coherence.

[The UK Daily Pundit - UK]

And what was he doing making the speech today of all days. Couldn't he have waited another day at least? His arrogance and the belief that he can do no wrong will be his downfall.

[M. Fernandez]

The speech was vacuous, simple and unrealistic. Liberal Conservative?

Last week, a gaggle of morons. This week, a singular oxymoron.