No, there's much more than that, as I described in my post. The common denominator is a passionate belief in Making the World Safe for Democracy. It fits all of the people I mentioned (to a lesser extent, as I indicated, with George Will). This is the specific contribution to the political debate made by the original neocons.
George Will??
Again, I'm talking about how the term is used in practice. Any conservative who supported Iraq war can, at some point, be called a "neo-con" by someone, if only some ignorant French journalist or something.
Anyway, as it now stands you're trying to define this School Of Thought largely by a motive you think you have perceived in all of these people. If you are so sure that Ann Coulter, Jay Nordlinger, "Wolfowitz" et al have a "passionate belief" in Making the World Safe For Democracy, you're a better mind-reader than I.
But Reading Strangers' Minds and identifying (or, claiming/pretending to identify) some passion of theirs is not the same thing as identifying some kind of coherent School Of Thought.
Was Woodrow Wilson a "neo-conservative"? He had by his own words this passionate belief you think you've perceived in others.
Let's try this thought experiment: if I agree with some representative "neo-con" about all specific foreign policy proposals X, Y, Z... which he names, but I don't internally emotionally or even subconsciously have a "passionate belief in making the world safe for democracy", am I still a "neocon"?
If yes, then what's the "passionate belief" got to do w/anything?
If not, then how is "neocon" a political ideology, rather than, say, an emotional temperament?