Neocon 101: What do neoconservatives
believe?.
Some basic questions answered
Christian Science Monitor
Global Research, August 7, 2007
http://globalresearch.ca/
"Neocons" believe that the United
States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power - forcefully
if necessary - to promote its values around the world. Some even
speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe
modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained
and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive
military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed
dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting
threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was
Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's
ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support
for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency
in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of
democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism
and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the
Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of
the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily
hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust
to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative
beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group
of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s,
grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social
excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of
these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry
"Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s,
most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald
Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting
the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military
spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what
they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of
the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its
role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger
neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always
been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative
and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo"
prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative
in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some
domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always
defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente
and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation,
which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons
favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater
reservations about military intervention and so-called nation
building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns
against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons
are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states
in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever
it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means
an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after
9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist
wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US
foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President
Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed
to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's
right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq
were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream.
With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's
decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets
in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military
action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who
called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons
used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint
for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties
to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the
Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to
neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the
top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for
a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush
calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned
in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention
overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly
significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in
which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin
a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI - the de facto
headquarters for neconservative policy - had been calling for
democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world
look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the
United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats.
They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent
global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain
an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically
liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive
regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the
neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized
in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground
for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for
the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can
only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible
force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to
the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively,
not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military
would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility
and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well
as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense,
particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used
in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions
such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained
from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
Politics watch
Home Page