Neocon Phoenix

In Greek mythology, the phoenix is a bird that dies by fire and a new phoenix regenerates from the ashes of the old bird. Most of us remember this from somewhere, but we often forget that the fire that consumes the phoenix was built and lit by the phoenix.

Such may be the fate of the neocons, or at least their political philosophy. After the Bush Administration failed so miserably in pursuing a neocon path, it is hard to find a group of folks more reviled than neocons. Yet, John McCain has chosen Robert Kagan, a neocon par excellence, as his foreign policy advisor. McCain has hinted at more of the same in Iraq. Does he now want to start with a failed neocon team so the he can also repeat the original mistakes of the Bush team?

ctually I don't believe McCain would follow in Bush's footsteps. I think he's more intelligent than that, but I do find his adoption of the neocon philosophy to be troubling for a variety of reasons. I tend to agree (mostly) with the neocon view of the world situation, but I do not agree with their concept of using America's power to remake the world in our image.

Get Acquainted with Neocons

For those who are not familiar with the neoconservative (neocon) movement, I invite you to the following sites:

• Neo-consertive, SourceWatch give a quick rundown on the history and status of the movement.
• Neoconserviatism, Wikipedia is a much longer and very complete presentation on the movement.
• Empire Builders, Christian Science Monitor Online reports on the key neoconservatives and where they were in 2005.
• All in the Neocon Family, AlterNet is an interesting article showing that many of the top neocons are related by family or marriage.

hether the neocons are primarily responsible for the Iraq War debacle is debated. Some of the neocons who were once calling the shots now say that the Iraq War disaster was not their fault but was the result of bungled mismanagement of the war by their bosses. This implies that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al were the mismanagers and that they were not neocons.

The organization most closely associated with the neocon movement is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Founding members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Libby. Wolfowitz was considered the ideological leader of PNAC. Other members of note included Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams and Jeb Bush.

Neocons and Cons

Some say Cheney and Rumsfeld were never neocons but used the neocons' philosophy to further their own aims; especially Cheney in his pursuit of an imperial presidency. That's drawing a pretty fuzzy line and one I think is misleading. For all practical purposes, Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons. Here's how I see the neocon Bush cabinet

• Cheney, VP: Definitely neocon with help from Libby.
• State: Rice; political persuasion unknown but in tune with Bush and she avoided confrontation with Rumsfeld and John Bolton
• National Security Council: Abrams, definite neocon; convicted for part in Iran-Contra Affair.
• Defense: Secretary Rumsfeld, card carrying neocon. Under Secty for Policy Doug Feith, also card carrying neocon.
• Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle and members too many to list here.

could go on but the point is that prominent neocons had key appointments in all areas of defense and foreign policy. It is no accident that White House statements and actions have following the neocon approach almost to the letter. Whether Bush was a closet neocon, was duped by the neocons, or just liked their world view is beside the point. The point is that Bush acted like a neocon and he acted very well.

Robert Kagan, Brilliant Idealist

PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine that is, in my opinion, a top notch magazine with well-reasoned articles. I often don't agree with the articles but their quality is far above what usually passes today as Republican thinking. If you need some real news about the Iraq War, check out the Weekly Standard.

Robert Kagan, Warsaw, April 17, 2000 from Wikipedia, Robert Kagan

obert Kagan is an author of several books and writes columns for The New Republic, Policy Review (Hoover Institute), the Weekly Standard, and that venerable liberal rag (or so my ultra-conservative relative tells me) The Washington Post. He is also a foreign policy advisor on Senator McCain's campaign staff. Here is list of some Kagan writings:

• " End of Dreams, Return of History," at Real Clear Politics
• "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776," at World Affairs
• "Power and Weakness," at Policy Review, Hoover Institute

If you want a more complete taste of Kagan's brand of neoconservatism, I recommend The Return of History; and the End of Dreams, ( 2008, Knoph division of Random House, New York, NY; $19.95). Since Kagan writes very lengthy articles, you'd think this book would be huge, but it isn't. The book is short (and small page format), but extremely well written and Kagan makes a lot of good points.

The World According to Neocons

Basically, here is the neoconservative talking points, per my interpretation of Kagan:

• The U.S. is the sole remaining superpower with extensive military capabilities.
• The U.S. is a moral country, capable of leading the democratic/liberal world, and of promoting democracy throughout the world.
• The U.S. should spread democracy because democracies make the world safe for other democracies.
• Peace and the growth of democracy happened during only a brief period after the Soviet Union collapsed. This left many liberals and other misinformed folks in the U.S. and Europe believing in the "end of history" and a new world order wherein nations competed economically, not by war.
• After the short-lived peace period, Russia and China found ways to return to, or retain, autocracy and still improve the prosperity of their peoples.
• The world is now aligning into two camps: one of democracies, and one of autocrats.
• Autocrats may not like other autocrats, but they must support each other or the democracies, especially the U.S., will force democracy on countries where it wouldn't work. Autocrats often tell their people that democracy is evil mob rule. Also, autocrats want to stay in power.
• India and other democracies are aligning more with the U.S. than in earlier years. EU, finally seeing the truth as Russia controls their energy and rattles their many nuclear sabers, is also moving toward the U.S.
• The world still works on the "sovereignty of nations" principal and balance of power remains the operative policy concept.
• Muslim extremists can never be satisfied because the West cannot give them what they want.
• The proactive policies of the Bush Administration are not new. America has pursued invasions and "preventative" foreign military actions throughout its history, especially during the Cold War.
• The UN Security Council is deadlocked with roughly equal representation from autocracies and democracies, and has no power.

All the above is, I think, mostly true. But none of the above points mention any action to be taken because of this world view. And that is where I have problems with the neocons.

Neocons versus Realists

I've always considered myself in the realist foreign policy camp. I revere George F. Kennan, architect of the Cold War containment policy. I also believe Henry Kissinger was one of our most brilliant policy experts. As I read Robert Kagan, I am struck by how closely his neoconservative view comes to a realist view for the post peace dividend world. But there is a difference.

n America that pursues a realist foreign policy would promote democracy and block autocrats where it served our interests. That America would also deal with autocrats if those autocrats could also serve America's needs and interests. That America would also promote democracy but would not invade a sovereign states unless the state posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States.

he neoconservative would invade and go to war with a lot less reasons - something like Cheney's 1% doctrine wherein one can take action if there is only a 1% chance of a threat to the U.S. Kagan doesn't really address the degree to which the neoconservatives would advise aggression. And that is where we need to be concerned when neoconservatives gain power in our government. What conditions are sufficient for a neocon to go to war? You will find nothing specific in their writings but you can find indicators when you think about how the U.S. might flex its sole superpower role to promote democracy. One way is by invading or otherwise forcing regime change (sorry, regime change is a dirty word/phrase and I should have called it something else). Other ways are less warlike. We need to look at the neocon track record to discover how they might promote democracy.

Regime Change by Force

The Iraq War was badly bungled and that bungling may not be the neocons fault, but the war was started by neocons or folks who thought like neocons. If we go back a little in history, to the 1990s, we find a steadily increasing neocon drumbeat for a greater U.S. presence in the Middle East. The idea was to promote democracy, support Israel, and guarantee our oil supplies. There were many candidate countries but Iraq, once America's friend against Iran, was high on the list. Iraq was threatening the area, had a brutal dictator, and had lots of oil. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait finally marked Iraq for regime change. But American's aren't comfortable with creating democracies by force, so other reasons for war were necessary. September 11, 2001 provided the avenue, if not the answer to invading Iraq. If some insiders are to be believed, the neocons even advised invading Iraq instead of Afghanistan after 9/11. WMDs and support of terrorists became the excuse to invade Iraq. As those reasons proved false, the neocons returned to the original concept of a democratic Iraq.

This latter drive to invade Iraq when the threat was in another country is indicative of an idealist-driven agenda wherein the ideals override reality. The Iraq War has accomplished none of America's goals and has even made us less secure, jeopardized our national defense, plundered our treasury, and made us a hated sole superpower. As bad as the Iraq War is, the neocons seem ready to try it again.

do not disagree much with the neocon world view. The world remains a dangerous place and America needs to remain strong and guarded. What concerns me is when these political philosophers are put in charge of the implementation of that philosophy. These folks are idealists and as idealists, they do not respond well to the reality of facts. As idealists they are prone to seeing a world that proves their ideals rather than as it really is. I think this is how our White House saw WMD when there weren't any and saw a Saddam-terrorist connection when there wasn't any.

hey say that the neocons began as Trotskyites. Trotsky was that nice communist that opposed Stalin and was assassinated in Mexico for his troubles. But he was still a communist and he was an idealist. Lenin was an idealist. bin Laden is an idealist. Woodrow Wilson was an idealist. I think neocons are idealists. I am not fond of idealists running a country. Give me a pragmatist anytime.

McCain, if elected, might benefit from neocon advice, alongside other advice. The danger would be when the neocon advice drives foreign policy. If McCain remains as independent as his reputation has it, then I wouldn't see a problem. But he has a recent record of courting the more radical elements of the so called conservative wing of the Republican base. I'm no longer sure of his independence.