Talk:Douglas Feith

Archives
Archive 1 (Feb. 10, 2006 – Mar. 23, 2006) Archive 2 (Feb. 16, 2007 – Apr. 15, 2008)

feith's book

In April 2008 Feith's detailed, footnoted, fact-based book replete with names and dates was published. The title is War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. Agree or disagree with Feith, this book will be a teasure trove for future historians, because it is not vague, conclusory or non-specific as to who said and did what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.14 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete the section from the WaPo article about Feith's book unless that article has been retracted in some way. Or, if you have the book and would like to include the information directly from the book as it relates here please add it - but there is no reason to delete notable and well-sourced content. The WaPo article was important in its own right, and the specific material published here -- Feith's criticism of the war handling and his rationale for supporting Saddam's overthrow in spite of the lack of WMD -- was newsworthy for good reason at the time and certainly merits consideration here. csloat (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all the merits of the WaPo information; but it appears verbatim on Feith's book's page, which is linked from his bio page. It doesn't make sense to have only the WaPo information on his bio page, while there is ~8x that much information on the book page. Unless we're going to import all the book page information to the bio page, which is not a desirable or recommended wiki practice. Enyce2308 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

is a neconservative ?

Why is that the first thing mentioned about him? It seems more significant that he the under secretary of defense. Also, I'm not quite sure how and when labels should be applied. Chomsky isn't described as a Marxist or leftist critic even though that's what most people know him as. I know it can bias the reader to see the label upfront and it is perhaps equally biased to bury it in the article. We just need to be consistent.Lord of the Ping (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, why is Douglas Feith listed as a "neoconservative"? I know that he's been referred to as one in other articles about him, but I've seen nothing in his backround that would indicate him as a NEO-conservative. A conservative yes. Neither William F. Buckley, nor the two Bush presidents are neo-conservatives to my way of thinking, whereas Ronald Reagan could arguably be seen as neo-con. I hate to say it, but I think that since the term has become such a nasty word over the past few years, and so many (but certainly not all) neo-cons have been historically jewish, any right wing jew is now classed as a "neo-con" by those opposed to their world view (and and maybe even mistakenly by supporters who don't know the history of the term, and find it easier to accept a jewish politician, writer or thinker as a neo-con than an outright con).

This might be nit-picking, and I'm sure someone out there will disagree with me, and I can forsee much print spilled on arguing "who and what is a Neo-conservative today", but I suggest that Mr. Feith, given his backround, be labeled, if he must be, as a "conservative".318odyssey (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Most reliable sources that address the issue refer to him as a neoconservative, so that's what Wikipedia should list here, regardless of individual wikipedia editors' views on who and what is neo-conservative. csloat (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly accurate, if the term is being used incorrectly, even by "reliable" sources... For an encyclopedic entry to be meaningful, the CORRECT term should be seeked out and used, not just an often used, but INACCURATE term. I'm not talking about an individual editor's "original research", but what is the closest actual label based upon a person's life and political philosophy (especially when discussing a controversial subject, as Mr. Feith is). Many sources in the media throw around the word "neo-conservative" because it's an easy handle, which is also politically loaded, but is often inacurate. A discussion should be held on the term, it very well might end up that the majority of editors (who happen to be reading this) agree on the neo-con label, and thus so be it at that point, but I'd like to hear from a few objective voices. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.84.25 (talk • contribs)

For us to determine that reliable sources are incorrect and chose a term of our own devising based on our own examinations of his biography and philosophy would be prohibited original research. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still not getting the point, and this will be my last addressing of the issue: I'm not discussing ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Unless someone offers a reason as to why he is classified as such, he's described here incorrectly. Please put forth an explanation as to why he's a "neo-conservative", as oppossed to a "conservative" (there might be a good reason, bourne out by a clear explanation of the word, as well as references), not just that Newsweek, Time Magazine and Keith Olbermann may have called him that. That's not encyclopedic. If Slate.com, Salon.com, and The Nation magazine happens to refer to Christopher Hitchens as a "neo-conservative", this doesn't make him one, and a biographic entry in an encyclopedia shouldn't use the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.98.165 (talk • contribs)

Fine, he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there. He's intellectually influenced by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol; he worked alongside Wolfowitz and Perle to elect Scoop Jackson for gosh sakes. His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss. But, of course, none of this matters -- what matters is that reliable sources call him neoconservative, he probably considers himself that, and until you got here I have never heard of anyone questioning that designation. If you have sources that question it, and there is a meaningful public discussion about what kind of conservative he is, then by all means let's publish information about that too. But if not, we'll just have to allow Wikipedia to be as inaccurate as all of the world's journalists and academics who have addressed the issue. csloat (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there." Supports it in what sense? Because it is something he agreees with or because it was assigned to him by the president? The other evidence offered by Commodore Sloat is laughable. Thus we have the idea that Feith was influenced by the "by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol" I, myself, was influenced by the triangle around them although not by them directly. Outside the cartoonish logic of Mr. Sloat most people are influenced by a multitude of sources from all different areas of the ideological spectrum. If it weren't for politics, Admiral sloat would be donning a tinfoil hat and talking about the comming martian invasion: The commodore averes "His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss." Filter for a bit more clarity and we have So and so said that the guy who directed Feith's office is "an expert in Leo Strauss" . If there has ever been a shiboleth in this kind of discussion it is has been the referenceds to Leo Strauss. Note that the director was purportedly an "expert" in Leo Strauss, but expertise does not mean advocacy or even agreement. Even if we concede that it does, can we really accept oberfuherer sloats use of guilt by association. That because Feith worked for someone who may or may not have agreed with Leo Strauss, he must therefore also agree. no doubt in oberfuherer sloat's world one changes ideologies with jobs, but most people do not.

Ofcourse, oberfuherer Sloat knows he is peddling half baked evidence. As he puts it "But, of course, none of this matters...." der oberfuherer continues "what matters is that reliable sources call him neoconservative, he probably considers himself that,..." And who are these reliable sources? How do we know they are reliable? The reality is we do not, but oberfurher Sloat knows it is pure bunk for he tells us "he probably considers himself that,..." that is when faced with having direct knowledge of Douglas Feith, der oberfuherer can only come through with a "probably" That is Feith may or may not be a neoconservative. Just as oberfuherer Sloat may or may not be a fool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker 22 (talk • contribs)

Hi Spiker -- please see no personal attacks and assume good faith and please do not ever insult me again like that. Also, if you have no evidence from reliable sources to back up your arguments, please do not come to the talk pages with a host of meaningless innuendo. It is a waste of our time. Also don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested Feith was "guilty" of being a neocon; it is not a matter of guilt or innocence. It's simply a description, one that fits well (for all the well-substantiated reasons I outlined; you made fun of them but never responded to them). If you have a quote from Mr. Feith saying he is not a neocon, let's hear it, but every reliable source (in Wikipedia terms, to answer your silly question about what is reliable) seems to indicate he is. Are you really serious about this argument or just having a go at me? If it's the latter, chuckle chuckle, very funny, you got me; now leave me alone. Thanks! csloat (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Sloat

"Also, if you have no evidence from reliable sources to back up your arguments, please do not come to the talk pages with a host of meaningless innuendo" Apologies, Mr. Sloat, I intended out right ridicule as opposed to innuendo. But if you wish to seriously address the question that is fine. However,if you want people to be serious and expect them to introduce real evidence, you really ought to do so yourself. True you never said Feith was "guilty of being a neoconservative, but then I never said you did. but let's go back to your so called evidence. You assert that:

he's neoconservative because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there.

in 1996 Norman Podhoretz wrote:

"if there is a neoconservative extant who has become an isolationist, I do not know where to find him. At the same time, though, I can think of only a tiny handful who still advocate the expansive Wilsonian interventionism that grew out of the anticommunist passions of the neoconservatives at the height of the cold war, and that repeatedly trumped the prudential cautions of the realists among them. My impression is that today the realists have the upper hand in the neoconservative community, or what is left of it." (Neoconservatism: A Eulogy- Commentary March 1996)"

So as things stood in 1996 realists as opposed to advocates of "the aggressive projection of American military power" dominated the neoconservative movement." Of course the significant point here is not so much who held the upper hand in 1996, but to show that "the aggressive projection of American military power" is not a defining characteristic of a neoconservative.

in the same essay Podhoretz does tell us what is or was

"under the pressure of the countercultural assault, they quickly began to remember, or in some instances to discover for the first time, why American society and its sustaining institutions were worth defending-or, to state it more strongly and more accurately, why the traditional values of the bourgeois democratic order were superior to any of the known alternatives."

people who remembered this all along, who did not need to discover it were garden variety conservatives. Only those described above were new to conservatism and hence neoconservatives. The reality is that the so called neoconservative movement is as diverse as any other group in its thinking or as Podhoretz wrote in the same essay:

"Once upon a time, I could foresee with reasonable assurance where any neoconservative would stand on almost any serious issue in world affairs. Today I am hard put to predict where even some of my closest friends will come out when a contentious issue like Bosnia arises, or on the question of NATO expansion, or on how to deal with China, or on whether to send American troops to the Golan Heights."

Your ball... if you can manage to practice what you preach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk • contribs)

So you've managed to show that the term "neoconservatism" was used differently in 1996 than after 2001. Congratulations. The fact is, this is the way the term has been used by reliable sources for almost a decade now. Your fight is not with me. I don't plan to continue arguing with you because you have clearly stated that your goal is to ridicule me rather than engage the discussion. Suffice to say that "neoconservative" stays in the article since the mainstream media continue to portray Feith as one. csloat (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? Ridiculing other people only makes you look ridiculous. You can post long block quotes all you want, but it comes down to two facts: 1) Wikipedia relies on standard reference sources and 2) those reference sources identify Feith as a neoconservative. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel

If you read my posts you would see that I was disputing the kind of evidence offered by Mr. Sloat. That is I ridiculed his evidence. Why? because his evidence was ridiculous. Evidentiary standards should mean something @ wiki Not sure why hearsay and guilt by association passes as evidence. Perhaps my tac was wrong; perhaps I could have handled it better; however, you'll notice that my second post, took him at his word, that he wanted a serious discussion: yet asking for a serious discussion requires the requester to adhere to the standards he is requesting. What are the " standard reference sources" being used? And are you suggesting that standard resources can't be mistaken? My disagreement with Commodore Sloat as stated in both my Posts boils down to two things 1.) Commodore sloat offers faulty logic, hearsay and uses guilt by assocation to lable, Feith a neoconservative ("His office in the Pentagon was directed by someone who Hersh described as an expert in Leo Strauss." 2.) certainly using a term accurately would have some relavance to a site like wikipedia. And the reference to Leo Strauss is a popular canard of critcs.

As I demonstrated in my second post "the agressive projection of American military power" is not a defining idea of neoconservativism which undercuts the commodore's asssertion that Feith is a neocon because he "because he supports (and was instrumental in) the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there." For all we know, Feith, if a neoconservative, could be a realist. rather than a Wilsonian. Further, his role in ""the agressive projection of American military power" could result from professional obligation as opposed to ideology: Certainly the undersecretary of defense does not have the decisive vote in determining what policies are implemented if the President or SECDEF require him to support a given policy. It is his job to do so Bottom line here is that Commodore Sloat was asked valid questions by other contributors which he chose to ignore For example, 68.161.98.165 noted: If Slate.com, Salon.com, and The Nation magazine happens to refer to Christopher Hitchens as a "neo-conservative", this doesn't make him one. If Commodore Sloat did not ignore such points he chose to offer circular logic: "Most reliable sources that address the issue refer to him as a neoconservative" Once again what are the sources and what makes them reliable? Even if said sources are reliable, that does not make them immune to error. However, since Commodore Sloat considers the main stream media to be a reliable, my concerns about accuracy are well founded.

Similarly, Commodore Sloat states "he's intellectually influenced by the circle around Podhoretz and Kristol;"

The economist John Maynard Keynes was accused of being a communist in part because he was a member of the Bloomsbury group, who were all openly communist or socialist. But Keynes was probably the most prominent Post Marxian economist. That is he rejected marxian economics. I suspect this is due to a beleif that they were outdated. The point is that being influenced by a given group does not mean you agree with them. Keynes was no more a communist than Feith is neoconservative based on who influenced him.

You state: "You can post long block quotes all you want, but it comes down to two facts: 1) Wikipedia relies on standard reference sources and 2) those reference sources identify Feith as a neoconservative." Alright I will assume that you are acting in good faith here as the commodore insists I must. Fair enough, explain how the length or type of quote used is more important than the substance of those quotes. For that matter, explain how citing a first hand source is trumped by a "standard reference". Can you explain the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative? All Conservatives were anticommunists long before the existence of neoconservatives and anticommunism is certainly more a defining idea of neoconservatism than "the agressive projection of American military power" Indeed, the classic historical example of "the agressive projection of American military power" to implement democratic governance is Japan and this was implemented not by "neoconservatives, but by Roosevelt democrats, Namely, Douglas MacArthur, who established new deal institutions: Labor Unions, etc in that country.Spiker 22 (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

If you have a reliable source that shows that Feith is not a neoconservative and that the standard reference sources are incorrect, please provide it. Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel WOW! Never said Feith wasn't a neoconservative nor have I saught to deny it, but I have stated repeatedly that the problem was with the evidence. bad evidence is bad evidence. [personal attack removed] But since you have taken up his cause, can you show that Feith believes in the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy" based on the theory that it will lead to reduced violence, terrorism, and instability there"? and then show how that makes him a neoconservative. For the sake of argument, I will conceded that Feith is a neoconservative, but you must show how this means he believes " in the aggressive projection of American military power in the Middle East as a way of spreading "democracy".

Please refrain from attacking Commodore Sloat, he has done nothing to you and attacks are prohibited by our policies.

I haven't taken up Sloat's cause and I have no interest in defending his line of reasoning. I don't have to show how his being a neoconservative means anything. My sole interest is in the content of the article, and if you concede that Feith is a neoconservative, what is left to discuss in terms of article content? Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel: I did not attack Commodore sloat after the first post. I took him at his word and offered a substantiative argument to demonstrate my point only to be asked by you what I was trying to do? Once again whether Feith was a neoconservative was never at issue. I say yet again it was always a question of the evidence. In a normal process of reasoning one assess evidence, then draws a conclusion. Now if the evidence is faulty, the conclusion is unwarranted. I think that is pretty straight forward. What else is left to debate? The same things that have been at issue all along here: The definition of the term neoconservative. If my personal attack in my first post is against wiki standards, why isn't mud slinging? You assert that "My sole interest is in the content of the article" Sounds good. Very close to my point about the substance and judicious use of the term neoconservative. Over the past few years it has become a charge word. Something to smear someone else with. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that many; including Commodore Sloat consider it the equivalent of the word Fascist. This is why many contributors insist it be in the first sentence of a wiki bio. How is attacking a contributor against wiki policy but attacking the subject of a wiki article is not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiker22 (talk • contribs)

I never mentioned the word 'fascist'. Spiker, please just leave me out of your campaign. It appears you cannot even mention my name without a barrage of personal attacks -- just leave it alone. The matter of "neoconservative" is settled since that is what many reliable sources call him; if you have evidence of some debate about whether or not he is neoconservative, present the evidence and perhaps we can include it in the article. But this is probably not the best place to start a campaign to change the meaning of the term in public discourse -- try a letter to the New York Times instead, for example. csloat (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For us to determine that reliable sources are incorrect and chose a term of our own devising based on our own examinations of his biography and philosophy would be prohibited original research. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So True Gamaliel. yes reader A may read George H.W Bush's biography and call him a conservative while reader B may draw another conclusion. Since there seems to be a question here about research sources, let's refer to Wikipedia's own article on the subject of neoconservatism:

"The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas)...." "...Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[1]. Of course, all this was prefigured by its coinage as an insult.

Commodore Sloat: I never said you used the word fascist, but thanks for continuing to prove my point Q.E.D Spiker 22 (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) SPIKER_22