I wouldn't think so. If they were in favor of the war on the grounds of Iraq's dispostion towards us, then they wouldn't qualify as neocons. It's only when they base their desire to go to war on its government's disposition towards its own society (or even surrounding societies, but not us). That's what "interventionism" means.
Oh. Actually I didn't read the final paragraph of your previous post sufficiently carefully, and indeed I think this further clarification helps, thanks. Perhaps I'm not so "neocon" after all.
Now I'm not sure there are any "neocons" in the world. I'm not even sure that the original self-described neocons were "neocons". (Boy wouldn't they be surprised!)
Of course, you could prove me wrong by actually identifying one or more "neocons" and then showing conclusively that they systematically Base Their Desire To Go To War against countries on countries' governments' dispositions towards their own societies rather than for national security reasons. (I'm assuming here that isolated cases don't count, it has to be a systematic temperament to count as a new School Of Thought, right?)
What you describe may be what "interventionism" means but the primary "interventionists" which come to mind (Clinton, etc) are apparently not conservative and therefore do not qualify as "neocons". So, who does?
I'll be here. Best,