The Ongoing Fantasy About 'Neocons'
I don't think I've run into this one before. The author, one Paul Mulshine, is a contributor to the Star Ledger, which in my youth in New Jersey we used to call "The Newark Star Ledger." Perhaps they still do. Anyway, Mr. Mulshine gives us this bit of deep thinking, in two forgettable graphs:
One thing I've noticed about the rather naive types called "neo" conservatives is that they all believe the war in Iraq was somehow intended to reduce the influence of Islamic fundamentalists in that country.
Perhaps it was. But the result of removing a secular fascist from power was the rise of the sort of Islamic fundamentalists who prevail in that part of the world.
To which one can only say "sheesh." I don't know anyone who thought we invaded Iraq to reduce the influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Mostly the rationale had to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction, terrorism, and so forth. Nor, for that matter, do I know any serious student of such matters who believes that Saddam Hussein's tyranny was "fascist." His Baathist party was explicitly socialist, and his personal hero was Stalin.
We're in a phase where the babbling classes can't deal with the world as it is, and they simply blame the "neocons" for anything they don't like.
One more thing. If you read the whole article, you'll find that Mr. Mulshine repeatedly mocks democracy. I guess tyranny's the best solution in the world-seen-from-Newark.