'Neoconservatives retain US policy momentum' (two parts)

[Aidoneus]

(note#1:--this two part study does not directly belong in I/P, but it mentions 'Israel' on occasion and I think it would thus probably end up here already.. hey, I'm doing the mods a good deed and saving them the perhaps inevitable effort. Maybe it'd last in Editorials, but would perhaps find more discussion here.) :shrug:
(note#2:--I slightly edited this for cosmetic formatting, the original paper is not fond of adding spaces between paragraph breaks and thus sometimes looks awkward or with paragraph breaks being difficult to distinguish.. originally posted in Lebanon's 'Daily Star' newspaper/online webpage, but I prefer Lebanonwire's reproductions of their work as their archives actually exist and links stay active..)

2 parts, both segmented here..

Neoconservatives retain US policy momentum
American-Israeli steps against Syria aimed at transforming regional power balance
Hard-liners in neocon camp target Damascus with same group of claims used to smear Baghdad ahead of invasion

Editor’s note: In the wake of last week’s Israeli air strike near Damascus and a US House of Representatives committee vote for the Syrian Accountability Act, this is the first of two articles from Washington exploring the recent legacy of neoconservative efforts in Washington and Israel since the mid-1990s that recommend targeting Syria, among others, in the “war against terror.” Today’s article explores the institutions and individuals behind a 1996 report written for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Tomorrow’s article explores a 2000 document titled Ending Syria’s Occupation of Lebanon: The US Role?

Jim Lobe
Special to The Daily Star

WASHINGTON: The dramatic intensification of tensions between the right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the administration of US President George W. Bush against Syria demonstrate that, despite their recent setbacks in Iraq, pro-Likud neoconservatives in Washington retain the upper hand in the ongoing power struggle over control of US Mideast policy.

Indeed, Washington’s one-two punch last week against President Bashar Assad first, Bush’s endorsement of Israel’s first attack on Syrian territory in 30 years as “self-defense,” and then the approval by the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives of a long- pending bill to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against Damascus was precisely what prominent neocon groups have sought since the mid-1990s.

Nor could anyone miss the fact that both steps were justified by many of the same charges that Syria supports terrorism, is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and represses its own people used by the neocons in the run-up to Washington’s war against Iraq, a pattern that, according to some analysts, is designed to prepare military action against Damascus, too.

While most observers agree that war against Syria in the short term is highly unlikely particularly given the fears of Bush’s political handlers that a major new military engagement in the Middle East would only deepen the spectacular plunge since last May in the president’s approval ratings last week’s actions at the very least serve to distract media attention, if only for a little while, from Iraq, and move Washington closer to confrontation with a state that Israel has long considered its most steadfast regional foe.

That Syria has been a prime neocon target has been true for many years, but their rise to dominance over US foreign policy in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks has meant that they are in a position to translate their dreams into policy. Such was clearly the case with Iraq, and now, with Saddam Hussein out and over 120,000 US troops deployed there, they have made little secret of their vision of Syria and Iran as the next dominos in their quest to shift the regional power balance in favor of Israel and the US.

--snip--

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0310/03101422DS.asp

---------------

US-Israeli pressure on Syria has neoconservative pedigree
Hard-liners have spent years counseling policy of confrontation

Editor’s note: This is the second* of two articles exploring the recent legacy of neoconservative studies in Washington and Israel since the mid-1990s that recommend targeting Syria, among others, in the “war against terror.” The first article in Tuesday’s paper explored the 1996 report written for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Today’s article explores the institutions and individuals behind a second document on Syria’s role in Lebanon.

Jim Lobe
Special to the Daily Star

WASHINGTON: The second document was published in 2000 by another neocon group, the Likud-oriented Middle East Forum (MEF) and a second, US-based Lebanese group closely tied to right-wing Lebanese groups, the US Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), evidently as part of an effort to affect the public positions of major political parties for the election in the same year.

The report, Ending Syria’s Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?, was co-authored by MEF president Daniel Pipes, who was named by US President George W. Bush to a position on the board of the US Institute of Peace despite widespread charges that he has promoted Islamaphobia with incendiary statements against Muslims and Arabs, and Ziad Abdelnour, who heads the USCFL.

Among the participants of the Lebanese Study Group, of which the report was a summary, were three of the participants who produced the 1996 report, including Perle, Feith, and David Wurmser. In addition to the last two, other signers who now hold office in the Bush administration included Elliott Abrams, currently the chief Middle East adviser in the National Security Council, the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; Michael Rubin, another Perle protege who currently works as a consultant to Feith and Paul Wolfowitz; and New York Representative Eliot Engel, the chief sponsor of the anti-Syrian legislation that was approved by the International Relations Committee last week.

Other prominent neocon signers included former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick who is also at AEI with Perle, Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Defense Policy, and David Steinmann, chairman of the board of advisers of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a lobby group specializing in persuading retired senior US military officials of the importance of a strategic alliance between the US and Israel.

--snip--

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0310/03101527DS.asp

---------------

Other works by the author:--
http://www.alternet.org/alsoby.html?Author=1795

[Violet_Crumble]

1. Neoconservatism...

I thought neoconservatives were a uniquelly US phenomemon. Would it be possible for Israeli or the hard-liners of any other nation to be neoconservatives? I might have gotten this a bit mixed up, but isn't one of the main aspects of neoconservatism a belief in US exceptionalism and the right to force American interests and ideals onto other nations due to the US being in the position of being the world's most powerful nation and above piddly little things like multilateralism? While I know the neocons are rabidly pro-Israel, I think the reason Israel gets away with the pre-emptive strikes etc stuff that the neocons claim as the sole province of US power is that so far the interests of Israel haven't diverged from the path US interests would take in the region. But if Israel is to cross the line and do something that negatively affects US interests, the neocons are going to place US interests on a much higher level than Israeli interests...

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

2. well

I don't know, such labels don't fly much with me except as a matter of convenience in referring to particular people, but even then the terms get thrown around way too often (as is seen at DU, every third thing the rightwing does is attributed to "neocon", even though all of it was common enough policy before "neoconism" was even fully formed). It is true that the movement to secure US economic/military supremacy over the world has international ties, among the clients and co-economic benefactors, but I don't think that makes other nations' politicians "neocons" as such. I would think that the "neocons" see Israel as useful because that's a theatre of events they wish to meddle in, as it was before in "cold war" times in battling Arab nationalism and pseudo-leftist movements in the Mideast, just as the pro-capitalist dictators and fascist military regimes were in Latin America/Europe/Asia decades previous right up until today.

It's fairly clear that these people intend to use these wars as both a means of coercing world populations into being brought into line with desired economic models ("make us rich, fuck the poor and anyone else"), and also as a tool for domestic politics as an extension of this ("be afraid of some guy over there, do what we say, don't ask questions, and pay no attention as we fuck the poor and anyone else" being the condensed Republican/Democratic party platforms).

Besides a few of them being Jewish themselves (irrelevant really, except as a matter of considering backgrounds of the particular people), I can't see either why Israel gets such a pass. There's the ties to the "defense" complex and the big bucks that flow endlessly into that black hole--in my opinion a bigger influence on anything than the mythical status attributed to AIPAC/etc--, but such ties could be with any other willing agent as well. Maybe it's just because they're doing dirty work in a particular area so "we" don't directly have to (for that often brings a response that is undesired), in the same sense that the other pro-US client regimes are used worldwide--including the al-Sauds and Mubarak, al-Sabahs, Hashemites, Chalabi, Aoun, etc..in the Mideast itself at this time, scores more in decades past alongside the schizophrenic policy vis-a-vis Israel.

Syria appears to be the "next" up on plate, assuming the "neocons" haven't discredited themselves entirely by underestimating their failing adventure in Iraq, though if anything I really suspect they'll wait 8-10yrs to properly bomb and starve Syrians before actually starting any actual wars on purpose. In the time before then, the propaganda campaigns building up to such a conclusion are still useful all the same, part of that "be afraid of that dude over there/don't ask questions/be afraid/be very afraid/be obedient" plank of the platforms of the Republican/Democratic parties. Israel bombing them instead just means that somebody else does the dirty work for the moment, though a larger fight now would probably a more uncontrollable disaster than things already are.

What was interesting to me was the people involved in the new propaganda campaign against Syria:--Perle/etc are known figures, but with the addition of Pipes and his associates and the rightwing Aounists to replace "Chalabi" with respect to Syria/Lebanon instead of Iraq. That people even here are already repeating their propaganda is indicitive of just how successful such mechanisms are and the importance of combating the new projects. What was also interesting to me is that the exact same formulas and mechanisms that "worked" against Iraq are being recycled--I know these are blindly ideological, dangerous, and opportunistic hypocrites we're dealing with here, but to recycle them even in light of them being proven as frauds with the unfolding disaster in Iraq was of particular note as well.

[bluesoul]

3. neocons

They won't stop at nothing. No matter the consequences or innocents killed..

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. That definition

Sounds more like the Palestinian terror groups.

[bluesoul]

5. ...

Or the IDF

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Nope

But you knew that.

[Aidoneus]

7. don't tell people what they "know"

and please don't hijack this thread like that. Do you have any comment to make on this 2-part piece?

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Don't tell ME what to do either

I didn't hijack the thread, I commented on a post. Sorry you didn't like it. Too bad.

[Aidoneus]

9. I'll take that as a 'no'

I'm not surprised, since I've noticed that perhaps you are already quite familiar, sympathetic or in agreement even, with some of the ideas of the people mentioned in the pieces.

[Aidoneus]

11. let me put it another way

if we're going to have an argument here (as precedents would dictate), can it at least be about the original subject?

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Then discuss it with the poster who made the IDF comment, not me

nt

[Aidoneus]

14. note that the number "4" comes before "5"

at least in "3" it was relating to the original..

[Aidoneus]

15. and beyond that,

I think the points made in the original articles and my post #2 are better things to argue over. Perhaps not.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Hey, don't forget me!

Post #1 offered some opportunities for argument, I thought :)

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

22. oh, right

I was a little proud of what I could cram into #2, my temporary self-centeredness got in the way, sorry. :)

As for #16, I really, really doubt you'll get a straight answer on anything:--anything short of some sloganized pablum is too much to ask.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Well, I think the articles and post #2 deserve a re-read from me...

I'm a tad sleep-deprived right now due to a heavy night of non-stop, last minute essay writing. So I'm going to reread it again when I'm a bit more alert than I am right now...

Yeah, I've worked out I'll never get a straight answer, but it's kind of fun trying to extract one :)

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I'd like to see what Muddle thinks of neocons...

Which is what I expected I'd see when I spotted his post in the thread. But alas, it was just another knee-jerk one-liner about Palestinians. I'd be really interested to see what, if any, criticisms of the neocon agenda that Muddle has, and why he has them, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. It's kind of sad that in one fell swoop, a thread that had so much potential to be interesting turned into crap...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Neocons

I don't see any difference between neocons and non-neocons personally.

As for Syria, the U.S. has considered it a terrorist supporter and sponsor for decades under Dem leadership and Repug leadership.

[bluesoul]

21. Question

Oooh now this is interesting. Who are the non-neoncons? You mean to say there is no difference between them and liberals, those who oppose their policy and mentality?

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. No, silly

The difference between neocons and more traditional conservatives. I find very little difference other than age.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. What??

There's a shitload of difference between neo-cons and traditional conservatives. For one, traditional conservatives are Realists and tend to oppose the neocon agenda because it's overturning the post-war world order and shoving things like balance of power and the theory of deterrence down the toilet. And neo-cons aren't really conservatives at all. And they're definately not Realists. They're radicals, though if we want to call them what they really are, they're known as fascist wankers ;)


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Sorry

In the day-to-day world, I don't see where they disagree on all that much. They seem to be better at making common cause with one another than the left, that's all.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. But it's been pointed out to you in this thread...

I pointed out one major difference, and Aedoneus mentioned another....

Uh, they're not conservatives like traditional conservatives are, so why are you going on about common cause? Yeah, the left needs to get its act together and stop bickering and start following the example of those common cause conservatives ;)

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

29. I disagree (hey, now we're getting somewhere)

the "neocons" seem to be at least superficially liberal on social matters--I don't have a reference handy, but at least some among them believe their idealized and fictional "America" as being the standard-bearer of "liberal values" in the world--, but believe strongly in the unrestricted right of force and desception to be used in pursuit of particular economic goals, which usually fall under the definitions of "imperialism"/"colonialism"/etc. That they use rightwing nationalist and racist demagogery in the course of this is just a matter of convenience, as well as their common dislike of leftist ideas, for the latter are irreconciliably hostile to their unrestricted gangsterist and imperialist tendences.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's not what you were asked...

But just for the record there's some pretty blatant differences between neo-cons and non-neocons. By non-neocons, do you mean liberals or conservatives? There's glaring differences between all three...

What I asked you was what criticisms if any you had of the neocon agenda, and why you have those criticisms. I didn't ask you about Syria...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Neocons

As for non-neocons, I meant more traditional conservatives.

I referenced Syria, since the NEOCON agenda seems to focus on it above. They don't like Syria and neither did the more traditional conservatives. So?

So, what specifically do you wish to ask?

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Go back and read my question...

That's specifically what I asked, though I honestly don't expect a straight answer out of you or any criticism of the neocons...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Agendas

Again, I don't see a lot of difference between their agenda and the conservative agenda, I just think they do a more aggressive job of marketing.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. And that's not what I asked you either...

I didn't ask you what differences you saw, I asked you what criticisms if any you had of the neo-con agenda. I take it that you have no criticisms at all? After all, the question was an easy one...


Violet...

[bluesoul]

32. I disagree

Hmm that would mean there are no big differences among conservatives which I hope and believe is not so. Because that would mean they are all very much to the right. Being a liberal I suspect there are compassionate, tolerant, non hostile, open minded people even among them that find the whole neocon mentality troubling to say the least. I could even bet that the disagreements between Powell and them in the administration are not just PR to show there's some "depth" but that there's actually something to it. I've always wondered what people like him find in such administration, save for the position.. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Conservatives

I think the differences between conservatives fall on two issues.

* Religion -- Some conservatives are conservative and very religious. This is where the anti-abortion group comes from. Some are more libertarian and not too actively religious.
* Business -- Some are more business than religion focused.

I think most agree on guns, foreign policy, hating Clinton and a bunch of other issues.

[bluesoul]

10. neocons

Seems to me you are now even defending neocons (since I was talking about them not Israel). Which wouldn't be that much of a surprise to me either...

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. No

You used a definition that applies EXACTLY to terrorists. On a day when terrorists attack a U.S. diplomat, it seem inappropriate to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Bluesoul used a definition that applies to neocons...

Y'know, the folk that the thread was about?


Violet...

[bluesoul]

18. Inappropriate

I also find it inappropriate that the only thing one says on a thread about killed Palestinian children is that they are to be blamed themselves, yet I don't whine. Palestinian civilians are killed daily yet you don't find that much inappropriate. No need to play the offended part...

[Classical_Liberal]

38. Muddle how do you differ from the neocons on the middle east?

?

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. A lot actually

Although I still don't see as much variance between neo-con and traditional-con as you do.

I support a strong Israel and opposed Iraq. How does that work for ya?

[bluesoul]

46. Iraq

Just to clarify. You opposed the war against Iraq or did you mean something else? :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Just to clarify

I have repeatedly opposed the war in Iraq. You?

[Aidoneus]

48. out of curiosity--on what particular grounds?

hm.. is there anything somebody is curious about with me? I have a lot of curiosities to repay..

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. I found insufficient evidence

Wanted to see more.

[bluesoul]

49. Iraq

From the very beginning. I was not fooled by Bush and the so called "evidence" about Iraq's threat as I knew what the UN inspectors said about it. I am glad we agree about that..;-)

[Classical_Liberal]

36. It's obvious this is PNAC plan, but what we need are exposes

on why targeting Syria and Hizbolla is stupid. Like an article about how Hizbolla are a military organization that doesn't target civilians, but does block Israels imperialist grand designs. Israel targets them because they didn't let israel occupy Lebanon.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

37. Why the neoconservatives just keep winning...

One of the inescapable messages emerging from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was the vitality of the US neoconservative critique. Neocons not only proved to be the most adept at explaining the mass homicides, they also offered decisive solutions to the problems that entailed. And up to now these appear to have worked.
It’s never easy for a libertarian who fundamentally mistrusts state power to approve of the state-centered neo-Wilsonianism of many neoconservatives, or for an advocate of free markets to sanction their glorification of an uncompetitive form of US domination. Yet the neocons have caught their critics in a vise ­ whether isolationist libertarians, conservative realists, old-left liberals or Clintonian multilateralists.
The triumph of the neoconservative worldview came in September 2002, when the Bush administration issued a new National Security Strategy. The document was a bureaucratic compromise that placed the neocon dogma of the Pentagon and its White House allies alongside conventional State Department multilateralism. Reading the document, anyone could see the power was in its innovation ­ most prominently its promotion of US security and global supremacy and its defense of pre-emptive strikes to preserve this. In that context the State Department’s multilateral impulses were redefined by neocon priorities.

...

This led to a distinctive facet of the neocon critique: the need to overcome and reshape countries menacing the US ­ in effect to engage in nation building. While not embraced by all neocons, this approach posed a problem for their ideological adversaries. The reason was that neocons were advocating spreading US values such as democracy and free markets. Liberals and isolationist libertarians were outmaneuvered by this determined neo-Wilsonianism ­ the former because it approximated traditional Wilsonianism, with its focus on the moral aims of foreign policy, albeit minus the deference to international institutions; the latter because they could not defend free minds and markets in the US while neglecting this overseas.
The last line of defense came from conservative realists, who always scorned the inflated aspirations of any kind of Wilsonianism, old or new, and who were too anchored in the traditional state system based on a balance of power to sanction US unilateralism. Yet they were neutralized because they, too, advocated force when the international system demanded it, and the post-Sept. 11 world fit the bill.
Moreover, the neocons had been their allies during the last years of the Cold War and there was an ideological affinity there, even if realists had a different sense of priorities when dealing with the former USSR.

...

Their adversaries routed, the neocons may yet be undone by the details. Many of the Bush administration’s critics would like to see the US fail in Iraq, largely as it would let them score a rare point against the neocons. It is far too early to assume that the US is trapped in an Iraqi quagmire, and it is, again, underestimating the neocons to suppose they will sit by and allow a disaster to happen.
However, the real battleground on which the neocons’ adversaries will have to fight is that of ideas. There are alternatives to American triumphalism and unilateralism, whose end-result would also be freedom and open markets. The only problem is that the neocons’ ideas are the only ones that sound convincing today, partly because they were so well adapted to the anxious post-Sept. 11 mood of Americans, most of whom did not care about what the neocons actually said.
When a body of principles so effortlessly conforms to a country’s sensitivities, it becomes extremely powerful. That’s why it is pointless to criticize neoconservatives. What would be far more useful is to offer self-sustaining and relevant policy alternatives to theirs, and ensure the US public agrees.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0307/03073115DS.asp

[cantwealljustgetalong]

39. crib sheet from the Christian Science Monitor...

Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character

Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan



Liberal

Liberals…

Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter



Realist

Realists…

Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell



Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…

Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

[bluesoul]

40. A liberal

Proud to be among the liberals! ;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Proud to have bits and pieces of all of them

And like most Americans I am not so easily pigeonholed.

[Aidoneus]

43. there should be a 5th catagory

I seem to be a mix of "Isolationist"--except I don't necessarily believe in "America first" as far as reactionary immigration and cultural policies go, in fact I'm very much an internationalist about economic/cultural/political matters, and Coolidge/Buchanan can kill each other to death before I give a rat's ear about either ("rat's ear"="even less than a rat's ass", FYI)--, and "Liberal"--except I don't encourage UN participation in things, wouldn't count on in a million years US economic policies helping the world's poor, and don't like Wilson/Carter..

don't really seem to fit in to any of those, I think I'll just go eat more worms. :bounce:

[bemildred]

44. Controlling the terms of debate requires that everyone

be categorized in one of the approved pidgeon holes.

[Darranar]

52. So who's participation DO you encourage?

[foo_bar]

51. the "neo" part

I assumed it meant "new" as in "newly minted conservative", e.g., one who began political consciousness as something else (generally a Trotsky flavored Communist, say Horowitz or the Kristols). But the term also implies anyone in agreement with the aforementioned fair weather conservatives, whether or not they were born into it.

That said, where does Teddy Roosevelt fit in? If "neoconservatives" are heir to the prototypical conservatism of Polk and Teddy R, isn't it revisionism to call Roosevelt "neo" anything? I guess I can't tell if "neo" is meant to describe the message or the messenger; it seems to be used interchangeably.

[Aidoneus]

53. "gunboat diplomacy"?

Teddy's government was quite the bully of their time, particularly in their meddling and assaults on Latin America & the Caribbean.. Polk before him reigned over the expansionist war against Mexico. Both clearly an inspiration on the gangsterist tendencies that typify the "neocon" vision and their post-WWII predecessors in general.

the "Trotskyist" credentials of the opportunistic hypocrites referred to as "neocons" are vastly overstated, slanderous even.

[foo_bar]

54. but are Polk & Roosevelt "neo" anything?

I mean, if they did it first, aren't neoconservatives actually paleoimperialists? I'm not playing a word game for its own sake, I'm wondering what "neo" means if it doesn't mean ex-Communist (or red diaper baby, as the media is fond of saying).

[bemildred]

42. It seems unrealistic to expect they would just quit.

Things have not become nearly screwed up enough to force
them to quit. Give it another year.