The neocons own no ideological monopoly on the use of force - or regime change
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:35AM 
Bret Stephens in the WSJ brags that "we're (almost) all neocons now," reflecting the silly conceit of that crowd that any use of force or any encouragement of regime change justifies their entire dogma. This is like declaring that all American unionists in the 1930s were puppets of Stalin. The belief in the utility of one common aspect (the worker) does not imply belief in the entire misbegotten ideology (Stalinism).
The neocons were, and remain, about so much more than just the use of force or the concept of regime change, two means used by every president of recent decades. They were about primacy. They were about using force to maintain US primacy. The goal of primacy? More primacy.
Their ideology, as a means of expressing what has been the US grand strategy, with one notable lapse, since the turn of the 20th century (Open Door), is inherently anti-American. It takes the exceptionalism argument to extreme lengths. It places little to no faith in waiting on economics to determine politics. But, again, at the end of the day, it demands that the US remain the prime power in the system - ad infinitum. So it fundamentally rejects the outcome of the Open Door grand strategic impulse, which is peacefully rising great powers all over the map.
Also, because it demands primacy, it demands unilateralism in decision-making (not seen in Libya) and requires near-monopolistic ownership of the resulting situation. The US owns Afghanistan, not NATO, and it has sought to limit the ability of neighboring powers (Iran, India, Turkey, China, Russia) to influence the evolution there. Same story in Iraq, where we obsess over Iranian influence and worry over the Turks - and the Chinese as they move in. In short, we still run both situations in far too much of a neocon fashion - Obama included. So there the charge lingers.
But not on Libya. Not by a long shot.
The neocons hated the Balkans show, and hated Clinton's takedown of Milosevic. This resembles that far more than Iraq, which was run incredibly badly primarily to avoid the perception of a repeat of the Balkans. And we paid plenty in blood and treasure - unnecessarily - for that ideological vanity.
Stephens would do better than to offer such a weak defense of a very discredited ideology.
Reader Comments (4)
This definition of 'neocon' comes across like a popular but mischaracterized usage. Folks like David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz are genuine and proud neocons who turned from leftist associations to a more practical view. As Irving Kristol said, "Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary."
From: The Neoconservative Persuasion
The Bret Stephens usage is understandable in a popular sense that more liberals have come to accept interventionism and military power as being legitimate.
Stuart,
You're citing Old Testament that is popularly forgotten-Cold War stuff. I would submit that the New Testament, post-Cold War neocons in Bush-Cheney are what people know, hence Stephens is scaling back the truth.
I know what I know about them from working for them. None of them ever mentioned the Kristols. They had their own ideas, and they were very much focused on primacy, going back to Wolfowitz's full-throated proposal in official DoD guidance at the end of Bush 41.
They were not shy about it.
For the record, the Dems, on average, has always used the military more often for crisis response and interventions and wars, so the idea-again-that the neocons showed the way is a bit much.
I was a liberal and became a conservative in the late 70's (and hence a neo-conservative) in response to Jimmy Carter and a sense I had that, out of guilt: while guilt, male guilt, American guilt, he (and the dominant strain of liberals) would not defend the country from crime domestically or from foreign acts of war (Iran).
The continuing neo-cons, e.g. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, et al, pursue a line much closer to yours. Going into Iraq, the Weekly Standard was very upset that Bush was not training Iraqis madly, and not putting an Iraqi face on the liberation. They pushed for a lighter footprint and letting the Iraqis take the lead more, right from the start. They didn't and don't trust the UN, but they were much more about empowering the locals in a conflict and letting them make their own mistakes. That's why they've supported the Arab Revolutions from the start, even with all the attendent uncertainties.
It seems to me that you pick fights with people who agree with you.
Bill Clinton did erase some of the stain that Carter had left on the Democrats, but I thought that was for New Democrats, only. Obama seemed intent on making us too pure to defend ourselves again, and I assumed the self loathing left was back in charge. I am skeptical that it was a brilliant ploy to get others to accept their responsibilities, but if it has that effect, then I will take the win and let it go.
I am intrigued by Obama's success in getting the Arab League and the UN to endorse his actions. I hope the result is workable. It is a point where he differs from what I think of as the neo-con position which is very cynical about the UN and the "International Community" which seemed insanely anti-American. We were kicked of the UN Human Rights Commision, but Qaddafi and a whole cabal of mass killers was kept on. If ever an asylum was being run by the inmates, the UN was it. If it can be made to work, then I am appropriately amazed.
The original neocons were former Trotskyists led by Max Shachtman. This included people like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. Their anti-Stalinism eventually turned them off Marxism and they gravitated to being Scoop Jackson Democrats. Some ot the people in this orbit like Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (not a former Trotskyist to my knowledge) stayed in the fold as traditional liberal democrats. Others became Republcans and embraced the Machiavellian philosophy of Leo Strauss. The group I think TPMB is referring to as neocons is something like the Project for a New American Century, which definitely articulated a program based on US primacy, and not the view of "multiple great powers united by a common interest in the fulfillment of the American-led project known as globalization" which I see as the essence of TPMB's writings.
Mike- I think there is much truth to what you say about some aspects of the Democratic Party. However, I am increasingly of the view that it is important to draw a distinction between "liberals" and "the left". "The left" exhibits the traits you describe. It is a motley assemblage of former socialists, extreme environmentalists, isolationists, and even some anarchists. Unfortunately, it has gained some traction within some elements of the Democratc Party. For me, "liberalism" is personified by the likes of FDR and John Maynard Keynes. It is an ambitious, optimistic philosophy based on the fundamental principle of expanding opportunity for all. It is internationalist and pro-capitalist, subject to rational government regulation. I hope that Obama is a true liberal, and his actions as President, perhaps best manifest in his actions on Libya, give support to my hope.