With Iraq Improving, Will Neocon Ideas Return?

Townhall.com ^ | November 22, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Kaslin]

More than seven months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., claimed that Iraq was “lost.”

But that was hardly the case. In fact, Sunni insurgents were just beginning to turn on al-Qaida and join us.

So now, despite their noisy anti-war base, most leading Democrats quietly are backing away from their talk about bringing American troops in Iraq home on rigid timetables.

Maybe they are learning that quitting Iraq now might be stupid politics since bad news — in fact, all news — from the front is making fewer and fewer headlines.

Democrats know that Republicans will use clips of more “General Betray Us” ads and defeatist assertions next summer when the election campaign heats up and there may be even more progress in Iraq.

Sober Democrats also suspect that their anti-war rhetoric is proving useful in other ways to the Bush administration. Their attacks on the elected al-Maliki government in Iraq often make them look like illiberal “bad cops” eager to pull the plug on the error-plagued but nevertheless constitutional government in Iraq just when it seems to be improving.

True, electric production still cannot provide Iraqis 24-hour service — but now the problem is partly because Iraqi consumption has soared above prewar levels. And oil production, while not quite yet at pre-invasion levels, is climbing — now nearly 2.5 million barrels a day, according to Iraq’s oil minister. Plus, Iraq is benefiting from today’s near-$100 per barrel oil prices.

More importantly, civilian casualties are down in Baghdad by 75 percent from June, according to the U.S. military. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq have decreased by nearly 80 percent from last year.

In other words, for a variety of unforeseen reasons, the furor and partisan bad blood over Iraq are lessening here in the States. The debate over Iraq seems to be changing from “we can’t win” to whether victory is worth the aggregate costs.

Expect this new battle to be more retrospective, as each side tries to inflate or deflate how much blood and treasure have been spent on the Iraq War — and whether the cost has led to greater American security both in and beyond Iraq.

As fear of defeat in Iraq recedes from the political landscape, look to a growing consensus elsewhere. “Neocon” — the term often used to describe “new” conservatives who today support fostering democracy in the Middle East — may still be a dirty word.

But if you take the anger about George Bush out of the equation, along with the Iraq war and the fear of any more invasions by the U.S., why not support democratic reform in the Middle East? We know the alternatives only play into the hands of terrorists.

That’s why presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., recently said that America needed to support democracy and pressure Gen. Pervez Musharraf to restore elections in Pakistan.

Few Democrats or Republicans would disagree with his idealistic rhetoric. Although Obama wouldn’t express the same support for the struggling Iraqi democracy, he sort of sounded like a softer neocon — more worried about the lack of freedom in Pakistan than the fact we might undermine a strongman with nukes and a restive population.

Take also Iran. Both parties worry about an Iran with a nuclear bomb; neither one has sure ideas how to stop it. The Republicans seem to want to talk tough without bombing the mullahs; the Democrats prefer just to talk with them.

Either way, they agree we don’t have much leverage to stop the theocracy other than stabilizing nearby democratic Iraq, encouraging dissidents, imposing sanctions and surrounding Iran with a bloc of worried Arab states.

A year from now, neither George Bush nor a quieter Iraq will inflame Democrats. And without these familiar bogeymen, they will to have to state what they are for, rather than what they are against.

If Democrats keep Congress and win the presidency, they probably won’t do things much differently in Afghanistan. America’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also won’t change much. And if the next president is a Republican, it’s a safe bet he won’t invade any new countries.

As the Democrats move closer to the controversial neoconservative position of actively supporting democratic reform in the Middle East, they will claim that their strong idealistic diplomacy is the proper corrective to the Bush administration’s unilateral misadventures.

The Republicans will counter that with Saddam gone and the Taliban out of power, constitutional governments in their places, and both countries slowly stabilizing, the necessary unpleasant work is mostly done. So using military force to topple terrorist-sponsoring autocrats, at least for now, no longer has to be a ready option.

But either way, both will sound awfully similar — sort of like soft neocons.

[SigTech]

"proactive defense"?

Would that be the same as offense? As in "a good offense is the best defense"?

[Christian4Bush]

bump

[SolidWood]

Theoretically yes. Preemptive strikes are “proactive defense”. But thats only a technicality since the enemy attacked us multiple times from 1979-2001. The difference is that after 9/11 we finally got ready to smack down the various heads of the enemy. I just hope that America doesn’t tire too early (the Democrats have already given up).

[Names Ash Housewares]

Better yet, will neocom ideas fade?

[Trteamer]

I’m a FReepocon.

[padre35]

NeoCons should not be within 500 yds of anyone who can make a policy decision concerning war fighting.

It wasn’t until the NeoCons were shown the door or left on their own that the surge was even possible, let alone likely to be implemented.

Add into the mix SecDef Rumsfeld’s adamant refusal to make side deals with the Tribes in Iraq, and we had the daily double of futility pre Gates Iraq.

A people who wouldn’t defend themselves and actually allied with Al Quida as the US was offering nothing but rhetoric, and too few soldiers in Iraq to secure regions so peace could prosper.

Enter Gates and Patreus and lookey lookey, things improved.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[Hornet19]

I’m with you. IMHO the Conservative philosophy doesn’t need revamping or remodeling. “Compassionate Conservative” is, I believe, a ‘neocon’ philosophy.

To me, neoconservative philosophy is merely an attempt at blending (or bending) conservative philosophy with that of the liberals.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Didn’t many of the neocons abandoned Iraqi democracy, the war on terror and were very critical of Bush? Fukiyama and a number of them lost heart or became too intellectual for their own good. It was all doom and gloom about civil war. Podhorezt, Horowitz, Kristol never gave up but others did... I just can’t think of their names.

[SolidWood]

I think you are referring to Perle and Ledeen. No they didn’t abandon their “goals” (i.e. Regime change in Iran, Democracy in Iraq). The magazine “Vanity Fair” had shortly before the November elections an article that suggested that they did resignate... but all of them rebuked the suggestion and made clear that they still support the fight in Iraq. Some of them merely critizized the strategy which was pursued in 2006.

The surge (something Kristol long demanded) set Iraq more clearly on the path of victory.

[JamesP81]

With Iraq Improving, Will Neocon Ideas Return?

So long as we can get neocon foreign policy ideas without the profligate domestic spending, free trade fetishes, and total lack of border security, then I don't see a problem with this.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Thanks for the names. They do seem Jewish. On a less serious note, what would be funny is if Woody Allen became a neocon. He seems to be a lefty but I don’t know if the neocons would embrace him... they might think of it as some kind of comedy skit against them. Jackie Mason is very Jewish, right wing and funny, perhaps a true neocon.

[SolidWood]

Thanks for the names. They do seem Jewish

They are Jewish. Lol. Matter of factly almost all of the Neocon intellectuals are Jewish... and they certainly are more Jewish (Zionist and religious) than the JINOS in the Democrat party. BTW you speak of Woody Allen. Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman are both liberals, yet they support strongly the War on Terror. If they can be Neocons... so could Woody.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Suddenly Iraqis have an entirely different perspective on the occupation.

And now we have this:

Iraq to seek long-term US presence

[Billthedrill]

It's easy to get hung up in definitional arguments over the slippery term "neocon" - that meant one thing in Buckley's day and means quite a different, even opposite thing now. Might as well avoid it altogether. People using it seem to have a vague idea of what they mean by it but frankly, I don't.

So now, despite their noisy anti-war base, most leading Democrats quietly are backing away from their talk about bringing American troops in Iraq home on rigid timetables.

Edwards isn't, for one. He may end up being the Dems' sacrificial lamb to the antiwar wing because of it. Most of this will go by the board once the primaries are over anyway - whichever candidate the Dems choose will be triangulating like mad after that is settled out and a radical withdrawal plan just isn't in the cards. By then it is likely that they'll be working as hard as they can to see that Iraq is forgotten altogether as an issue because if things continue as they have been it will be a major loser for them. "It's the economy, stupid" will be - it already is - their refrain just as in 1992.

I'm not sure I agree with Hanson's formulation of the "neocon" intentions with respect to fomenting democracy in the Middle East. It has been presented as some sort of Wilsonian master blueprint but in practice it was simply the best of a number of bad policy options. That it has worked as well as it has is a true testament to the dedication and skill of the armed forces sent to implement it.

The options with respect to Iran are considerably wider in range and to conclude from our activities in Iraq that a crusading army is about to be sent to free the Iranians from theocracy and issue them all voter pamphlets and fuzzy puppies is, I think, to misunderstand how we got where we are in Iraq. Those policymakers described as "neocons" certainly had a good deal of input but the cabal of Bismarkian manipulators seeking to bring Western governments to the world is much more myth than reality.

[rdb3]

I still do not understand exactly what a neocon is. I believe it is a term invented by liberals, and so I don’t care for its use or believe it is even useful.

It's not.

[dervish]

Fukiyama was never a Neoconservative. He was the moron who prophesied an end to all conflicts only months prior to 9/11. His ideas were in contrast to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations.