Obama, the Neocons and Iran

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 06-26-09 | ROBERT MCFARLANE

[GOP_Lady]

The president's new foreign policy will be judged on this crisis.

One casualty of the Iraq war has been the confusion among politicians about the proper place of democracy promotion in American foreign policy. Iran's recent election -- which evoked a very vocal, frustrated opposition -- brings into sharp focus the urgent need for clarity concerning this issue. Do we support those seeking freedom from oppression? And if so, how? It may do well to recall how we got into this confused state.

Sixteen or so years ago a small circle of cold warriors, flush with victory, concluded that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union democracy and free enterprise had been vindicated. To these neoconservatives, the task of future American presidents would be to spread the gospel of democracy -- using force if necessary -- so that governments everywhere would become accountable to their people and thus less likely to wage war. In 2003, it was arguably democracy promotion, rather than the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which triggered the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

[GOP_Lady]

[Tarantulas]

In 2003, it was arguably democracy promotion, rather than the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which triggered the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Arguably? Lefties also argue that the Iraq war was all about getting cheap oil for the US, and revenge for an assassination attempt on George HW Bush. Lefties are also fond of throwing around the terms "neocon" and "paleocon" and whatever other titles they can invent to split up conservatives and promote class warfare among us. I'm not buying it.

[Ben Ficklin]

You can throw the term "lefties" around but the author correctly defines the conflict to be between republican realists and republican neocons.

The fact that Obama adopted realist policies does not affect the conflict, tho it does make it harder to bash Obama without bashing republicans.