End of the neo-con dream
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent
The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.
The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The
Project
for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into
disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown.
"The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a
voice-mail
box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap
things
up.
The idea of the "Project" was to project American power and influence
around
the world.
The 1997 statement said:
"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet
both
present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully
promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that
accepts
the United States' global responsibilities."
Among the signatories were many of the senior officials who would later
determine policy under President George W Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby - as well as
thinkers including Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podheretz and Frank Gaffney.
The neo-conservatives were called that because they sought to
re-establish
what they felt were true conservative values in the Republican Party and
the
United States.
They wanted to stop what they felt were the isolationist tendencies that
had
developed under President Clinton, and even under the pragmatic
President
George Bush senior.
They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New
American Century" might work.
They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking
in
them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States
just
as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had
transformed Europe and the Pacific.
Attack
Since so much was pinned on Iraq, it is inevitable that the problems
there
should have undermined the whole idea.
"Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever
returns,"
says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the
Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton
administration.
"Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to
produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says.
"The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a
region
that has been less than susceptible to democracy.
"Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception
and
horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own
ideas
and the incompetence of the Bush administration.
"George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well
maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons'
philosophy.
"It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world.
After
all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so
it
appealed to his character."
In-fighting
The fading of the dream has led to a falling-out among the
neo-conservatives
themselves.
In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth
Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been
on a
Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.
In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he
known
how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I
probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."
Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent
teams in the post-war era.
"Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but
together
they were deadly, dysfunctional."
Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said.
He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."
Defence and counter-attack
Other neo-conservatives defend their record, arguing strongly that the
original idea had an effect, and pressing the point raised by Perle and
Adelman that it was the execution of the idea not the idea itself that
was
wrong.
Gary Schmitt used to be a senior figure at the "New American Century"
project. Now he is director of strategic studies at the American
Enterprise
Institute (AEI), and he says the project has come to a natural end.
"When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is
why we
are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising
money
for it and it has already done its job.
"We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy,
that
it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy.
"Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we
had an
effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that
the
United States was 'the indispensable nation'.
"But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone
sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are
implemented. Obviously it makes life difficult with the specific failure
in
Iraq, but I do not agree with Richard Perle that we should never have
gone
in.
"I do argue that the execution should have been better. In fact, I
argued in
late 2003 that we needed more troops and a proper counter-insurgency
policy."
Indeed, not all neo-conservatives have given up all hope in Iraq.
The AEI, which has become the natural home for refugees from the
American
Project, is promoting an article entitled: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for
Success in Iraq".
The article calls not for a withdrawal of US troops but for an increase.
President Bush's decision is expected in early January.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm
--
Money.. What a concept!
|
