The Henry Jackson Society: The high priests of British Neoconservatism

When I wrote in November about the new bi-partisan neoconservative movement The Henry Jackson Society (HJS), I was guarded in my convivial acceptance of this new internationalist Cambridge Based group. A few months later I believe I was right to be sceptical.

Any society oft described as secretive will always garner suspicion, but Stephen Pollard – a self-described neocon himself - of the Centre for a New Europe, and occasional Times columnist, wrote an article in The Times hoping to spread light on the shadowy group.

Pollard looks to develop the bi-partisan nature of the group, claiming: “It has neoconservative members. But it also has social democrats and traditional conservatives. Socialists would feel comfortable with its aims…” So the HJS is not a pro-market Cato-style think tank. Pollard suggests it merely has the collective goal of spreading anti-totalitarian liberal democracy across the world, and thus conveys “key components of a left-wing approach.”

Anti-totalitarianism is a honourable goal, and the Liberal Democracy is certainly the pre-eminent political model in delivering prosperity and individual freedom, but does this really reconcile with the reality of the HJS? Pollard goes onto defend the society against claims that the group’s real goal is continued American global primacy: -

And it is not about American dominion but the very absence of empire. There is indeed a mission to change the world. But it is to rid it of tyranny and to give all people liberty as we enjoy in the West.

Patrons of the society include: Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey. All of these hawks are members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC); of which Kristol is chair. The PNAC has the explicit goal of maintaining American dominance proclaiming in its statement of principles: -

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

This rather hegemonic tone is in contrast to Pollards claims, and suggests that the real principles of HJS are just that: continued American dominance of the globe. Many readers I’m sure are thinking aloud as to what is wrong with that; after all Pax Americana has delivered prosperity and relative peace to those countries, who since 1945, have chose to side with America.

Pollard has not always been so accommodating of progressives as he outlines in his statement accompanying his signature to the Unite Against Terror website: -

The Guardianista fellow-travellers of terror, who stress its supposed causes, are the useful idiots of the Islamofascists. The terrorists are the operatives of an ideology which has no concern with Palestinians or Iraqis, whom they murder without compunction. They have no concern with anything but the destruction of the West.

At a time when Islamofascism seeks to destroy liberal, democratic civilisation and to replace it with theocracy, it is imperative that those of us who believe in democracy and liberty stand up and fight. Not just against the obvious enemy, but also against the enemy within - those who claim to be on the Left, but whose views have nothing in common with the decency for which the Left ought proudly to stand.

Anyone who questions the root causes of terrorism is therefore, according to Pollard, a ‘useful idiot’ of the Islamofascists. So the lines have been drawn, and it seems any intellectual, not kowtowing to the Bush Doctrine, is an idiot and on the wrong side. This wagon-circling rhetoric is an echo of the anti-intellectualism of the Whitehouse, and the pro-War movement as it looks to excuse the Iraq War.

As an opponent of the Iraq War – although admittedly more operationally, than ideologically – I rather question how democracy in Iraq is helping the War on terror. It seems the only winners are the Iranians, who have seen a hostile secularised Sunni dictatorship, replaced by a quasi-democratic Shia complaint state. I abhorred the regime in Baghdad, but I could understand that if we rushed into war, without adequate international support, or the wherewithal to put ‘humpty dumpty together again’ we would be left high and dry with the French, Chinese, and Russians pissing themselves. Tom Freidman was arguing this point long before the USAF began bombing all those dangerous water, sanitation, and electricity facilities.

People say I don’t get Iraq; but I do, I appreciate the argument that we should all be free, and that trans-national democracy is crucial to global peace. In fact I have often stated that rather than withdraw from Iraq, we should commit the necessary troops to get the job done, and then get the hell out of dodge. And I also appreciate the geopolitical importance of the region in this time of energy scarcity; but I also know that a botched occupation is far more dangerous than inaction, and this half-way house of WarLite, which so enthrals Rumsfeld, is a ‘castle in Spain’ which threatens to destabilise the region for decades.

This is the problem with The Henry Jackson Society, and ideology in politics generally: ideology leads to myopia. Such is the righteousness of those who supported the invasion, they refuse to acknowledge when the whole adventure goes off the rails. They ignore the billions of dollars pilfered under Paul Bremer, the Halliburton invoices, and the Iraqi’s being butchered by the insurgency, which because of the lack of troops remains at large. Obduracy and determination is all well and good, but it becomes a problem when it blinds you to error and consequence.

A principled and aggressive stance against dictatorship and tyranny is proper, but to rely on this righteousness as a means to silence dissent, sets a precedent that demands you have to remove every tyrannical regime across the globe that suppresses freedoms; even those regimes not positioned over billions of tonnes of oil. Are the interventionists in Cambridge suggesting we mobilise forces in Africa, China, Russia, and the rest of Central Asia? A ‘liberal’ view of the world would mandate that an Iraqi’s right to freedom is equal to that of a farmer in Sudan.

The threat of ‘Islamofascism’ is real, but there is no evidence that regime change in Iraq has helped address the problem of al Qaida. Pseudo-Imperialism: the installing proxy regimes, is still Imperialism. It is still seen across the Islamic World as being Western interfering, regardless of the moral vindication the perpetrators constantly declare, and as such it helps fuel the resentment and anger that feeds Radical Islam. Blair’s contrived declaration that the 7/7 bombing had nothing to do with Iraq was in stark contrast to reality, and a complete un-statesmanlike abdication of the moral responsibility he so sanctimoniously clings to.

Rather like the time of Henry Jackson, when the US entered a controversial war in Vietnam, the Iraq War has fragmented the British Left. The leftist commentariat has been split between those whose progressive ideology demands action, those who believe in the self-determination and resist imperialist intervention, and the usual obdurate peaceniks. It is the first of these factions that concerns the HJS, the lefties who have reached the conclusion that only military intervention can further the progressive cause.

Students of political history will see parallels with this militant left and early Soviet idealism; in fact one of the pioneers of American Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol (father of PNAC chair William), was a member of the Trotskyite organisation the Fourth International. And it is a similar Damascene conversion that led leftist writers such as David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Norman Geras, and Oliver Kamm to support the invasion of Iraq.

So is the Henry Jackson Society just a political, intellectual movement? Is its singular aim to spread the liberal democracy? One has to question its links with PNAC; certainly the Bush family has links to both PNAC and the private equity firm The Carlyle Group. I’m not interested in getting into the insidious workings of The Carlyle Group, but needless to say they are major shareholders in United Defense – arms dealers. So this interwoven web has not only a political arm (including the Bushies, Rumsfeld, and former members of the Clinton cabinet) looking to shape policy, but also a wing incorporating one of the largest defence contractors to the US and British governments. It is this conflict of interest that skews the HJS protestations of altruistic benevolence.

When The Henry Jackson Society claims to be bi-partisan it means it has its tentacles into every facet of government. Labour MP’s such as Gisela Stuart and Denis MacShane stand side by side with Tories Ed Vaizey, David Willets, and Michael’s Gove and Ancram. And behind them, whispering quietly in their ear: Kristol, Kagan, and Pearle.

Should we be worried? I’ll let you decide.