Does anyone read "Foreign Policy"? They are blaming US for the war?

I don't have a subscription, and don't even know why this landed in my inbox. I'm going to look for the rag on my newstand. What is the scoop on this magazine? I am hoping this is a lead to an article that changes course later on, but all I have to go on so far is the excerpt ..

The War We Deserve
By Alasdair Roberts
November/December 2007

There’s an uncomplicated tale many Americans like to tell themselves about recent U.S. foreign policy. As the story has it, the nation was led astray by a powerful clique of political appointees and their fellow travelers in Washington think tanks, who were determined even before the 9/11 attacks to effect a radical shift in America’s role in the world. The members of this cabal were known as neoconservatives. They believed the world was a dangerous place, that American power should be applied firmly to protect American interests, and that, for too long, U.S. policy had consisted of diplomatic excess and mincing half measures. After 9/11, this group gave us the illconceived Global War on Terror and its bloody centerpiece, the war in Iraq.

This narrative is disturbing. It implies that a small cadre of officials, holding allegiance to ideas alien to mainstream political life, succeeded in hijacking the foreignpolicy apparatus of the entire U.S. government and managed to skirt the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution. Perversely, though, this interpretation of events is also comforting. It offers the possibility of correcting course. If the fault simply lies in the predispositions of a few key players in the policy game, then those players can eventually be replaced, and policies repaired.

Unfortunately, though, this convenient story is fiction, and it’s peddling a dangerously misguided view of history. The American public at large is more deeply implicated in the design and execution of the war on terror than it is comfortable to admit. In the six years of the war, through an invasion of Afghanistan, a wave of anthrax attacks, and an occupation of Iraq, Americans have remained largely unshaken in their commitment to a political philosophy that demands much from its government but asks little of its...


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3992&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3992

If this is a RWinger POS, please don't blast me for posting it. It is published and people read it. That's the only reason I post.

It is the American people that put those neo-cons in place and until just lately have approved of what they have done.

right along with us, BUT in '04 when we let it happen AGAIN, can we blame them for losing confidence in our intelligence?

I have assumed it has to do with millions of ignoramuses pigging out on Doritos while watching American Idol. But maybe it's more complex than that.

Why do the citizens of America continue to allow the endless crimes and despicable acts of this Satanic administration? Do they approve somehow? And my God, what must the rest of the world think of us? We look like idiots.

And starting 50 threads about them.
Not crazy about holier-than-thou, here.

So yes, I think that does contribute to the astounding political and historical ignorance here. It's a matter of priorities, and preserving the Republic is not, at present, a high priority for the public.

sports EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME all year..
celebrity junk right alongside "real" news events..

Can you see Cronkite reporting on the scandalous goings on of Sinatra and his pals?

"Dry" news about an AG nominee or some such has a hard time competing for air time with Britney's latest hijinks.

to be precise. And don't forget the Supreme Court. Certainly we 51% don't bear the blame.

That last line .. we are expecting more from our government ... In context this should be referring to safety issues. Americans expecting protection from government is more than reasonable. That's the only reason government should exist.

Like I said, I'm going to look for the magazine and read it in its entirety.

*losing*. I really think you could attack just about anyone and a large portion of this country would cheer for it, so long as you didn't ask them to actually sacrifice anything, and victory was achieved.

Council on Foreign Relations. Both the left and right are represented on the CFR. They are a little more subtle about using war to advance their agenda but that has been their cause for 75 years or so.

(which I didn't read until your prompting) It sounds balanced.

Founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel, and now published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., FOREIGN POLICY is the premier, award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas. Our mission is to explain how the world works—in particular, how the process of globalization is reshaping nations, institutions, cultures, and, more fundamentally, our daily lives.

“FP covers a staggering variety of complicated but vital issues offers
original takes on topics prescient to the offbeat.”
—2001 Folio Editorial Excellence Award citation

Equal parts scout and translator, we draw on the world’s leading journalists, thinkers, and professionals to analyze the most significant international trends and events of our times, without regard to ideology or political bias. Whether examining who the winners are in Iraq, determining solutions to save the world, or discovering the states that fail us, we strive to combine original thinking with real-world illustrations of ideas in action.

Where neocons and other hacks are well represented. This magazine "Foreign Policy" is published by the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, so yeah it's going to be more progressive in it's articles.

There was a small number of people who protested against the theft of the 2000 election by the Supreme Court. There was a larger but still small number of Americans who protested the invasion of Iraq. Those people (including most DU members I suppose) are not responsible for the outrages. But certainly the general population of the country either doesn't know or doesn't care. So in general, I'd say yes, the US citizenry is responsible for the ongoing outrages by its "leaders." To me that is the most frightening thing about the history of the past 8 years.

I'm fine with "we signed up for this crap after 9-11". We did. 70-90% of us were all gung ho about warnterra.

I am not so fine with the implication that consequently The Cabal does not exist, did not have these plans in place way before 9-11, did not steal the 2000 election in an inexplicably convenient coincidence that allowed them to hold the executive branch when 9-11 'happened' and did not instantly put into action plans to create a new imperial executive and enact their schemes for world conquest.

We signed up for this crap, The Cabal is very real.

Never was gung ho about "warnterra", or as it was originally expressed by George Walker, "a Crusade".
I was gung ho about finding out why our LEADERS allowed it to happen. I was gung ho about discovering why Bush sat blinking in a classroom while a second and third attack happened. I was gung ho about holding our disappearing act Chief Executive accountable. Nothing of the sort EVER happened. It was foisted off on OBL immediately, with no one at the controls here taking any responsibility and NO ONE who failed in their mission to protect receiving so much as a reprimand.

And yes, the Cabal is very real. And what is the purpose of a Cabal but to advance itself and its agenda. Finding a mass of suckers in the American population was a means to an end. Perhaps we were sitting ducks, living the American Dream and unconcerned about global issues. Boy has that changed. But I don't think that means Americans are evil. We only believe in what we were taught. Land of the Free .. go thee and make money and thrive.

the people who think constant war is peace can be reformed to think otherwise.

Thinking like that doesn't change through education or articles. It requires a cultural changes usually only brought about by other means.

"Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it."

FP has also supported legalization of marijuana and has a "LEGALIZE IT" headline on an issue cover. We cannot access FP to read this article, so who knows what the guy continues to say.

It is true that too many Americans have been silent on the issue of govt torture and accountability for the Iraq war lies and all war all the time thinking and a host of other things that... a small group of power brokers have made part of this govt. This person surely knows about theories of governing and to say that there is no "elite power" that decides far too many issues is disingenuous at best.

--but on a very real person, who in a very real way, is considered throughout the world to be a war criminal.

The excerpt from the article appears to be an attempt to lay out a justification as to how Rumsfeld's actions (and those of the rest of the neocons) were not of their own making -- typical of the neoconservative circle. The most telling part of the excerpt is that the author finds it disturbing that people are daring to imply neocons bare the brunt of responsibility for starting the Iraq invasion... imagine that!

That "Foreign Policy" would spirit Rumsfeld into the country to address their assemblage, along with this snapshot of their view of who is responsibile for the Iraq invasion, gives, let's say, a certain impression of where their priorities lie, in spite of the fact that they may want to legalize marijuana -- in any case, their current cover has a photo of Bush with the headline -- "Iraq is Not His Fault (It's Yours.)

had a picture of Chomsky on it that said "He's right" would that mean everyone at the mag supports Chomsky?

If Chomsky were invited to speak at a Foreign Policy function, would that mean everyone at the magazine supports him? Rumsfeld deserves to be on trial for war crimes, imo, along with all the other neo-cons. but he's not charged here, Stanford has hired him (and they also serve as the base for a very right wing policy mag)... so is Stanford unworthy of any consideration beyond that one fact?

whatever. in relation to the current article, this one from Blake's Proverbs in Hell seems appropriate:

The fox condemns the trap, not himself.

The second false premise used is, "...so is Stanford unworthy of any consideration beyond that one fact?" (Perhaps you could use the second premise, if my first reply to you didn't exist.)

It's unclear to me as to the nature of your strong objection to my original statement, but I can't put the intent of my statement any clearer than this paraphrase of Groucho Marx (I believe) -- "Any club that would have Rumsfeld as a member is not a club I would want to be a member of).

In regard to Rumsfeld in France, since we're adding in musings, this one comes to mind:

"You are your own god -- and are surprised when you find that the wolf pack is hunting you across the desolate ice fields of winter." -- Dag Hammarskjold, Markings

someone invited Rumsfeld to France. That's when they were able to file charges.

I found it DISTURBING that responsibility is being laid at our feet instead of the war mongers as well. That's why I posted. It isn't as if anyone was begging to raid Iraq until they were fed lies upon lies. WMD! Sorry, but I never believed any of it. Any kind of trust I may have had went down the tubes as soon as the Supreme Court mandated our President. RED FLAG!!!

sadly, the cabal exists and to call it "fictional" continues the disinformation process which allows them to remain in power (and to return to power as they did in 2000).

Also, while a great many people were either convinced to not care at all ("they're all the same" mantra is also a part of the disinformation campaign) or to support Cheney's plans, neither time did a majority of American voters elect George Bush. I don't believe that for a second, so I disagree with the premise.

I do agree that ultimately it is our responsibility because we need to stop them when they cheat, and we need to get a more accurate media which does its job as well as informing people why this is important.

The American people have NEVER been enthralled with this war. We protested against it. We wanted a UN consensus to go in. We supported it briefly once it began, but only in the hope that it would end quickly. Without cheating we would have won the presidency in '04 due to opposition against the war, even with an awful candidate who ran a lackluster campaign. Polls have consistently shown that we don't support this war. We put many dems in office in '06 due to our outrage against the war. Once again, we are in the streets protesting this war.

The elites can try to shove this mess onto the People until the cows (or the troops) come home, but that just doesn't make it so.

And our government is talking about bombing Iran, isn't it?

Sure sounds like starting a war to me.