Customer Reviews

They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The positives in this well-written book far outweigh any negatives. He makes fair, well-reasoned judgements. As a retired American diplomat and holder of a doctorate in European history, I have studied and experienced many of the issues discussed in it--human rights in the Carter Administration, for example. I always wondered who were the political appointees in the upper reaches of the Washington bureaucracy who set our policies, and why didn't they listen to us on the ground in unpleasant overseas places? It lays out the Neo-con stress on academics (most have graduate degrees), intellectual ability, combativeness, and adherence to a set of principles in defiance of logic and a clear-headed look at the facts. Heilbrunn's best moments are (1) when he points out the mistakes the Neo-cons make and why, and how their commonalities (not necessarily of religious background) made them a force in Washington; and (2) when he shows how their narrow view of the world got us into the Iraq debacle. Now I know the origin of their harsh self-righteousness -- Old Testament prophets. Having read their periodicals occasionally and their daily commentaries in the press for many years, I finally understand what lies behind them. You don't need to be a policy wonk (I'm not one) to understand this book.

Heilbrunn knows his subject, and writes with insight into what makes the neocon movement tick. He has had access to many of the major players, and he generally treats them fairly.

The primary problem with this book is the lack of rigor, as noted in the Publisher's Weekly review (on this Amazon page). I have no doubt that Heilbrunn is very familiar with what he's writing about, but often the book ends up just being one journalist's long thoughts on the subject, rather than a well-crafted argument. Obviously this book is not supposed to be an academic monograph, but more documented sources would have helped immensely. Too often I just had to take Heilbrunn's word for claims he was making, which meant that for much of the book I wasn't sure how much to believe. At other points, the author fails to develop important arguments, giving more space to the personalities and mind-set of his subjects. Finally, I don't think Heilbrunn gives enough space to key arguments of critics outside the neocon movement (as opposed to critics who were former friends or associates of key neocons - we do get to hear from them).

So, read the book for Heilbrunn's insights, gained from extensive face-to-face exposure with the key players, but don't expect this to be a rigorous book of political analysis.

For summaries of the content, see the material on this website from "Publisher's Weely" and the "Book Descripton." Each does a good job.

In my opinion this book is excellent. It captures differences among the neo-cons (personalities as well as political thinking), and describes how their positions, alliances, etc. have changed over time.

The author's politics are conservative (I am not) but thoughtful. Although critical, he is not on a witch-hunt. I consider the book eminently fair, not given to name-calling and exaggeration. In addition to the usual suspects, some surprise actors appear in the neo-con chronology, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

On a few topics the book left me wanting more information and/or analysis. (1) Given the heavy (predominant) Jewish presence among leading neo-con spokespersons, and the Biblical element in chapter headings, I hoped for more explanation of links between neo-con thinking and the Jewish Bible (aka Old Testament). No such luck. (2) The (self-described as Jewish) author's conclusions about how neo-con politics serves Israel leave me in something of a fog. Is the message like that of the then president of General Motors who famously said, "What's good for GM is good for America" (as in, what's I think is best for Israel automatically is good/best for the USA)? I am not sure whether the author is tip-toeing around this issue lest he be excoriated as a "self-hating Jew"/anti-Semite, or is making a nuanced point that escapes my understanding.
Nevertheless, this book ias a great read, and hard to put down.

Heilbrunn deserves commendation for demonstrating, against all political correctness, that the neoconservative movement is indeed a Jewish movement. While some Jews would worry here about encouraging anti-semitism, most would be so proud of the achievement of the neocons that they would admit the truth: America has in both its political parties become neocon. It believes in the old Wilsonian project of spreading our way of life, even if it means down the throats of people who don't want it. Americans have become so careful about offending Israel and its backers that no one -- unless it is the self-destructive Jesse Jackson -- can even hint at the fact that being on Israel's side does not mean being on the side of extreme rightwing Zionism. Half of the Israeli population would reject neoconservatism and its peculiar view of Israeli needs.

But Heilbrunn fails to see one important factor in neoconservatism. It is the Jewish American attempt to purge from Jewish life all sympathy for left-wing causes. In fact, Jews from the late 19th Century were always, when not orthodox, in favor of radical socialism and communism. As a result rightwing movements in Europe could also appeal to anti-Semitism. Hitler benefited from this enormously. Jews prospered in Bolshevik Russia (see Yuri Slezkine's fine book THE JEWISH CENTURY.) Neocons began by attacking Jewish disabilities in post-Stalinist Russia, which they always exaggerated, then they recruited Scoop Jackson to interfere with our economic relations with the USSR over the question of Jewish emigration. All this was a mascarade to make Jews look rightwing and thereby patriotic in America. But Jews still vote largely for the Democratic Party despite the neocons.

The neocon conservative movement is not a Jewish plot -- but it comes close.

The Neocon leadership is smarting from the overwhelming publicity of their foreign policy failures. Jacob Heilbrunn brilliantly chronicles their path of shame. Though they may be casting jaundiced glares toward Heilbrunn as if he were a modern-day Josephus, this examination from the inside of the secretive and unabashedly paranoid culture of the present batch of Neocons is remarkably balanced and informed.

TTT

Starting with the old Trotsky/ Stalin feuds in the 1930's, and then the American response to the Holocaust, up to present day, this book cannot be praised enough. All the articles and commentaries I have read on the neo-cons come together perfectly here. True, many of the original neo-cons were from the New York Jewish Intellectual school, mainly at City College, though Columbia and Chicago also provide much later centers. And the fact that this is nearly a family business is also of note. The former Trotskyists morphed into extreme Commie-haters, moved into the Conservative crowd in the 50's and by the Reagan era hit their initial stride. Shunned by the Nixon and BushI 'Realist" School, they beat the drums, often to no avail, until BushJr. took them up, swords, bombs and all. The rest is history, mostly unpleasant. A sub-title could be "Duped by a Few", but it's obvious that with Bush at the helm, with 9/11, and the Family Feud with Saddam, that the Iraq attack was inevitable. Unfortunately, a small of militant delusionaries and strange idealists took the helm, and an ignorant and naive president was more than willing to listen. For the characters, ideas, disputes, magazines, datelines, etc., of the neo-conservatives, this book is a must!

Heilbrunn provides a biography of the neoconservative movement that has created the "biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam" (Iraq War II), and may lead us to another in Iran. He tells us the movement originated in the 1930s, reflects a subset of Jewish concerns, and because of the Allies slowness to react to Hitler, "sees new Munichs everywhere." By the 1980s neocons welcomed the evangelicals into the group for their backing of Israel.

"They Knew They Were Right" identifies early and current leaders of the group. One of the most notable early leaders was Leo Strauss - author of "noble lies," myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society and seemingly the justification for the Bush administration's disdain for reality and the truth.

Most of the themes pounded home by neocons were adopted by Bush-Cheney - unproven ties to Al-Qaeda, demonization of domestic critics, claiming that no time could be lost toppling Saddam (eg. forcing him to step down), the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, and the fantasy that the Middle East would (aka the 1970s "domino theory") be liberated from tyranny once Baghdad fell and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would then accelerate.

Though disgraced in the second Bush term and now with lessened power, Heilbrunn cautions readers not to count neocons out. They now see Iraq either as a delusional success, or the failure of Iraqi people to take advantage of the opportunities handed them. Neocons also continue to undermine contacts with other nations in the area, push for another crusade against Iran, and have pushed Bush to reject the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Those criticizing Israel are bullied into silence as "anti-Semitics."

Heilbrunn's conclusion: "These reckless minds aren't going away." His concern is reinforced by a 4/10/08 New York Times article citing a number of neocons functioning as advisers to McCain.

Although not as original as Rise Of The Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet this book is a n interesting discussion of where the Neo-cons came from. However it misses the point on a number of things. It is correct in asserting that the first neo-cons did derive their theories from the left and that some of them were the intellectual descendants of Trotsky. But this misses the truth in Norman Podhoretz's (The Norman Podhoretz Reader: A Selection of His Writings from the 1950s through the 1990s) understanding of neo-con ideology. He examines them as people like himself, born in an urban environment and raised in a liberal leftist education, who suddenly realized the evils of the U.S.S.R. Their idealism led them to beleive in intervention abroad in support of democracy, and they deserted the democratic party to encourage the Republican one to do just that.

But the Republican party was not a home to the neo-cons because much of the Republican party is 'paleo-con' and is more insterested in Christianity. It was a hard road for neo-con thought. But it was just that, thought. The neo-cons were not a club and they were not a 'cabal'. This book assumes somehow that all the neo-cons such as Wolfowitz and Pearl and Kristol actually met eachother frequently, but this is a mistake.

This book also insinuates that the neo-cons have something to do with people being Jewish, which is also a mistake. Prominent people have been influenced by neo-con ideology who are not Jewish, such as Condi Rice and Jeane Kirkpatrick and Henry Scoop Jackson as well as Charlie Wilson. The focus on the 'Jewish' history of neo-con thought obscures the fact that much of neo-con thought is actually Wilsonian and pre-dates Trotsky and the 1930s.

This book is an interesting discussion but it misses a number of important facts along the way.

Seth J. Frantzman

This really helps fill in the political gaps between th 1930s and the present day. A key question in the evolution of American thinking is how a group of relatively liberal thinkers became so hawkish. The disappointments over Stalin, the loss of democracy in China, the rise of the Cold War and nuclear power, Israel and the bomb, and the weaknesses of Jimmy Carter all played roles. This book is much needed scholarship, but far from perfect. A bit more scholarship is necessary to this THE definitive work.

This book was copyrighted in 2008. This becomes important when you read some of the things he says, and you wonder, "When was this written ?". On page 1, and I quote, "As George W. Bush prepared to leave office in January 2009, he was able to look back with profound satisfaction on his record in foreign affairs. Derided as a simpleton by liberal elites in 2000, he had pulled off stunning victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In particular the Iraq war, by common consent, had turned Bush into one of the most popular and revered presidents in American history." If this isn't conservative revisionist history, I'm terribly mistaken. "STUNNING VICTORIES" "REVERED PRESIDENTS" This isn't even good fiction, it's out and out bald faced lies!
On page 3, it states, "Politically, Iraquis had rapidly established a thriving constitutional democracy...". This book is an insult to ANYONE who can actually read and comprehend the English language. The other reviews of this book which describe Heilbrunn's exhaustive research and annotations, couldn't possibly have read it. Anyone who would EVER describe Iraq as being a thriving constitutional democracy is NOT in touch with reality.
On page 4, it states, "Perhaps the figure who enjoyed vindication most was Vice President Dick Chaney. It was Cheney who had pushed Bush to embrace the war. It was Cheney who poured scorn on the foreign policy "realists" who warned of dangers in attacking Iraq. Instead, just as Bush and Cheney had predicted, the Middle East was transformed almost overnight from an incubator of terrorism into a bastion of democracy." TRANSFORMED OVERNIGHT INTO A BASTION OF DEMOCRACY.
Absolute, total NONSENSE !!!