More on Greenwald's Abu Ghraib Theory of Foreign Affairs

And the need of the neocons to prove that we are mighty while all other countries must cower.

Austin Cline at Jesus' General:

Throughout all of this, it's important to remember that it's never just about politics — it's also about culture. America is strong so long as its culture is strong and manly; in order to keep America strong, neocons and religious conservative attack internal movements or forces which seem to threaten to weaken America's manly, violent resolve. Americans who dissent or who "abuse" personal freedom threaten the nation's unity. Those who criticize the war are helping America's enemies by attacking America's willingness to use violence to humiliate others.

This is why religious complaints about America's so-called "moral decline" are inextricably linked with political complaints about liberal treason, and both are fundamental to efforts to keep Bush's failed war policies going. In fact, the relationship isn't even one way: just as dissenting forces at home are derided as unmanly in order to promote war, war itself is pursued as part of an effort to suppress political and cultural dissent at home.

[snip]

So, conservative elites pump up nationalist feeling and embark on foreign wars of aggression, at least in part in order to preserve their political, cultural, and social dominance as well as to combat populist movements at home. In Europe, this helped lead to the demise of the conservative elites; in America, conservative elites seem to have learned their lesson and have been avoiding participation in their wars since the 1960s at least.

The importance of decrying a “cultural and moral decline” cannot be understated: it plays a fundamental role in agenda of the Christian Right as well as neoconservatives generally. Without the belief that both America and Christianity are experiencing a decline — a decline that includes a loss of manliness — neither fundamentalism nor conservative evangelicalism would be nearly as attractive. The Christian Right needs to preach that there are serious moral problems in order to convince people that it has the solutions. Neoconservatives need to preach that there are problems of character and virility in order to convince people that they have the solutions.

Carrying an absolutely monstrously large stick

Via Spork_Incident at A Spork In A Drawer:

Glenn Greenwald:

...Newt's plan -- threatening Iran with war, naval blockades, destroying their gas refinery and their economy, forcing their citizens to "use oxen to pull carts" -- would have been so much better than Blair's wimpy, appeasing approach. After all, what it's all about -- everything -- is, as Newt put it: we must "show the planet that you're tiny and we're not."

Showing the planet that they're "tiny and we're not" really does sum up, almost completely, the entire neoconservative compulsion, which is the same thing as neoconservatism itself. As I've noted before, they talk about every foreign policy issue with themes of dominance, submission and humiliation as the centerpiece. It's the Abu Grahib Theory of Foreign Affairs, and it actually is quite uncomfortable even to read.

As but just a small sampling of literally countless examples, just regarding the Iranian situation over the last week: National Review's Mario Loyola ("Iran's humiliating abuse of the sailors provoked outrage in Britain . . . the outrage has manifested mostly in a despondent impotence. . . How sad and humiliating for the British"); Mark Steyn ("Would 'deploring' persuade Tehran to release the sailors while 'grave concern' lets them humiliate them for another few weeks?"); Victor Davis Hanson ("The British apparently are both speaking softly and carrying a small stick").

None of this is an attempt to infer their motives or to pscyhoanalyze them. This is what they are explicitly saying, themselves, about what they think and what motivates them. This is why they not only lack an aversion to war, but urgently crave it as their first resort. Diplomacy and consensual resolutions do not end with humiliations or conclusive evidence of who is powerful and who is tiny. Only war, shock and awe, naked prisoners on dog leashes, and orange-clad, shackled detainees with bowed heads in cages enable that.

The minute another country does not completely submit to our will, we must threaten them with war and then wage one if they do not comply. Otherwise, we are humiliated and exposed as weak.

The neoconservative psyche is the same as the neoconservative approach to the world. Their only real criticism of George Bush is that he has not been sufficiently militaristic and forceful. What they are really searching for is the candidate who will do what Newt outlined above while chatting with Hugh Hewitt, who continuously interjected with "amens" such as "That makes compelling, compelling sense," outcries which become palpably more excited the more Newt talked about all the things he would block and bomb.

Instead of asking about the religious and moral beliefs of the presidential candidates, I think we need to have a new category of questions: How big is your penis? (And for women: How big would your penis be if you had one?) The smaller the dick, the more wars.

I have just figured out why Laura Bush looks so ... dissatisfied....

And why Georgie really really wants a war with Iran ... or Syria... or hell, maybe even our bestest new friend Libya....