You don't understand at all the modern conservative movement and its takeover by the neoconservatives. Read BRINGING AMERICA HOME, my book that was spiked by Karl Rove and the neoconservatives and you might something. Tom Pauken
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Todd Pierce via Salon <salon@listserve.com> Date: 4/22/24 11:19 AM (GMT-06:00) To: SALON Admin <salon@committeefortherepublic.org> Subject: [Salon] House China hawk lights a match on his way out the door | Responsible Statecraft
(I wouldn’t spend all this time writing if it wasn’t that the false, right-wing Revisionist, narrative, requires a “counter-narrative, of actual historical facts, in opposition to U.S. right-wing (Conservative), supporters of the Israeli fascist supporting Trump and DeSantis, in particular, naming no names, and of the group below, sometimes, in their on-going “Cognitive War Campaign” to elect Israeli fascist supporters in the U.S.)
I make no apologies for my criticism of Responsible Statecraft/Quincy Institute when they promote “New Right Conservative Statecraft,” by their resident Conservatives and fanatical guest “experts,” as most egregiously seen here: https://quincyinst.org/events/the-new-right-ukraine-marks-major-foreign-policy-shift-among-conservatives/, as “Right-wing Revisionists,” inventing a “Right-wing Peacenik” past for “Movement Conservatism” and its founders at National Review. Against all the writings of these same “New Right (Neo, if you prefer) Conservatives,” as they originally self-identified. To distinguish themselves from “Old Right,” supposed “Isolationists,” all part of the documented historical record, who are now claimed to have been for a “Restrained Foreign Policy.” And now the original “New Right” has been renamed “Traditional Conservatives,” with the most rabidly militaristic of them as an elected official, Senator and Air Force General Barry Goldwater, as representative of the Air Force nuclear war fanatics LeMay, Powers, and other extremist military officers, and segregationists who were their “constituency,” celebrated most by “Traditional Conservatives!” Along with his ideological mentors of National Review magazine. Buckley admitted it all in his later life!
Those are the “Traditional Conservatives” who attacked and denounced Eisenhower for being too “soft” against the USSR and China! Who called for “rollback,” and opposed “containment.” And denounced Eisenhower for not going to war against the USSR over Hungary, and for not supporting Israel, in its attack on Egypt, along with France and the, over Suez!
But flush that all down the "Memory Hole” to reinvent Trump/DeSantis in a mythical “Restrainer Tradition,” for election purposes. As they adhere to the worst of the worst Israeli fascists!
And promoting National Conservative/Straussian, Michael Anton who is even more “gifted” than Ben-Gvir in disguising his fascist political thought:
Here’s their position on China, Russia, Iran, and the vast military spending increased called for (by the New Right, the so-called “Right-wing Peaceniks”: "The strategy of denial’s primary objective is to deny Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific even as U.S. forces defend the U.S. homeland and work closely with allies and partners to counter other threats. The United States faces an increasingly dangerous world, and it has limited resources with which to confront all the threats to the nation—a reality that President Biden’s defense budget request regrettably does not recognize. As a result, it is increasingly vital for the United States—and the DOD in particular—to prioritize the Indo-Pacific. That means focusing U.S. forces first and foremost on defending the U.S. homeland and denying China’s imperial ambitions while supporting U.S. allies and partners to lead efforts to defend against other threats. In doing so, the United States can protect Americans’ security, freedom, and prosperity while also strengthening America’s alliances and partnerships around the world so that they, too, can live without fear. . . . "At the same time, NATO allies must also take the lead in providing military aid to Ukraine, which will require additional arms to offset or overcome Russia’s manpower and materiel advantages for an indeterminate period of time. This will be vital to free U.S. stockpiles and production capacity—especially as the U.S. defense industry ramps up from its post–Cold War nadir—for higher priorities such as homeland defense, deterring China, and assistance to Israel." Inciting NATO allies to provide even more military support to Ukraine, so that the US can do more for the war the New Right is leading the charge for against China, and unlimited support for Israel, is not “Restraint.”
No matter how much Conservatives at RS and their right-wing “experts” tell us it is! Or how much they tell us the Republican Party, in ideological lockstep with those same Conservative “experts,” has always been about “Realism and Restraint,” though true, for the former in the Hobbesian definition. And for the latter, only in the way that Germany didn’t immediately attack the USSR to commence WW II. It had to be done “step by step,” just like the US is doing today!
So while applauding this article’s criticism of Mike Gallagher, as an extremist militarist, China Hawk, as well worth reading, I must also point out that it omitted that Gallagher represented the Republican Party as a whole. And was promoting the Heritage Foundation’s promotion of a “U.S. Global War on Peer Competitors,” and others, as articulated in Trump’s Official National Security and Defense Strategy documents. Yet the war fanatics shift all blame from themselves and their chosen New Right candidates in a massive “Deception Campaign,” against a U.S. populace disinclined against Perpetual War. Unless “perpetually” incited for it by militaristic “think tanks,” of both party’s.
House China hawk lights a match on his way out the doorRetiring Rep Mike Gallagher led the committee targeting the Chinese Communist Party and is now calling for a 'new cold war'In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) — recent chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party — and former deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger argue that the United States “shouldn’t manage the competition with China; it should win it.” To do so, the authors say Washington should suspend dialogue with Beijing, declare a “new cold war,” and establish “primacy in Asia.” Not only does the article fail to adequately describe what “winning” a cold war would look like, it actually advocates for an aggressive approach that could result in a hot war. Beijing will have little incentive to back down if it suspects that Washington is bent on achieving “victory” regardless of China’s actions. A more assertive U.S. posture would likely be met with more, rather than less, hostility from Beijing. While the United States must deter offensive actions, it should also provide reassurances that any moderation in China’s behavior will be met with reciprocal restraint. A strategy that prolongs peace — by managing competition — is more likely to preserve Washington's advantageous position and sustain stability in Asia. Gallagher and Pottinger argue that the United States should only engage in diplomacy with China from “a position of American strength.” However, the authors fail to mention the fact that the scales are already tipped in favor the United States, which possesses the world’s largest economy, a robust network of allies and partners, a nuclear arsenal nearly 10 times larger than China’s, four times as many fifth-generation aircraft, control over the global reserve currency, a growing population, and relatively favorable soft power around the globe. To be sure, China’s strength has grown rapidly in recent years, but Beijing is unlikely to ever match the combined strength of the United States and its allies and partners. Since coming to office in 2021, the Biden administration has leveraged the United States’ relative position to manage relations with Beijing. Early on, Washington invested in domestic resolve before pursuing diplomacy with China. In February 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the administration would “engage China from a position of strength.” After a period of “strategic patience” — during which Washington repaired alliances and supported the U.S. economy — the administration then began to establish guardrails with Beijing. Recently, the two sides reopened military dialogues, and China has refrained from
|