Replies

"What is a neocon?"

That is a very complicated question. The simplest answer is that it is an offshoot of the traditional conservative movement whose philosophy differs vastly from traditional conservative views particularly in the area of foreign policy. They don’t embrace the term “neoconservative,” it was given to them to distinguish their views.

The essential difference between them and the traditionalist (I consider my self traditional, so there is bias in my opinion) is that they believe that America should “seize” its place in the world through military means to insure that America can remain a superpower. The traditional conservative view is that America can remain a superpower without initiating any military action with a strong defensive posture and containment. The neocons believe it is necessary to protect America’s world position through “preemptive” military actions when, in their view an, opponent could be a problem down the road or if military action could improve America’s strategic position.

The best example of the traditional view at work is the method used to bring down the Soviet Union; no shots were ever fired except when the USSR acted as aggressors (thus containment). The US also drove the arms race so that we were safe at the same time as the USSR was spending beyond its means to keep up. Reagan was the master of this strategy.

The shift to the neocon policy is as dramatic, IMO, as foreign policy changes come.

Neo-Cons were named by the Paleo-Cons ... and vice-versa. It basically, breaks down like this.

If you are an isolationist no matter what .... don't worry, you are not a Neo-Con. However, you can call every non-isolationist Conservative up the ladder a Neo-Con.

Nobody has really ever seen one. They exist in theory only. However, when the day comes that we occupy Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and North Korea it'll be safe to call the President and the Administration "Neo-Cons" ..... because everybody else will.

Mush the Pseudo-Lib-Con
[yep, I made it up.]

You seem to say that our "neocon" policy is essentially about gaining power and "might makes right". This is a vile slander. We are using our power to do good and restrain evil in the world. Whatever it is, it is not "might makes right". Saddam Hussein is the mass murdering bully, not George Bush.

The best example of the traditional view at work is the method used to bring down the Soviet Union; no shots were ever fired except when the USSR acted as aggressors (thus containment). The US also drove the arms race so that we were safe at the same time as the USSR was spending beyond its means to keep up. Reagan was the master of this strategy.

But haven't we simply replaced the Soviet Union in that regard? Are we not spending far beyond our means on foreign adventures? Spending our children's money and our children's children's money? We will not eventually end up financially exhausted, just like the Soviets, if we try to militarily pacify all who oppose US foreign policy?

As far as I can tell, the only winner in Bush's foreign policy is China. Ten years down the road our country will be overextended and China will be in a fantastic position to profit from our mistakes.