Realpolitik -vs- Neoconservatism

Jettison the Dogma of Democracy

Zbigniew Brzezinski made a distinction on the News Hour last night, discussing the difference of the President's prepared statement and his utterances during the following Q & A when he went off script.

During Bush's scripted statement, Brzezinski observed, there was less mention of 'elected government' and 'democracy' and more mention of a government which can stand up and control its territory. Jim Lehrer's moderated discussion went like this:

Zbigniew Brzezinski:

I don't view this yet as the beginning of a significant change of policy, but rather as the beginning of a condition that I characterize as a state of denial.

That is to say, it's black and white, and we are winning, and we're going to have a victory, and the victory is defined in traditional terms: a secular, stable, democratic Iraq. Notice his definition of victory today, much more, much more limited, more or less a self-sustaining government in Iraq that can govern the country. That's a very different definition of success.

Walter Russell Mead:

Yes. And, in fact, last week we talked about the same point, that the word "democratic" has dropped out of his victory conditions, and there's much more talk of "stability."

If there's any validity in this, there might be intramural battle going on where the Scowcroft-Baker conservatives are trying to wrench Bush-Cheney back out of the control of the Neoconservatives and say:

Regime change means any thug other than Saddam Hussein (and his sons) installed in Baghdad.

Which is what it shoulda-coulda-woulda have been all along. But oh, no. The Neocons have had this dogma of democracy. Natan Sharansky told them it's the silver bullet solution to "islamofascism" and just look how many bullets have been expended.