The end of the neocons?

I don’t have as much time as I would like today, so I am forced to keep this post short.

I just read this article on the BBC News about the how the US’s foreign policy is about to drastically change now that neoconservatives are no longer in power. So, the question I would like to pose is, is this a good thing for our nation in the years to come?

Most Americans would immediately answer yes. The aggressive foreign policy has become even more and more unpopular with Americans as the Bush years passed, and today Bush’s popularity is at an all-time low as a result of this. Neocon foreign policy does suffer on many levels: it focuses entirely too much on the Middle East, and it is often pigheaded in its single-minded approach. It almost always leans toward intervention, even in cases where it is clearly unjustified. Also, the influence of the religious right has caused neoconservative policies to view the world in a oversimplified way, grouping nations and peoples into the categories of “good” and “evil.”

But there are some advantages to an aggressive foreign policy, and a passive stance many be more undesirable than it seems at first. Remember that the UN is next to useless, as recent events have proven. The UN has failed to act on several humanitarian crises, and it is clear that though they are useful in negotiating alliances and agreements, they fail miserably when it comes to intervention. In some cases, intervention is the most desirable solution, and when long-standing conflicts erupt into war intervention is the only way to prevent atrocities. For example: many predict upcoming conflicts between India and Pakistan, and the Gaza/West Bank crisis is not going to solve itself. Also, the continuing search-and-destroy mission against Al-Queda is a result of neocon policies, and it has clearly done some good. My point is that in these instances, intervention is acceptable. Also, remember that in today’s global economy true neutrality is almost impossible. In its early history, the US implemented an isolationist policy, but this was abandoned because economics made war a necessity. Today, we are economically tied to a multitude of nations, making the situation even more complex.

However, I am neither advocating a neoconservative approach to foreign policy nor a passive one. I am suggesting that we use moderation—in the years to come, a combination of both types of policies is probably the best method. One thing is obvious: the global situation in the future is not going to be good, so we must approach each situation carefully. We cannot risk a radical or hasty foreign policy—if the US is to weather the coming storm, we must act cautiously and with extreme care.

But perhaps this whole discussion is irrelevant—as the article points out, neoconservativism has appeared and reappeared at various points over the past few decades. Either way, it is clear that the next four years at least will be largely free of neocon influence, and how the Obama administration handles foreign policy may determine how soon the neocons will return.

Now, an update on yesterday’s post: The idea that a device that can simulate a brain is different from a computer program is nothing new. In John Searle’s Minds, Brains, and Programs (the paper containing his famous Chinese Room proof), Searle explained the difference between the way a brain processes information and the way a computer program does. Searle explains that human beings are essentially “machines;” the fact that we are composed or organic matter is irrelevant. Thus, a machine with a brain can hypothetically constructed, and such a device could have consciousness like a brain. What is so revolutionary about Edelman’s work is that no one has been able to build such a device until now.