From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
”Neoconservatism” is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the “new conservatives” in the United States. The “newness” refers to the term’s origination as either describing converts new to American conservatism (sometimes coming from a liberal or big-government New Deal background) or to being part of a “new wave” of conservative thought and political organization.
The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by critics, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of George Bush (1989-1993) and George W. Bush (2001-present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.
Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Most people described as “neoconservatives” are members of the Republican Party. The term is used more often by those who oppose “neoconservative” politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration.
Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. They also point out that the meaning has changed over time. Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy. The term is also used to describe those who are accused of adopting a “unilateral” foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations consensus and actions.
In academia, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.
Neoconservatives and Israel
The neoconservatives also support a robust American stance on Israel. The neoconservative-influenced Project for the New American Century called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region.
Opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel, and the large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives and have raised the question of “dual loyalty”, an issue they do not raise with the neoconservatives equally staunch support of Taiwan. A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on). However, one should note that some prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, such as Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel’s security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the US’s strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union).
Moreover, they have long argued that the United States should emulate Israel’s tactics of pre-emptive attacks, especially Israel’s strikes in the 1980s on nuclear facilities in Libya and Iraq.
Identification with the state of Israel was furthered by the September 11 terrorist attacks, which served to highlight parallels between the United States and Israel as both democratic nations under the threat of terrorist attack. In Israel one of the major forces on the secular right are Soviet immigrant parties which often join Likud coalitions because of agreement on issues of national security. The similarities between American neoconservatism and these immigrant parties are many. In addition to similar approaches to foreign policy and national security, the two groups also share important “biographical” details, with the neoconservatives’ alienation from left-wing politics during the 1960s mirrored by the Israeli immigrants’ alienation from Labor Zionism because of their experiences under Soviet Communism. A leading figure among immigrant politicians is former-Soviet dissident and now an Israeli minister without portfolio Natan Sharansky, whose book, The Case For Democracy, promotes a foreign policy philosophy nearly identical to neoconservatives’. President Bush has effusively praised this book and called it a “glimpse of how I think”.
Neoconservatives and Iraq
Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many associated with neoconservatism were pushing for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton was signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with both neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power. However, although sanctions, encouragement of insurrection, and enforcement of no-fly zones continued under Clinton and then Bush, no such action was taken until after the Iraq disarmament crisis of 2003.
Proponents of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 sought to compare their war to Churchill’s war against Hitler, with speakers like United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld comparing Saddam to Hitler, while likening the tolerance shown Saddam to the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This represented a major turnaround for many conservatives, including Donald Rumsfeld himself, who in 1983 met Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz and declared that “the U.S. and Iraq share many common interests”. Prior to war, Bush compared Saddam Hussein to Stalin and Hitler and invoked the spectre of “appeasement.” Like the Nazis and the Communists, Bush said, “the terrorists seek to end lives and control all life.” But the visage of evil conjured up by Bush during his European trip was that of Saddam Hussein, not bin Laden, who many considered a greater threat. Iraq’s dictator was singled out as the “great evil” who “by his search for terrible weapons, by his ties to terrorist groups, threatens the security of every free nation, including the free nations of Europe.”
Following the release, on June 16, 2004, of the preliminary findings of the staff of the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the commission found no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks and no evidence of a “collaborative relationship” but did find that
* “Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime”,
* “A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994”,
* “There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan”
Further, the commission found that,
“With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did.”
Protesting the press’ “portrayal” of the 911 Commission’s statement, Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with CNBC television, insisted that “there clearly was a relationship. It has been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
