Muhahahaha!(apparently he's a quant too; did his Ph.D. in knot theory)

Serious question:As a result of the Iraq adventure, the neo-cons are (a) bloodied but unbowed, or (b) in full retreat?what is the feeling in the US?

QuoteOriginally posted by: andym(apparently he's a quant too; did his Ph.D. in knot theory)Are you serious? Were did you read that? I knew that he has a 1st degree in math, but I didn't know he went beyond that. I always thought of the man as dubious. Edit: Okay, you're right. He got a first degree from MIT, then went on to Chicago, and got a PhD in knot theory in 1969. He started and managed a bank in Jordan. The bank collapsed and he escaped to the US. He was charged in absentia with fraud.

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperI'm not sure that it follows that he's a quant.Ibanker probably.As for "escaped to the US", Europe was his preferred habitat:the INC was founded in Vienna in 1992, for exampleYou are righ. IBanker is more like it. Regarding where he went to after Jordan, you could very well be right, but he seems to have had very strong connections with people in the Pentagon and such places.

i have personally no love lost for Chalabi, and quite possibly he is quilty of all charges. Is he a thief? Quite likely in my view, but rest assured, there are plenty others around Iraq. He transferred secret documents to Iran? That smells like baloney to me. Why was he given secret information in the first place? Something is missing from this story. Bottom line is, however, he is innocent, until proven guilty. Let someone clearly accuse him and let him defend himself. Wasn't there a case recently when some left-winger in Oregon, who converted to Islam, was arrested when they found his fingerprints on the explosives used in Spain? Now they say, "sorry, me bad, tat was a mistake" and the guy is back home. I dunno, i subscribe to the presumption of innocence, i must be one of these evil neo-cons who cause all the trouble in the world.

Ppauper, I used quant to signify one who'd done serious study in a quant discipline; I agree that Jordanian banks probably wouldn't have much need of quants per se Seriously, I'm no fan of the neocons, but I'm not trying to grind an axe here. It just struck me that I've read several articles recently in journals which I would expect to be at least broadly sympathetic, or at least not unsympathetic to the neo-con worldview, eg Times of London, Economist, FT, all fairly harshly slating the neo-cons. Although they've never been all that popular on this side of the pond, I'm quite surprised to see a chorus of conservative commentators putting the boot in. This struck me as noteworthy, and I wonder if this is the way that the wind is blowing in the US as well?

Although I'm leaving shortly (about 8 hours on assignment) -- I'd like to speak upon behalf of that oppressed minority, pejoratively labelled "Neo-Cons". Since I studyNeo-Cons in captivity as well as in the wild, I'm usually quite bemused to hear otherzookeepers views of their eating habits.In particular, this odd idea that Neo-Cons viewed Chalabi as some type of holierthan thou saviour. Quite odd. And, no I wouldn't list the Economist, Times of London,FT as sympathetic to the Neo-Cons, particularly given their view of the Israeli-Palestinianconflict and their socially liberal views.

Fair comment. It is clear that levels of support for the neo-cons, their aims and methods has never been high in Europe. Even conservative commentators tended to be equivocal at best. My point is that the trend over here has moved from equivocation or lukewarm distaste decisively towards a full-on orgy of neo-con bashing, even from the mainstream conservative press.

There are 2 issues to really separate when discussing "neo-cons".(1) Who they are -- many political philosophers in the US (Eric Voegelinand Leo Strauss) explictly fled Nazi persecution during WW2. Leo Straussin particular gathered around him a very talented and prolific group ofpolitical philosophers. While "Straussians" are usually viewed as sometype of "Cabal" of Jewish conservative string pullers secretly plottingwith shadowy Evangelicals and nefarious individuals in the White House,they are actually quite a diverse lot.Their interest in the US Constitution and its founding documents, as wellas confrontations with Heidegger, Hegel, Kojeve, Nietzsche have certainlyearned them few friends in European intellectual circles.(2) What they believe:I would be curious as to what those who use the term "Neo-Con" believethat Neo-Cons believe.

I'm not sure that is an entirely fruitful debate, as 'neo-con' is a vague term with no precise definition. further, I guess that neo-cons don't tend to define themselves as neo-cons, and hence this is a term almost exclusively used by their opponents.given that, one simply can't discuss whether 'neocons believe x', in the same way that we could discuss 'empiricists believe blah blah'?'neo-con' is definitely an overused term, and I guess is ofyen used as shorthand for anything people don't like abt US foreign policy.at any rate, 'neo-con' is used in Europe at least, to denote the following set of traits / beliefs / agendas:- belief in an assertive, but essentially unilateral US foreign policy- rejection of multilateral institutions,- balance of power in Middle East needs to be reshaped- balance of power in ME can be reshaped by US actions- strong sympathy for Israeli position- war on terror primarily military- Hobbesian worldview - add your favourite bogeyman here...

Quote 'neo-con' is a vague term with no precise definitionA useful questionnaire to find out if you are a neo-con (or else an Isolationist, Realist or Liberal).QuizOr just read a definition of neo-cons here.