....September 11 changed all of that. It changed the world, and changed our understanding of the world. As neoconservatism seemed to offer the most plausible explanation of the new reality and the most compelling and active response to it, many realists were brought to acknowledge the poverty of realismnot just the futility but the danger of a foreign policy centered on the illusion of stability and equilibrium. These realists, newly mugged by reality, have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers past experience, more mature.
What neoconservatives have long been advocating is now being articulated and practiced at the highest levels of government by a war cabinet composed of individuals who, coming from a very different place, have joined and reshaped the neoconservative camp and are carrying the neoconservative idea throughout the world. As a result, the vast right-wing conspiracy has grown even more vast than liberals could imagine. And even as the tent has enlarged, the great schisms and splits in conservative foreign policyso widely predicted just a year ago, so eagerly sought and amplified by outside analystshave not occurred.
Indeed, differences have, if anything, narrowed.
This is not party discipline. It is compromise with reality, and convergence toward the middle. Above all, it is the maturation of a governing ideology whose time has come
Very Interesting!
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Orson Scott Card, David Warren and Lee Harris (sometimes). You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).
Bump for later.
A few weeks later, at the National Defense University, the President offered its most succinct formulation: The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom.
That's realism. The writer is brilliant except for one thing: no need to fall into the word-trap. Calling oneself a 'neocon' is falling into a trap. Who wants to call himself a 'neocon'? Who would want to join the 'Neocon Party'?
People can look back to WWII. Germany did little more than attack our ships and challenge us to attack them. We sent most of our troops after Germany. Why? We believed that we could handle Japan on the cheap.
Afghanistan and Iran were identical. Iran was attacking our planes, just as Germany was attacking our ships. Saddam celebrated 9-11, a crude way of declaring war. Iran violated the terms of peace [both previous wars were only truces that temporarilly postponed future wars], just as Germany did. Iran was a strategic ally of our main attackers, just as Germany was for Japan.
It was realistic to take out both. FDR was a neocon? That term 'neocon' is being floated around to vilify us. I do not see the need to embrace it. The term 'realist' applies better. And the term, 'skeptic' should apply to what were called 'realists' in the piece.