Wednesday, July 06, 2005

What are NeoCons?

Quotes by the Neo-Con "Empire Builders,"

Christian Science Monitor Special

In their own words

A collection of quotes by neoconservatives.

"A neoconservative is a liberal who's been mugged by reality. A neoliberal is a liberal who's been mugged by reality but has refused to press charges."

- Irving Kristol

"Change - above all violent change - is the essence of human history."

- Michael Ledeen

"Ultimately, this WTC/Pentagon attack is anchored to a terror network embedded in Saudi royal politics. I don't think we will win this war if we do not begin to honestly examine the full nature of Saudi politics and behavior. This is truly the key issue."

- David Wurmser

"American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles."

- William Kristol

"The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."

- Richard Perle

"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world."

- Robert Kagan

"Iraq is just one battle in a larger war, bringing down the regime in Iran is the central act, because Iran is the world's most dangerous terrorist country."

- Michael Ledeen

"On the outcome of the confrontation with Tehran, more than any other, rests the future of the Bush Doctrine - and, quite possibly, the Bush presidency - and prospects for a safer world."

- William Kristol

"Republicans are good at wielding power, but they're not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they're not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I'm in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party."

- Robert Kagan

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution [the traditional international system] that is not capable of defending us."

- Richard Perle
Neocon 101

Don't know much about neoconservatism?

Learn basic concepts.

Key figures

Who are these guys?

Profiles of top players.

Interactive quiz

Are you a "neocon"?

Expert Q&A

Two leading US foreign policy thinkers discuss

the neocon movement.

Max Boot

Walter Russell Mead

Birth of a superpower

Timeline of key events in the history of US foreign policy.

In their own words

Remarks from leading figures.

Spheres of influence

Neocon think tanks, documents, and periodical

Spheres of influence

Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents.

Top neocon think tanks

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Established in 1997 by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC's goal is "to promote American global leadership." Creating a blueprint for the US' current role in the world, PNAC's original Statement of Principles called for the US to return to a "Reaganite foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity."

American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Founded in 1943, this influential Washington think tank is known as the headquarters of neoconservative thought. In a crucial speech in the leadup to the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush said this to an audience at AEI: "You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds."

Jewish Intitute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)

Based in Washington, JINSA "communicates with the national security establishment and the general public to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel." Some of the strongest supporters of Israel's right-wing Likud Party in the already pro-Israel neoconservative circles are on JINSA's board of advisers.

Center for Security Policy (CSP)

CSP's 2001 annual report boasts of its influence saying it "isn't just a 'think tank' – it's an agile, durable, and highly effective 'main battle tank' in the war of ideas on national security." Securing neoconservatives' influence at the nexus of military policymakers and weapons manufacturers, CSP's mission is "to promote world peace through American strength."


The Hudson Institute">The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Ethics and Public Policy Center

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Top neoconservative periodicals


Describing itself as "America's premier monthly journal of opinion," Commentary magazine is widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing. Founded in 1945, this American Jewish Committee publication steadily gained ideological influence under the editorships of Iriving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, two of neoconservatism's founding fathers. Today, Commentary advocates passionate support for Israel, and regime change in at least half a dozen countries deemed hostile to US and Israeli security and interests.

National Review

Founded in 1955 by precocious conservative William F. Buckley, National Review promised to stand "athwart the path of history, yelling Stop!" AntiCommunist in stance, Catholic in judgment, Republican in preference, the magazine has weaned generations of conservative leaders. Its continued emphasis on traditional moral values and limited government put it outside the neoconservative camp, but in recent years, the magazine has increasingly adopted neocon attitudes.

The Weekly Standard

Weekly Standard editors comprise a "who's who" of neoconservative figures. Currently led by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the magazine has, since its founding in 1995, encouraged the cultivation of an American empire.

The New Republic

Like neoconservatism's own founding, The New Republic's roots tap into an unlikely intellectual resevoir. Begun as a progressive oriented journal in 1914, the magazine initially supported the Soviet Union and opposed the Vietnam war, but later supported President Reagan's foreign policy and both Gulf Wars. Today, its advocacy of a muscular, pro-Israel, pro-interventionist US foreign policy -coupled with its embrace of Democratic centrist domestic policies -make it a leading neocon voice.

The National Interest

The National Interest claims "it's where the great debates begin." Founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol, the quarterly journal examines international relations from a broad perspective that embraces social issues, religion, and history. Though it does not always promote neocon causes, the journal's editorial board is dominated by some of the movement's most influential voices, including Midge Decter, Samuel P. Huntington, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, and Daniel Pipes.

The Public Interest

When he founded the magazine in 1965, Irving Kristol defined the aim of The Public Interest: "to help all of us when we discuss issues of public policy, to know a little better what we are talking about – and preferably in time to make such knowledge effective." The Public Interest focuses more on American domestic culture and politics rather than international affairs. As a result, its contributors reflect a wide diversity of ideological perspectives.

Key Documents

Draft of the 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" [excerpts]

This classified document, which called for US military preeminence over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. After it was leaked to the media in 1992, it proved so shocking that it had to be substantially rewritten. Many aspects of this document are included in the US' 2002 National Security Strategy

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

Prepared in 1996 by a group led by Richard Perle for Israel's right-wing Likud Party and published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, this report called for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating "land for peace" with the Palestinians. It also advocated "reestablishing the principle of preemption."

"Toward a Neo-Reaganite foreign policy"

Published by Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1996, this neoconservative manifesto by William Kristol and Robert Kagan set the course for the modern neocon cause. By linking Reagan's foreign policy approach with neoconservative ideas, the authors energized Republican foreign policy and moved it away from both Pat Buchanan's "neoisolationism," or Henry Kissinger's "realism."

PNAC letter to Clinton

Leading conservatives, many of whom became senior officials in the Bush Administration, wrote this open letter to then-President Bill Clinton in 1998. The letter, sponsored by the Project for a New American Century, expressed the urgent need to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

PNAC letter to Bush

Written just weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this open letter from PNAC to President George W. Bush urging Saddam Hussein's ouster marked the beginning of a concerted effort by neoconservatives to persuade President Bush to take action against Iraq. The letter stated, in part: "...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9/11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." The relentless campaign worked. Within two years years, US forces would occupy Iraq.

President Bush's speech to AEI

Less than a month before the US-led coalition launched its attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, President Bush symbolically chose the de facto headquarters of neoconservative thought, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), as a venue to outline his vision for a new Iraq – and a new Middle East. AEI had been arguing for regime change in Iraq and democratization of the Middle East for over a decade.

"Beyond the Axis of Evil"

In this controversial May, 2002 speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton accuses Libya, Syria, and Cuba of actively developing weapons of mass destruction programs.

Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.

Below are some of neoconservatism's most influential leaders. Learn about their background.

Irving Kristol

Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist. From 1947 to 1952, he was the managing editor of Commentary magazine, later called the "neocon bible."

By the late 1960s, Kristol had shifted from left to right on the political spectrum, due partly to what he considered excesses and anti-Americanism among liberals. Kristol built the intellectual framework of neoconservatism, founding and editing journals such as tTe Public Interest and The National Interest.

Kristol is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of numerous books, including "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea." He is the father of Weekly Standard editor and oft-quoted neoconservative William Kristol.

Norman Podhoretz

Considered one of neoconservatism's founding fathers, Mr. Podhoretz studies, writes, and speaks on social, cultural, and international matters. From 1990 to 1995, he worked as editor-in-chief of Commentary magazine, a neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee. Podhoretz advocated liberal political views earlier in life, but broke ranks in the early 1970s. He became part of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority founded in 1973 by Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson and other intervention-oriented Democrats.

Podhoretz has written nine books, including "Breaking Ranks" (1979), in which he argues that Israel's survival is crucial to US military strategy. He is married to like-minded social critic Midge Decter. They helped establish the Committee on the Present Danger in the late 1970s and the Committee for the Free World in the early 1980s. Podhoretz' son, John, is a New York Post columnist.

Paul Wolfowitz

After serving as deputy secretary of defense for three years, Mr. Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq war, was chosen in March 2005 by President Bush to be president of the World Bank.

From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served as under secretary of defense for policy in charge of a 700-person team that had major responsibilies for the reshaping of military strategy and policy at the end of the cold war. In this capacity Wolfowitz co-wrote with Lewis "Scooter" Libby the 1992 draft Defense Planning Guidance, which called for US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. After being leaked to the media, the draft proved so shocking that it had to be substantially rewritten.

After 9/11, many of the principles in that draft became key points in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, an annual report. During the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz advocated extending the war's aim to include toppling Saddam Hussein's regime.

Richard Perle

Famously nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness" for his hardline stance on national security issues, Mr. Perle is one of the most high-profile neoconservatives. He resigned in March 2003 as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board after being criticized for conflicts of interest. From 1981 to 1987 he was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy.

Perle is a chief architect of the "creative destruction" agenda to reshape the Middle East, starting with the invasion of Iraq. He outlined parts of this agenda in a key 1996 report for Israel's right-wing Likud Party called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

Perle helped establish two think tanks: The Center for Security Policy and The Jewish Institute for National Security. He is also a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an adviser for the counter-terrorist think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and a director of the Jerusalem Post.

Douglas Feith

The defense department announced in January 2005 that Mr. Feith will resign this summer as undersecretary of defense for policy, the Pentagon's No. 3 civilian position, which he has held since being appointed by President Bush in July 2001. Feith also served in the Reagan administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense for negotiations policy. Prior to that, he served as special counsel to Richard Perle. Before his service at the Pentagon, Feith worked as a Middle East specialist for the National Security Council in 1981-82.

Feith is well-known for his support of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. In 1997, Feith was honored along with his father Dalck Feith, who was active in a Zionist youth movement in his native Poland, for their "service to Israel and the Jewish people" by pro-Likud Zionist Organization of America at its 100th anniversary banquet. In 1992, he was vice president of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Mr. Feith is a former chairman and currently a director of the Center for Security Policy.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby

Mr. Libby is currently chief of staff and national security advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney. He's served in a wide variety of posts. In the first Bush administration, Mr. Libby served in the Department of Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources), and, later, as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Libby was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century. He joined Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and others in writing its 2000 report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century."

Libby co-authored the once-shocking draft of the 'Defense Planning Guidance' with Mr. Wolfowitz for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992. Libby serves on the advisory board of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies of the RAND Corporation.

John Bolton

In February 2005, Mr. Bolton was nominated US ambassador to the UN by President Bush. If confirmed, he would move to this position from the Department of State where he was Under Secretary for Arms Control, the top US non-proliferation official. Prior to this appointment, Bolton was senior vice president of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. He also held a variety of positions in both the George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan administrations.

Bolton has often made claims not fully supported by the intelligence community. In a controversial May 2002 speech entitled, "Beyond the Axis of Evil," Bolton fingered Libya, Syria, and Cuba as "other rogue states intent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction."

In July 2003, the CIA and other agencies reportedly objected strongly to claims Bolton made in a draft assessment about the progress Syria has made in its weapons programs.

Elliott Abrams

In February of 2005 Elliott Abrams was appointed deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy. From December 2002 to February 2005, Mr. Abrams served as special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs.

Abrams began his political career by taking a job with the Democratic Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson. He held a variety of State Department posts in the Reagan administration.

He was a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute from 1990 to the 1996 before becoming president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which "affirms the political relevance of the great Western ethical imperatives." Abrams also served as chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. President George H. W. Bush pardoned him in 1992. In 1980, he married Rachel Decter, daughter of neocon veterans Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter.

Robert Kagan

Mr. Kagan writes extensively on US strategy and diplomacy. Kagan and fellow neoconservative William Kristol co-founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Kagan signed the famous 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

After working as principal speechwriter to Secretary of State George P. Shultz from 1984-1985, he was hired by Elliott Abrams to work as deputy for policy in the State Department's Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.

He is a senior associate at the Carnegie endowment for International Peace (CEIP). He is also an international affairs columnist for The Washington Post, and contributing editor at The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. He wrote the bestseller "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order." Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland, was chosen by Vice President Dick Cheney as his deputy national security adviser.

Michael Ledeen

Seen by many as one of the most radical neoconservatives, Mr. Ledeen is said to frequently advise George W. Bush's top adviser Karl Rove on foreign policy matters. He is one of the strongest voices calling for regime change in Iran.

In 2001, Ledeen co-founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. He served as Secretary of State Alexander Haig's adviser during the Reagan administration. Ledeen is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, where he works closely with Richard Perle. he is also a member of the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs' advisory board and one of its founding organizers.

He was Rome correspondent for the New Republic magazine from 1975-1977, and founding editor of the Washington Quarterly. Ledeen also wrote "The War Against the Terror Masters," which advocates regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

William Kristol

Son of "godfather" of neoconservatism Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol is currently chairman of the Project for a New American Century, which he co-founded with leading neoconservative writer Robert Kagan. He is also editor of the influential Weekly Standard.

Like other neoconservatives Frank Gaffney Jr. and Elliott Abrams, Kristol worked for hawkish Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But by 1976, he became a Republican. he served as chief of staff to Education Secretary William Bennett during the Reagan administration and chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle during the George H. W. Bush presidency.

Kristol continuously called for Saddam Hussein's ouster since the 1991 Gulf War. With the like-minded Lawrence Kaplan, Kristol co-wrote "The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission." He is on the board of advisers of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, established as a counterterrorist think tank after 9/11.

Frank Gaffney Jr.

Mr. Gaffney is the founder, president, and CEO of the influential Washington think tank Center for Security Policy, whose mission is "to promote world peace through American strength."

In 1987, President Reagan nominated Gaffney to be assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. he earlier served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under then-Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. In the late 1970s, Gaffney served as a defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson.

He is columnist for the Washington Times and a contributor to Defense News and Investor's Business Daily. He is a contributing editor to National Review Online, and Gaffney is also one of 25 mostly neoconservative co-signers of the Project for a New American Century's Statement of Principles.

Are you a neoconservative? Take this quiz to find out.

1. Which best describes your attitude about US efforts to secure peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

A - The US has compelling strategic interests in the region. America must be an "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians. By working with regional partners, the US can help bring about a secure Israel and a free state of Palestine. US efforts in the Mideast help its diplomatic standing in the world immensely.

B - It's an arrogant fantasy to think the US can "bring peace" to the Mideast. US reliance on foreign oil has embroiled it in crisis after crisis there. The people of the Middle East must set their own course.

C - Recent history shows that Arab countries respect power, not paper treaties that purport to trade "land for peace." In many ways, the road to peace in Jerusalem had to pass through Baghdad. In the wake of America's victory over Saddam Hussein, US negotiators have new leverage to demand steps toward peace. But the US can never tolerate terror. There will be no compromise on Israel's borders or security.

D - The US is morally obligated to stop Mideast violence. It's clear there is no military solution to the conflict. In order to broker the peace, the US must be more neutral. This means stop giving billions in aid to Israel, and start condemning its preemptive assassinations of Palestinian leaders.

2. The US campaign in Vietnam was...

A - A disaster. What threat did Vietnam pose to American security? More than 50,000 US troops died in support of a theory about "dominoes."

B - A failure. The American objective was strategically and morally bankrupt.

C - A quagmire. The US had the right strategy - it was important to contain communist expansion into Asia - but executed the wrong tactics. High casualty rates and low public support put the US in an unwinnable war.

D - A hard-won victory. US forces paid a high - but necessary - price to contain Communism in Southeast Asia.

3. What type of relationship should the US form with China?

A - The US must hedge China's rise to great-power status. The policy of preemption includes China, and US military leaders must strategically contain China's armed forces, while US policymakers maintain America's economic preeminence. Above all else, China must not be encouraged to think it can challenge America's superpower status.

B - China's bullying - of Tibet, Falun Gong, and Taiwan - is atrocious. America's "normalization" of trade with China has allowed it to continue its human rights abuses, while costing countless American jobs. The US must not sacrifice its moral high ground at the altar of trade.

C - China presents great potential dangers - and rewards - to American interests in the 21st century. While the US must affirm China's progressive steps and opening economy, it cannot ignore its repressive human rights behavior, trade violations, and bullying of Taiwan. Ultimately, opening China to American goods and services spreads American values that will influence China for the better.

D - The US should neither appease nor aggravate China. China is a bellicose regional power and its human-rights record is appalling. But it doesn't threaten US interests. The US must stop giving China preferential trade treatment and do more to protect American jobs, but it needn't contain or confront China.

4. How should the US approach relations with Iran?

A - The US must remember its history with Iran. Pro-West reform efforts - including the 1953 CIA coup that installed the Shah - incited the Islamic Revolution. US-led regime change would once again empower the most backward and hardline elements of radical Islam. The people of Iran must set their own course for freedom. Meanwhile, the US must turn to its EU partners to push for stricter inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

B - The US is simply not positioned to stop Iran's seemingly inevitable drive to acquire nuclear weapons. But as it did with the Soviet Union and China before, America can contain and deter Iran's mullahs and their nuclear leverage. Hard-line Islamic rule in Iran is bankrupt and doomed to failure - democratic reformers will eventually seize the day. Patience and pressure, not preemptive war should guide America's approach toward Iran.

C - Iran's hardline Islamic regime, proven connections to terrorists networks, and obvious desire for nuclear weapons make it a particularly dangerous threat. The mullahs who run Iran have repressed freedom at every turn, and show no evidence of ending ties to terrorism. To ensure that Iran does not threaten US security, American forces must be prepared to do to Tehran what they did to Baghdad.

D - Iran presents a serious foreign policy challenge. Most Iranians clearly embrace democratic reform, but its hardline Islamic government seems intractable. Aggressive support for reformer efforts may be unwise at this time. The US must make a concerted effort with its European and regional allies to pressure Iran's regime to cease its nuclear ambitions.

5. How should the US deal with the North Korea nuclear threat?

A - Seattle or Pyongyang? At some point soon, President Bush must decide which city he values more. The N. Korea nuclear threat is for real, and even tough negotiations with the US, China, Japan, and South Korea won't deter Kim Jong Il. The unpleasant, but only, option the US has is to prepare to launch a preemptive strike against select N. Korean targets.

B - The nature of the North Korea crisis makes the Bush doctrine inoperative. The region is such a tinderbox that military action taken against N. Korea could lead to a full-blown conflagration. However, China, Japan, and South Korea - working together - can apply enough pressure on Kim Jong Il to contain the nuclear threat he poses. For now, the US must rely on multilateral talks while it repositions US forces in the peninsula to make them less vulnerable.

C - The US has a moral obligation to battle both the starvation of North Korea's people and deter Kim Jong Il's nuclear threats. There's no easy solution, but the US can make progress with a carrot-and-stick approach of foreign aid and tough diplomacy. The US must work with the UN to keep Pyongyang in check.

D - US policy in the Korean peninsula is outdated. Why should US troops be sitting ducks for Kim Jong Il's million-man army and nuclear threats? After 50 years, it's time South Korea protected itself. There's no point in "talking" with N. Korea, and all-out war is unthinkable. The US must move its troops out of the demilitarized zone.

6. The war against Saddam Hussein's regime was...

A - Not America's finest hour of diplomacy, but a necessary and righteous action.

B - A political and intelligence farce, a diplomatic disaster, a human tragedy, and now, a growing quagmire.

C - Another example of America's costly imperial aims.

D - Long overdue. Bringing democracy to Iraq is the first great step in democratizing the Middle East.

7. What do you think of America's superpower status?

A - Unrivaled US power is crucial to America's defense. But using power to "Americanize" the world, act as policeman in the far corners of the globe, or to leverage trade agreements is sheer imperialism.

B - US superpower status was key to warding off Soviet aggression during the cold war. Today, however, that power is increasingly a liability. 9/11 was a vicious blowback to the US bullying around the world, especially its trampling on the Middle East.

C - American power was vital to the victory of freedom over totalitarianism. In the post-cold war world, American power is equally necessary to preserve peace, foster freedom, and expand global trade. To be effective, this power must be used selectively, with clear, pragmatic aims, and carry the weight of allied consensus.

D - American power can spread peace and democracy across the globe. The world can't put its faith in the United Nations to thwart terrorists and tyrants. Diplomatic history shows that all regimes recognize power. Only unrivaled US power, and the demonstrated willingness to use it, can create the conditions that allow peace and prosperity to flourish.

8. How should the US approach alliances with foreign powers?

A - When the US leads, the world follows. The world is too full of danger for the US to take its foreign policy cues from the UN Security Council, or even the consensus of European allies. American security and interests must not be compromised to mollycoddle US allies unwilling or unable to face up to evil threats.

B - To preserve this country's sacred sovereignty, Americans must heed President George Washington's warning against "entangling alliances." Washington knew then, and we must understand now, that ceding control to foreign nations, let alone a world bureaucracy like the UN, chips away at the essence of the American Republic.

C - The US needs its allies now more than ever. The UN may not be perfect, but it remains humanity's best hope of creating world peace. America's unilateral actions are hurting vital relationships with traditional allies in Europe, Asia, and across the globe.

D - The US must march to the beat of its own drum, but its power is sapped when it marches alone. Healthy multilateral relations are vital to effective US diplomacy. America may not always agree with UN policy or even its best allies, but it can't afford to act alone.

9. How can the US win the war on terrorism?

A - American hypocrisy and hubris led to the Sept. 11 attacks. To answer the question "Why do they hate us?" Americans must question the "might makes right" approach of US foreign policy. To win the war against terrorism, US leaders must remove the conditions that breed anti-American hatred.

B - Terrorists can't be negotiated with. They must be killed or captured. "They hate us" because they - Muslim extremists - hate freedom. In the post-9/11 world, the US cannot wait for "imminent" threats. It must aggressively - even preemptively and unilaterally, if necessary - wipe out terrorist networks and the governments that support them. At the same time, the US can work to emasculate terrorism by aggressively promoting the cause of freedom and democracy around the world.

C - As 9/11 so viciously illustrates, terrorism knows no boundaries. To win the war against terrorism, the US must lead a truly global effort to root out terror networks and compel broad-based reform for regimes that harbor terrorists.

D - The US should not apologize for spreading American values around the globe, but its imperial behavior helped inspire the terrible Sept. 11 attacks. The US must relentlessly prosecute terrorists and work to undercut regimes that support them, but to prevent another Sept. 11, the US must stay truer to its founding as a republic by protecting the American people and staying out of other nations' business.

10. Does the US have the right balance between foreign and domestic priorities?

A - President George W. Bush rightly made the nation's security his No. 1 priority after 9/11. The growing deficit is unfortunate, but increased spending is certainly justified. The US didn't start the war on terrorism, but it will finish it, even if that moves some domestic concerns to the back burner.

B - The US is spending billions per month to help Iraqis, but millions of US workers can't find jobs. Managing a global empire is unconscionably costly.

C - The billions spent on homeland security and far-flung bombing campaigns haven't made the US any safer. With the money it wastes killing civilians abroad and chipping away at civil liberties at home, the US government could provide health insurance to all Americans.

D - If the cold war was World War III, 9/11 began the opening shots of World War IV. This is no time to "go wobbly" by whining about the federal budget deficit. Compared with the sacrifices Americans made in WWII, there is little to complain about. The cost to win the war on terrorism may be quite high, but the US truly cannot afford to lose this fight.

Q&A: Neocon power examined

The Monitor asked award-winning author, US military historian, and self-described neocon Max Boot to discuss the extent of neocon power.

How much power do neoconservatives have within the Bush administration? Within Washington?

The power of neocons is much exaggerated – unfortunately. On the question of Iraq their views generally won the day. Not because they were all-powerful but simply because 9/11 brought various doubters including Bush and Cheney around to the neocon point of view.

But on many other issues the administration policy remains unsettled and neocons are by no means in the drivers seat.

One example: Iran. The neocon position is to push for regime change by encouraging Iranian democrats. Is this the administration position? Hard to say; some elements in the administration clearly favor this view – the Defense Department for one – while others, like the State Department, favor a more status quo policy. The president hasn't made a clear policy decision.

The reason why neocons are said to have so much influence is that their ideas are clearly and forcefully articulated – and they were proven right about so many things – such as the need to remain engaged in the world in the 1990s. I do think they have a lot of influence on the foreign policy debate but that doesn't mean that even in this administration they're going to win every argument over policy.

How does the push to implement a neoconservative vision affect the war on terrorism? Would a neoconservative America breed more terrorist attacks, as some critics fear?

A neocon approach to terrorism would address the "root causes" more, that being the lack of liberal democracy in the Muslim world and the surfeit of hate-spewing regimes. Encouraging democracy in Iran and other places would a centerpiece of this strategy. This would be combined with military attacks on obvious terrorist outposts like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Over time this dual-prong approach is more likely to deliver "victory" in the "war on terrorism" than any other strategy I'm familiar with. I don't see any evidence that it will breed more terrorists; on the contrary, it should reduce their number.

What type of foreign policy/security strategy would an Al Gore administration have set after Sept. 11? How different would it have been from the one that emerged from the Bush White House?

I think it's likely that the Gore administration would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. I think it's unlikely they would have invaded Iraq. That's the big difference.

The Gore administration probably would have deferred to the doubts of various European countries, the UN, etc. – everyone who was opposed to intervening in Iraq. In the short term, this might have been a smart strategy politically, in that the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power would not immediately be obvious (it would take him years to acquire nuclear weapons) while the costs of intervening (such as the continued guerrilla attacks on US soldiers) are immediately apparent.

But long term, I think the Gore approach would have been a continuation of the Clinton approach of letting dangers fester, and that this would have been an irresponsible policy from the longterm security needs of the United States. Of course there would be many similarities between the Gore and Bush foreign policies. Both would try to promote democracy, free markets, etc. Both would be willing to undertake humanitarian interventions in places like Liberia, both would try to get along with China and Russia, both would clash with some European nations over issues like Kyoto, etc.

How significant is the emergence of neoconservative thought within the broader history of American foreign policy? What kind of shift are we witnessing? Which American president best embodied neoconservative beliefs?

I think the emergence of neocon thinking is very significant. In essence, I think neocons combine the best of the two dominant strains of US foreign policy thinking: Wilsonian idealism and Kissingerian realpolitik. They have Wilson's devotion to promoting democracy while at the same time recognizing ” as Wilson did not – that this often requires force and that the US cannot rely on international treaties alone. Many presidents have embodied this thinking: both Roosevelts, Truman, Reagan, George W Bush.

What's next for the 'axis of evil'? How do neocon strategists intend to confront N. Korea and Iran? What about China?

I think North Korea and Iran are the two biggest threats to the United States at the moment because of their nuclear weapons programs and tyrannical governments. Our policy in both cases should be preemption –: not necessarily military preemption, which is a last resort, but rather seeking to democratize those countries so that they no longer seek to threaten their neighbors or the US.

In the case of Iran, we need to do more to back the democracy demonstrators who want to overthrow the mullahs. In the case of North Korea we need to more to bring pressure on the government to cause its collapse. Among the steps we should take: apply more pressure to South Korea and China to cut off all subsidies and fuel shipments to the North and also undertake selective intercepts of North Korean ships carrying illicit weapons and drugs, a main revenue source for the regime. Only if democracy eventually prevails in Pyongyang and Tehran can the West breathe easy.

China is a much more cautious state and not an immediate threat. Here, too, we should encourage the forces of democracy. Recent developments in Hong Kong are very positive. Eventually China may become a serious competitor to the US militarily but this won't happen for decades. We don't need to worry about China nearly as much as we worry about N. Korea or Iran.

Will neoconservative policies endure after Bush is out of office?

Yes. In the case of Iraq, regime change is something that both Democrats and Republicans are committed to. More broadly, I think there is a wide consensus in US politics in favor of what are essentially neocon policies of promoting US ideals while keeping America strong.

Is America comfortable taking on the role of empire?

It's hard to speak for all Americans. Some are, some aren't. I would say most are comfortable with the role but not the actual title "empire." America has been an empire of liberty – Jefferson's phrase – since at least the Louisiana Purchase.

Now we are acting like a liberal empire by getting involved in the internal workings of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and other countries. I think most Americans realize this is vital to our national security broadly interpreted – that if we don't address sources of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, instability, nuclear proliferation, etc., we will suffer a heavy price, as we already did on 9/11.

• Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Q&A: Neocons' niche in American history

The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.

Which leaders in US history would be neocons today?

It's possible that Teddy Roosevelt would be a neocon. I think it's almost certain he would have supported the war in Iraq. And he wouldn't have cared about the lack of a UN resolution. I'm not sure who else would be a neocon in foreign policy. In some ways [neocons] are very original.

Is there a particular point in the history of US foreign policy that reminds you of today's foreign policy environment?

In some ways, it reminds me of the period around 1946-47 when we were trying to figure out what the cold war was going to mean. The country realizes we have a challenge on our hands, but we're not quite yet sure how we're going to meet it ultimately.

There's also the period in the early part of the 20th century when it was clear that the British empire was not going to be as strong and the United States was growing. And you had people like Teddy Roosevelt and others beginning to think ... "What if America is going to become an imperial nation? What does that look like?"

What makes neocons unique throughout the history of US foreign policy?

When we think of Wilsonianism now, we tend to think of secular, humanist ideas - building a world government - sort of a Europeanist foreign policy. If you went back a hundred years or so, Wilsonianism was carried out by people like missionaries who thought that the way to make America safe was to make the rest of the world believe the way we do and act the way we do. But they weren't as concerned about the institutional aspect.

The neocons of today have sort of revived this older Wilsonian tradition. They are no longer concerned, say, about the United Nations, which is what we think Wilsonians are mostly thinking about ... or the World Court. In fact, they think that stuff gets in the way to some degree. But they are more concerned about basic American values and spreading those.

So it's a different Wilsonianism from what we've all grown up thinking about. It's non-institutional and it's values-based. To some degree, it's a conservative Christian value base. Even though many conservatives are Jews, the sort of basic values that they are promoting are very much the sort of Protestant, Christian values that were dominant in 19th-century America.

Do you think neoconservatives have had their "moment in the sun" with their successful push for a preemptive war against Iraq? Do you think that the broad support they might enjoy now will wane?

I think they're still in business. The weak spot, obviously, for them, is that ... if we are taking 20 casualties a month in Iraq a year from now, there may not be a lot of people thanking them for this. But, on the other hand, we were in the [Vietnam War] for years before people really turned against it. And even then, I think ... other than elite opinion ... the thing that bothered most ordinary Americans wasn't that we were fighting or that our strategy was too hawkish, but they couldn't see that we had a strategy for victory ... that it looked like it was going to be a deadlock forever.

It may well be that if the American people remain convinced that the war in Iraq is necessary for national security ... and even if the war goes on for a long time ... if they feel that we have a strategy that will win and that is necessary, people may support it for a very long time. It's hard to say. If it goes well, even after a while, the neoconservatives will be strengthened.

What would be some other factors that would put the neoconservatives out of business, or enhance their standing even more?

I think failure is always bad.... If the public judgment is, "We took their advice and we've ended up in a hell hole," then we won't be asking [neocons] for advice for a while. I think it's the public judgment on the success of the policies that they've proposed.

Where does world opinion factor into this?

Probably not very much. Except if you reached a point where the unpopularity of American foreign policy was in some way making it impossible for the US to conduct the policy that it wanted to. It's hard for me to see how that would happen.

What do you see as the neocons' biggest obstacles in the future?

They have the problem that all Wilsonians have. Wilsonians always want more foreign policy, in a way. If you think about democratizing the Middle East ... that's an incredibly tall order. That could take us a very long time. And it's not completely sure that everybody in the US is going to want to make those sacrifices ... especially if it involves troops, maybe not just in Iraq, but in other places ... some of whom will be getting shot at from time to time.

• Walter Russell Mead is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Dimming Light of The Neoconservatives

The public and probably those in power have become distrustful of the Neoconservatives. Characterized as former liberals turned conservative, the Neocons have diminished their credibility by sponsoring an ill-conceived and disastrous Iraq war that expanded terrorism, caused a loss of American lives and invited a decline in U.S. prestige. However, Neocons survive by not being directly allied to a particular political party and not being responsive to the demands of the general public. They are more allied to an agenda that presumes to achieve global stability by aggressively eliminating governments they consider alien to their concept of liberal democracy. An ideological bent allows them to constantly transform their allegiances and modus operandi. Buffeted by the vagaries of history, they shift their operations to re-guide history.

The neoconservative movement is not easy to define. Those considered to be associated with neoconservatism deny there is a coordinated Neocon movement. History relates a different story.

Who are the Neocons?The Statement of Principles of the Project of New American Century describes Neoconservative ideology:

· we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

· we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

· we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

· we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

In pursuing their agenda, the Neocons demonstrate a narrow vision of the world:

· They are concerned almost entirely with foreign policy and don't consider its relationship to domestic policy;

· They are insensitive to the plights in most of the world's nations, especially those of Central and South America and Africa;

· They omit the human factor in their plans and the effects of aggressive policies on the everyday life of the world's citizens;

· They don't consider the demands of the American public in their objectives ;

· They don't run for political office, but try to steer politicians to their views;

· They are elitist.

Attempts to portray the neoconservative movement as an extension of Wilsonian democracy fail to meet Woodrow Wilson's criteria for democracy: The elitist Neocons impose their vision of democracy and freedom on foreign peoples, ignore social and cultural restraints and deter the democratic choice of self-determination, especially for the Palestinian people.

Where Did they Come From?The Neocons are not new. They have tried to influence U.S. foreign policy since the1930's. They are not conservative. If conservatism means maintaining the status quo, then the Neocons, who advocate broad changes, are just the opposite. Furthermore, if the early pioneers of neoconservatism are those who eventually sought global stability through use of American power and promotion of its values, then the pioneers of neoconservatiam were radical leftists The more prominent devotees were followers of Leon Trotsky:

· James Burnham, founding editor at the conservative National Review and a vocal anticommunist figure of the Cold War era, started his political life as a Trotskyite. David Kelly, in a biography of Burnham, considers him the first neoconservative.James Burnham and the Struggle for the World: Daniel Kelly. ISI Books, 2002.

· Max Shactman, a philosophical founder of the Democrat Socialists, USA, that was guided for many years by Michael Harrington, gravitated from Trotskyism to Socialism and finally to neoconservatism. Shactman urged the Socialists to support U.S. funding of the Nicaraguan contras and support nuclear weapons in Europe and the Pacific.

· Irving Kristol, Distinguished Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a former editor of the once liberal Commentary magazine, is also considered a leading founder of Neoconservatism. In his memoirs:

...the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly; and correctly, designated as Trotskyist. Memoirs of a Trotskyist, Irving Kristol

· Leo Strauss, a guiding philosopher to Neoconservative thought has been credited with giving the Neocons the proposition that "not all lies are self-evident."

Strauss believed that the essential truths about human society and history should be held by an elite, and withheld from others who lack the fortitude to deal with truth. Society, Strauss thought, needs consoling lies.The long reach of Leo Strauss, W. Pfaff, Int. Her. Trib., May 15, '03

The heirs to the original Neocons claim they are only a coterie of loosely related persons with a common purpose. However, they are present as unified groups in many organizations, media and in the U.S. government. Some samples:

· Organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Empower America and Project for a New American century are only a few of many organizations that present the new conservative mindset.

· Government officials of prominent importance in administrations of the last twenty years and well-identified with the Neocon ideology include State and Defense department appointees Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and John R. Bolton, former CIA Director James Woolsey and previous Democrat and UN representative Jeane Kirkpatrick.

· The media well represents the voice of Neoconservatism in the writings of pro-war Campus Watch leader Daniel Pipes, syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan, media pundit David Brooks, Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and Commentary Magazine's Norman Podhoretz.

· News empires and television broadcasters, principally Reverend Moon's Washington Times and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, favor Neocon policies and personalities.

· Financial support of the organizations that favor the Neocons (as well as other conservative causes) come from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($489 million in 2002 and the largest contributor to conservatives), chemical and munitions profits of the John M. Olin Foundation and the banking and oil money of The Scaife Foundations of Pittsburgh.

The Euro Legal Services at describes the foundations that finance the Neocon organizations.

Although the Neocon personalities deny any structural connection between the Neocon government officials, columnists, media and organizations, David Lind, a former Neocon has described their close connections in an article: A Tragedy of Errors, David Lind. Nation Magazine, feb. 23, 2004.

PNAC is run by William Kristol, who edits The Weekly Standard, for which Brooks writes, and is the son of Irving Kristol, founder of The Public Interest and former publisher of The National Interest, who wrote a book called Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, and is married to the neoconservative historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, William's mother. Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary, is the father of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative editor and columnist who has worked for the Reverend Moon's Washington Times and the New York Post, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns The Weekly Standard and Fox Television. Norman is the father-in-law of Elliott Abrams, the former Iran/contra figure and former head of the neocon Ethics and Public Policy Center and the director of Near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council. Elliott's mother-in-law and Norman's wife, Midge Decter, like many older neocons a veteran of the old Committee on the Present Danger, was recently given a National Humanities Medal after publishing a fawning biography of Rumsfeld, whose number-two and number-three deputies at the Pentagon, respectively, are Wolfowitz and Feith, veterans of the Committee on the Present Danger and Team B, the intelligence advisory group that grossly exaggerated Soviet military power in the 1970s and '80s. Perle, a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (and its former head), is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and sits on the board of Hollinger International, a right-wing media conglomerate (including the Jerusalem Post and the Daily Telegraph) controlled by Conrad Black, the chairman of the editorial board of The National Interest, which Black partly subsidizes through the Nixon Center. Perle and Feith--both PNAC allies--helped write a 1996 paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," on behalf of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, Feith and the other US and Israeli authors called on Israel to abandon the Oslo process and to restore martial law in the Palestinian territories long before the second intifada began. Co-authorship is common among the neocons: Brooks and Kristol, Kristol and Kagan, Frum and Perle.

How did they Arrive to PowerAfter Roosevelt's New Deal policies prevented mass rebellion in Depression America and allowed capitalism to continue, the Trotskyites and other leftist groups shifted their energies to fighting their arch-enemy, the Communists. They became ardent anti-communists and cold war advocates. Their sympathy with Zionism's socialist roots and its liberal philosophy connected them to the state of Israel

The Cold War and continuous Middle East strife shaped a militaristic America to act as a watchdog of world peace and carelessly use war as a means to impose liberal democratic values throughout the globe. The events brought the Neocons closer to the military-industrial complex. Their hero became Henry "scoop" Jackson, a Washington Senator whose principal objective was to maintain a mighty U.S. military capability.

While slowly observing their foreign policy recommendations become realities, the Neocons received impetus from Israel's capture of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in the 1967 war. They now had a "liberal democracy" they favored in the Middle East, that could be used to combat Arab nationalism and repressive regimes.

President Jimmy Carter's egalitarian views, inattention to military imperatives, less tolerant policies to Israel's expansion and close reliance on international organizations disengaged the more conservative Democrats and many began to drift from the Democratic Party.

Ronald Reagan's presidential victory gave the Neocons a new home. They welcomed Reagan's strong stance against the Soviet Union, overjoyed at the collapse of the Communist state, supported the Iran-Contra affair and pushed Reagan to aggressively support the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and increase support for Israel. The Neocons became more expressive, more vocal and more self-assured.

Their policies of achieving global stability by eliminating from the world the governments they consider alien to their concept of liberal democracy (even by the use of military force), began to bear fruit with George Bush's invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf war,

The Neocons delighted when the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton's leadership moved to the center of the political spectrum. Max Shactman, who had shifted his allegiance from Trortskyism to Socialism and finally to neoconservatism, had stated: "The AFL-CIO is the only legitimate representative of the American working class, and the Democratic Party must become a more legitimate social democratic/labor party by 'moving to the center." The bombings of Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, America's incursion into Somalia and NATO"s attack on Yugoslavia (to bring peace and freedom to the Balkans) during Clinton's administration, were in the Neoconservative agenda. The selection of neoconservative Senator Joseph Lieberman as Al Gore's running mate demonstrated that the Neoconservative movement was not burrowing in but was being accepted from within.

By the time George W. Bush arrived to the presidency of the United States, the Neocons were on a roll to power. An intellectually weak Bush and the 9/11 terrorist attack catapulted the militarist Neocons into the highest echelons of government, media and "think tanks." On 9/12/2001, the Neocons had arrived. On 3/19/ 2003, the Neocons proudly observed the "day of deliverance," the culmination of their cleverly arranged scheme for the invasion of Iraq. They didn't realize that the invasion initiated their "swan song." Within one year, they were disgraced.Whither go the Neocons? The Neocons concentrated their rhetoric and energies on the world's "hot spots" - Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Israel/Palestine - tended to make each of them hotter and ignited them into incendiary situations. Norman Podhoretz, who recommends attacks on almost all Arab countries, and James Woolsey, who is still assured Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, argue that the U.S. is now in World War IV, a catastrophe they might bring about and then say: "We told you so." (It's a relief nobody else knows we are in World War IV or else there could be many casualties.) They still don't realize that the explosions they fostered are similar to those of "suicide bombers," maiming the carrier as well as the intended victims. The explosions generated by the Neocons have exploded in their faces. Rather than being called Neocons, it might be preferable to call them neowrecks or neoconks - one of a long line of groups that have steered American foreign policy into reckless adventures.

The desertion of followers won't deter them. They will step back, examine their errors, soothe their pain, metamorphose into new roles and devise an alternative strategy to accomplish their purposes. They won't give up. They'll offer advice on how to aggressively confront upstart North Korea, ballistic Iran, human rights violator China and out of control Russia

Questions: Have the Neowrecks latest efforts done permanent damage to the United States? Is the present trip of the U.S. military to Iraq, a voyage of no-return, a withering away of America's resources, prestige and ability to defend itself? Which will come first - the extinguished light of the Neocons or the dimming light of America?

So, what is a 'neocon'?

By Bill SteigerwaldTRIBUNE-REVIEWSaturday, May 29, 2004

What's the difference between "conservative" and "neoconservative"? Who are the "neocons," anyway? And were they, as some charge, an unduly influential cabal of intellectuals who talked President Bush into going to war in Iraq after 9/11 as part of their long-planned crusade to plant democracy in the Middle East?

To seek enlightenment on things neoconservative, I rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist:

Q: What is a neoconservative and who are they?

Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.

They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell.

In fact, one of the foremost neoconservatives, Norman Podhoretz, wrote an obituary for this distinction several years ago because it just seemed to no longer matter. We've seen the rise of it again, first of all, with John McCain's candidacy in 2000, where the segment of conservatives that supported Sen. McCain tended to have more neo-kind of tendencies and tended to sort of self-consciously describe themselves as "neoconservatives," foremost among them Bill Kristol and David Brooks.

Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.

And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn't exist currently.

Paul Weyrich: They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that.

Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to.

George Will: Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.

Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will.

In foreign policy, and here's where it gets interesting, they have a more ambitious, more confident approach to the use of power than regular conservatives -- if you see the symmetry here? They say that America is a nation uniquely equipped as the sole remaining superpower to order the world and spread our values, etc., etc.

Who are they? The ones most commonly mentioned are Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, maybe Dick Cheney and his aide, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith in the Pentagon, Bill Kristol.

Q: Is this a neoconservative war in Iraq?

Rich Lowry: No. We've editorialized about this a couple issues ago. It was a war of national interest, and it was broadly supported on the right for that reason. You had someone like (Rep.) Tom DeLay, who is as conservative as you can get -- he's an unhyphenated conservative through and through -- strongly supporting this. You had all factions of conservatism supporting it, except for a fringe represented by Pat Buchanan, and that's because it was a war of national interest.

Paul Weyrich: I don't think that you could make that case. Certainly, neoconservatives were pushing for this war. But Vice President Cheney was the principal proponent of the war. He is certainly not a neoconservative. The president himself made the decisions. He's not a neoconservative. There are any number of people in the administration -- Condoleezza Rice, for example -- who were very much in favor of the war but who are not neoconservatives.

On the other hand, neoconservatives were very involved in the planning and execution of the war -- Paul Wolfowitz being very prominent among them. Conspiratorialists could make the case, I suppose, that it was a neoconservative war. But I think it's much more complex.

Paul Gigot: No. It's an American war in Iraq. I don't think the Marines who are putting their lives on the line in Fallujah think of themselves as neoconservatives.

George Will: It had a neoconservative overlay, to the extent that it was a war -- however mistakenly -- based on the confident belief that there was a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that was not a distinctly neoconservative rationale.

Neoconservatives supported the war for that reason, among others. It's the other reasons where it acquired its neoconservative patina. The neoconservative patina is that Iraq should become a secular, pluralist, multiparty, market-oriented democracy with the power of its example to transform the greater Middle East. That's the neoconservative edition.

Q: Is it automatically anti-Semitic to single out neocons as being the planners and instigators of the war in Iraq?

Rich Lowry: No. No. It would be false. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic. It would be accurate to say that some of the most articulate and powerful expressions of the case for war have come from people who are neoconservatives. So that's not anti-Semitic. But if you take a couple of steps beyond that, you begin to get into territory that is a little shady, I would think.

Paul Weyrich: No. That is really outrageous. I really resent the idea that if you question who it is that planned the war -- just because you ask questions about them -- it is automatically anti-Semitic. It is not. It is legitimate to ask these questions. It is legitimate to have a debate about the legitimacy and effect of this war. If that means questioning some of the people who are involved in it, so be it. The president is a very committed Christian. Should we say that, "Well, we can't question anything that Bush does, because if we did it would be anti-Christian"? That's silly.

Paul Gigot: No. Unlike a lot of the people on the left, I'm not going to question the motives of people who use the phrase. I think a lot of people just use it as a short-term shortcut for anyone who supported the war. But in the mouth of some people, there is an anti-Semitic overtone. I would point to recent remarks by (Sen.) Fritz Hollings. He clearly was attempting to link support for the war to Jews who also support Israel -- and I think that's a slur.

George Will: It's not necessarily anti-Semitic. There is often an anti-Semitic twist to it, yes.

Bill Steigerwald is the Trib's associate editor. Call him at (412) 320-7983. E-mail him at:

Foreign policy The shadow men

Apr 24th 2003 WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition

War in Iraq has helped to create a new American foreign-policy establishment. Neo-conservatives are only part of it

IN 2000, a close-knit group of about 20 people took their places in the Bush administration, hoping to overthrow Saddam Hussein and spread American ideas of democracy throughout the Middle East. They called themselves “neo-conservatives” and, for two years, no one paid them much notice.

Now the tyrant has gone, and governments around the world are nervously wondering what this much suspected group of men mean to do next. With Baghdad still burning, the neo-cons' most senior official, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, popped up to say that “there has got to be change in Syria”. That comment ushered in two weeks of harsh diplomatic pressure from the Bush administration about the other Baath regime, though Mr Wolfowitz quickly added that “change” did not, in this case, mean regime change.

Such talk rattles chancelleries round the world. Those in power try to be diplomatic about their concerns. But Lord Jopling, a former British cabinet minister, spoke for many when he told the House of Lords on March 18th that “ have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the president himself.”

Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative writer living in Brussels, says “One finds Britain's finest minds propounding...conspiracy theories concerning the ‘neo-conservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. In Paris, all the talk is of oil and ‘imperialism’—and Jews.” A member of the French parliament quoted his country's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, saying “the hawks in the US administration [are] in the hands of [Ariel] Sharon”—a comment seen in some circles as a coded message about undue pro-Israeli influence exercised by neo-cons, most of whom are Jewish, at the heart of the administration.

So has a cabal taken over the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world? Is a tiny group of ideologues using undue power to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, create an empire, trash international law—and damn the consequences?

Not really. To argue that an intellectual clique has usurped American foreign policy is to give them both too much credit, and too little. American foreign policy has not been captured by a tiny, ideological clique that has imposed its narrow views on others. Rather, the neo-cons are part of a broader movement endorsed by the president, and espoused, to different degrees, by almost all the principals involved, from Vice-President Dick Cheney down (Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is a notable exception). Strands of neo-conservatism can even be found among some Democrats, which is why it makes sense to think that a new foreign-policy establishment may be emerging.

For the same reason, the criticism neglects the role of others. Near-consensus is found around the notion that America should use its power vigorously to reshape the world. Yet because parts of the neo-con agenda have been adopted by a president who is a mostly pragmatic decision-maker, and because the neo-cons themselves are politically astute, the neo-cons do not have things all their own way. They are powerful in so far as the president listens to them, rather than in their own right. The result is that American foreign policy is becoming a mixture of neo-conservative ideas, the president's instincts—and the realities of power.

How they grew

To see how this came about, start with who the neo-cons are. It is understandable that they are seen as a clique, because, to begin with, they were. The group started in the 1960s as a breakaway faction from the Democratic Party. This first generation emerged as critics of the liberal establishment of their day; paradoxically, considering their reputation as ideologues, their main complaint was that Democrats had lost touch with the practical results of their policies. The term “neo” (new) was an insult thrown at them by the left, but it distinguished them from “real” conservatives; one of their founders, Irving Kristol, joked that a neo-conservative was a liberal “mugged by reality”. Foreign policy was only part of the original neo-con agenda: social policy was at least as important.

The second generation of neo-cons is different. Few are Democrats or former Democrats. They are unapologetic Republicans. And while they retain distinctive views on domestic matters (for example, neo-cons were among the fiercest critics of the former Republican Senate leader Trent Lott, who was obliged to step down for making racist remarks), foreign policy is their focus—partly because their main social-policy proposals, such as welfare reform and the dismantling of affirmative action, have become mainstream.

The second generation forms a clique intellectually and socially, but not politically. Most come from similar backgrounds, whether professors (like Mr Wolfowitz and Steve Cambone, also at the Pentagon) or lawyers (like Doug Feith, the Pentagon's number three, Scooter Libby, Mr Cheney's chief of staff, and the State Department's John Bolton). They join the same think-tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where Richard Perle, perhaps their most flamboyant spokesman, is a fellow. They write for and read the same magazine, the Weekly Standard, edited by Bill Kristol, son of one of the neo-cons' founders. They co-author the same studies (five of the 27 authors of “Rebuilding America's Defences”, a highly influential report published in 2000, are in the administration). They are, in short, Washington talkers and intellectuals.

In most other countries, where foreign policy is made by permanent bureaucracies, it would be unthinkable for a small group of professors and lawyers to take any sort of policymaking role, let alone a dominant one. In America, with its traditions of entrepreneurial policy advocacy and political appointees, it is not so odd.

What is unusual is that the neo-cons are so different from the Texan business establishment gathered around George Bush. They also differ from the corporate chieftains the president hired for top jobs, such as Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (both former CEOs). Many neo-cons backed John McCain, Mr Bush's Republican rival, in the campaign; a few had even supported Al Gore.

So it was hardly surprising that, at the start, neo-cons were merely one among several groups vying for foreign-policy influence—and without much success. On the campaign trail, Mr Bush talked about a “humble, but strong” policy and was critical of “nation-building”—very un-neo-con stances. The dominant foreign-policy voice in the president's early days was that of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. Ms Rice's main concern was to improve America's ties with other great powers—a policy that, while part of the neo-con agenda, was hardly uppermost in it.

Even Mr Cheney, who was to become the neo-cons' most powerful backer, seemed to differ from them early on. As defence secretary under the first President Bush, he had supported the decision not to overthrow Saddam in 1991 (to Mr Wolfowitz's dismay). And he was on record as being critical of Israel and its settlement policies—anathema to the most pro-Israeli neo-cons. Even in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, when Mr Wolfowitz went to the president to argue his case that the terrorist attacks showed America needed urgently to address the threat of Saddam Hussein, he was fobbed off.

Intellect v chaos

So how did the neo-cons go from being one group among several to the positions of influence they now occupy? By articulating views that came to seem more important after September 11th 2001—but which many conservatives agreed with even before that.

Neo-cons start with the notion that America faces the challenge of managing a “unipolar world” (a phrase coined by a neo-conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in 1991). They see the world in terms of good and evil. They think America should be willing to use military power to defeat the forces of chaos. Admittedly, they go on to advocate democratic transformation in the Middle East, a view that is not shared throughout the administration. (This is an extremely radical policy, so not only are neo-cons not ‘neo', they are not, in the normal sense of the term, conservative either.) But that apart, their views are not so different from others in the administration.

Neo-cons are also energetic in style, preferring moral clarity to diplomatic finesse, and confrontation to the pursuit of incremental advantage. They are sceptical of multilateral institutions that limit American power and effectiveness; they prefer to focus on new threats and opportunities, rather than old alliances.

Again, these views are not unique to neo-cons. The trends have been visible in American policy since the end of the cold war. Indeed, as Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, opinion in the Republican Party has been shifting for longer than that. The movement away from Euro-centric east-coasters towards Sunbelt conservatives more concerned about Asia, Latin America and the Middle East began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the 1970s.

These common intellectual roots made it possible for neo-cons to maintain close ties with traditional conservative politicians such as Messrs Rumsfeld and Cheney. Though neither really counts as a neo-con, Mr Rumsfeld signed a letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging him to make removing Saddam Hussein and his regime “the aim of American foreign policy”, and the founding document of neo-con policy was the Defence Planning Guidance drafted for Mr Cheney in 1992 during his stint as defence secretary. Written by Mr Wolfowitz and Mr Libby, it raised the notion of pre-emptive attacks and called on America to increase military spending to the point where it could not be challenged. Ten years later, both ideas have been enshrined as official policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy.

The event that turned general like-mindedness into specific influence was the terrorist assault of September 11th 2001. “Night fell on a different world,” Mr Bush said. Neo-cons had long been obsessed with the Middle East and with “undeterrable” threats, such as nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Traditional Republican internationalists, who had less to say on either count, offered little intellectual alternative. As the old rule of politics says, “You can't fight something with nothing.” Mr Bush therefore embraced large parts of the neo-con agenda.

But not immediately. The decision to take on Saddam by force seems to have been made sometime between September 2001 and March 2002. In January 2002, in his state-of-the-union address, Mr Bush invoked the infamous “axis of evil”—which could have been lifted from a neo-con handbook. This February, he gave a speech to the AEI about building democracy in Iraq and encouraging political reform in the Middle East.

How much to blame?

Some Europeans seem to think the neo-cons' influence is a direct result of Mr Bush's inability to grasp basic foreign-policy ideas. The recent evolution of American policy does not bear out this patronising view. The new policy was adopted in response to a cataclysmic event. It enjoys support at almost every level of government, including Congress (the main exceptions are the State Department and serving officers in the armed forces). Above all, the new policy is defined by the president himself. The neo-con clique depends on Mr Bush, not the other way around.

Fine, you might argue, but this just shifts the focus of concern from the cabal to the consensus. Whoever formulates policy, it is still, say critics, inimical to the interests of (some) Europeans, international law, multilateral institutions and traditional alliances. Moreover, if policy is run by a coalition of people, of whom neo-cons are just the first among equals, then that raises questions about the stability of the coalition, and whether there are internal tensions waiting to erupt between neo-cons and others.

The worries about America's foreign policy are mostly about means and costs, not ends. Neo-cons want to liberate Iraq, spread democracy through the Middle East and improve counter-proliferation measures. Critics can hardly object to any of these, even if they do not care to focus on the aims as relentlessly as neo-cons do.

Europeans often attribute everything they dislike in American policy to the influence of this cabal. Yet to do so is obviously wrong: the administration's—indeed, America's—disengagement from certain international treaties long predated the neo-cons' ascendancy. It is true that neo-cons are more unsparing than most in their disdain for multilateral bodies that they think act against American interests. But their attitude to “entangling alliances” is pragmatic, rather than hostile across the board. Many, though not all, like NATO because of its role in uniting eastern and western Europe after the collapse of communism. When France and Germany held up a Turkish request to NATO for supplies of defensive equipment before the Iraq war, the administration found a way round the obstacle within the organisation, rather than acting outside it. The neo-cons' main ire is reserved for the United Nations and, sometimes, the European Union (see article) .

Clearly there have been big diplomatic ructions in the past year, notably in the Security Council over the second Iraq resolution. But it is hard to blame the neo-cons entirely, or even at all. The French and Russians were responsible for much of the bad blood, while the department largely responsible for American diplomacy in that unhappy hour was the very un-neo-con State.

The one area where neo-conservative influence may really prove inimical to the interests of others is Israel. Neo-cons are among Ariel Sharon's staunchest defenders. Most fear the “road map” will endanger Israel's security, and will do everything they can to stop it.

On the other hand, the map is itself an indication of the limits of their influence. If neo-cons really ran the show, as they are said to, there would almost certainly be no such map. That there is testifies to the other forces acting on Mr Bush: the State Department, the National Security Council, even Tony Blair.

These forces will continue to influence the president and moderate the neo-cons' power. This could be good or bad. Good in that the wildest flights of neo-con fancy will be grounded; bad if the result is policy incoherence. At the moment, the good outcome seems the more likely.

The limits of influence

Iraq is the neo-cons' test case. Military victory has increased the group's influence hugely; a serious reversal could undo it. But successful post-war reconstruction would embolden them to press the president to adopt other bits of their agenda. This does not mean sending troops to Damascus (the neo-cons write what they mean: they have always singled out Iraq, and no other country, for military action). Rather, it means putting pressure on Syria to stop supporting Hizbullah and on the Saudis to stop exporting Wahhabi extremism; and it means backing the internal opposition in Iran to the clerical regime.

But there will be constraints on getting this wish-list through. The neo-cons have waited more than ten years to reform Iraq. They will not lose interest in it, as happened in Afghanistan. But they could be distracted by, say, a crisis in North Korea or on the Indian subcontinent. They could be defeated in Congress over the cost of their plans, especially if the economy falters. Or fault lines could re-emerge with mainstream conservatives over how long to keep troops abroad, with the mainstream, backed by the cautious realists in the armed forces, demanding that troops return home as soon as possible.

Lastly, there is Mr Bush himself. His main concern is re-election, and he has already started to switch his attention back to the economy to avoid his father's fate. That may do more than anything to temper the neo-cons' influence.

European and other governments could add their weight to these countervailing trends if they chose. But, with the exception of Britain, they have not, preferring to demonise the neo-cons as a cabal. This is almost certainly a mistake. The neo- cons are not a marginal group. They are providing much of the intellectual framework for America's foreign policy. Barring a serious reversal abroad, that will continue—and demonising them will merely marginalise their critics.


Neocons and The New World Order

Filed under:


— @ 10:45 am

Written by Angela Valkyrie

What are Neoconservatives, what do they believe and why should I care?

Neoconservatives or “Neocons” believe that the United States should always feel free to use its forceful powers to promote its ideals around the world. Neocons speak of the need to cultivate a global US empire. Neoconservatives believe in a US ruled New World Empire or “New World Order.”

The original Neoconservatives were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left’s social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense to support the Israeli/US alliance of power. Many of these Neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson.

By the 1980s, many Jewish Neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach toward a New World Order in which America is the controlling Empire with Israel by its side.

Leftist Neocon, Irving Kristol once remarked, “a Neoconservative is a liberal who was mugged by reality and wants to press charges.” Meaning that Neoconservatives have a self-righteous revenge agenda, when it comes to what they consider to be the role of Jews in the world.

Both Jewish Neoconservatives and the Bush administration’s “Compassionate Conservatives” share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US empowerment in the Middle East. They see Israel as a key military outpost. Neo-cons believe that anti-Americanism and anti-globalization is unwarranted. Neocons advocate the entire destruction and rebuilding of the Middle East into a US dominated political and financial transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. “Compassionate Conservatives” are Christian Zionist Conservatives. Jewish Neoconservatives are Jewish Zionists.

The US/Israel occupation of Arab land and the security of Israel remains a fundamental principal to be upheld by Neoconservatives in the US Government who traditionally support whatever Israeli government is in power. Especially since 1993 and the Oslo peace accords, the US Government Neocons became much more closely identified with the views of the right-wing Likud Party which opposed the Oslo peace treaties.

The neo-conservative identification with Israel can be explained in part by its predominantly Jewish membership, but Christian neo-conservatives very much share the sense that a strategic alliance with Israel constitutes a moral imperative in a post-Holocaust era.

Even though there are a number of prominent Christian Conservatives who currently hold neo-conservative beliefs. These Christian Neocons prefer to call themselves by a term that George W. Bush himself coined, “Compassionate Conservative.” Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been split by these various movements within party lines.

It is important to note the differences between Party movements:

Once again it is important to note that the vast majority of Neoconservatives have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the largely Jewish-American Communist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which eventually morphed into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or actual political history. They want to change history in order to change the future. The Neoconservative agenda is frighteningly very Orwellian.

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘ Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan,’ controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered.”- 1984, George Orwell

These Neoconservatives call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really the Communist theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. A Genuine American Wilsonianism belief would be in the self-determination of people such as the Palestinians. Zionist Neocons don’t believe in the self-determination of anyone who is not Jewish and as such they are oppressing everyone in the world who is a non-Jew. It is a new tyranny of ism’s that the world has never seen before.

“The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has only established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in the place of old ones.”- The Communist Manifesto, Marx

Neoconservatives are currently oppressing the European-American poor and working class people of our society. Neither Compassionate Conservatives nor Neoconservatives care about Americans who they consider to be “poor White trash” and thus poor White people and working class White people are marginalized within American society more than they ever have been in the history of American politics.

This racism and classism against poor and/or working class White American citizens needs to stop. But, first it has to be recognized. At this juncture in American politics very few people are willing to recognize the oppression of White people. Eventually they will have to. It can not go ignored for long.

Now, the only big difference between a Compassionate Conservative and a Neoconservative is that Neoconservatives are Jewish and Compassionate Conservatives are Christian. They are both Zionists. The difference between a Conservative and a Compassionate Conservative is that Conservatives are not liberal on domestic polices. Compassionate Conservatives are liberal when it comes to domestic affairs. Conservatives tend to be Republicans while Neoconservatives can be either Democrat or Republican. Many Liberals disenfranchised by the Neoconservative infiltration of the Democratic Party have turned instead toward the Green Party. Weakening domestic Liberalism but strengthening Jewish Zionist foreign policy. In a sense true Liberalism has been forgotten and replaced by Neocon Zionism or what the media terms “Politically Correct” thinking which is not politically correct or even really Liberal.

True Liberals are not Zionists and do not support the belief that Jews are “the chosen people”. This is a racist theology and conflicts with Liberal thinking which is why the Neoconservatives stopped being Liberals. Neocons although they pretend to be Liberals are not Liberals in the true sense of the word.

Liberal – adj. 5. Tolerant of views differing from one’s own; broad-minded; specif., not orthodox. – Webster’s Dictionary

Neoconservatives are Jewish Orthodox Zionists and NOT Liberals.

How Jewish Liberals Became Jewish Neoconservatives

Liberals first applied the “neo” prefix to their Jewish comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. Many Jewish Neocons decided not to defect and remained Democrats who lean to the right on military and foreign policy issues. The liberal defectors who became Neocons still remained liberal on domestic policy issues. But these mostly Jewish liberal defectors eventually turned conservative whom we now call Neo-conservatives believe in the full military and financial support of the Israeli regime and the US as a strong neo-con Empire by Israel’s side.

And so it is this militant Israeli foreign policy stand that defines Neoconservatism. Jewish-American Neocons foreign policy interests include financial support for Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel. Jewish-American Neocons foreign policy interests include financial and military support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Not all Jews support these Neocon interests. Many Jews in American and in Israel are against the US and Israeli led slaughter of innocents in the name of this New World Order. Who are the Neocons to keep our eyes on? The leading Jewish-American Neocons who remain in the Democratic Party. Because these Jewish-American Democratic Neocons seem to be “liberal” with domestic policies they are the most dangerous, they mislead millions into thinking that they are truly liberal when they are not.

“I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness…”- Allen Ginsberg (Excerpt from “Howl” written in 1956)

Here radical Liberal Allen Ginsberg, of Jewish decent, refers to Liberals from his generation as having gone mad, because they have become Neoconservatives.

True Liberalism does not advocate the mass destruction of innocent lives for economic interests. Liberals do not support blood shed and global domination in the name of power, money, corporations and greed. If a Liberal tells you they do, they are no a true Liberal.

Neocon Democrats use what is considered “politically correct liberal” rhetoric to convince Americans that they are Liberal and the “War on Terrorism” and “New World Order” is defensive and not an offensive attack upon the world, these Jewish Dem Neocons are two-faced blatant liars. Although Jewish Neocon Democrats profess devotion to liberal democracy, they have never hesitated to assail “liberalism”, or what they sometimes call with their Christian Conservative allies “secular humanism.

And so, even while supposedly defending “liberal” and democratic ideals, the Jewish Democratic Neocon attitude is ambivalent. Neocons need to realize that they shouldn’t mask their hypocrisy by calling themselves Liberals. They can’t have it both ways. Their military support for Israel and their support of global imperialism combined with Zionism is contrary to true Liberal thinking. These Neocon Democrats are trying to convince people that they are Liberals in order to win the minority vote.

The Black Vote

Now, if the Democratic Party wants to win the minority vote, especially the Black vote, they need to have a candidate that is not a Neoconservative Zionist because the majority of Blacks understand and know what Zionism is and are generally against it.

The Blacks have had exposure to Farrakhan’s teachings which, although filled with Black Supremacist ideologies, does accurately illustrate Zionism. Blacks are very informed about what Zionism is. They understand it and they oppose it. Blacks recognize Zionism as Jewish racism. Blacks will not vote for a Democrat whom they feel is a Zionist Neoconservative.

Jewish Neoconservatives Are Zionists

Joseph Lieberman is a Jewish Democrat and Neoconservative. Technically, he is not a Liberal, he is a Zionist Neoconservative. Liberals are not Zionists. Neoconservatives are Zionists. These Neoconservative Jewish Zionists found a common ground with Compassionate Conservative Republicans. But still, there are differences between the two parties that have joined together.

“Republicans are good at wielding power, but they’re not so wonderful when it comes to the more idealistic motives of liberal internationalism. The Democrats are better at liberal internationalism, but they’re not so good at wielding power. I would say that if there were a Joe Lieberman/John McCain party, I’m in the Joe Lieberman/John McCain party.”- Robert Kagan – An Outspoken Zionist Neoconservative

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is a Jewish Democrat and Neoconservative. It is an unwavering fact that Neocons support the Zionist mentality.

Still, even with the Christian Zionists on board, the Zionist movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defines Neoconservatism over the past 35 years, Commentary, is published by the American Jewish Committee.

The Neoconservative stance on foreign policy is more specifically about Jewish-American interests abroad, such as Israel and Russia.

Neoconservatives admire the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy”.

And so it is … that the core group now in charge of the American governing system consists mostly of Jewish Neoconservatives. Many of them started off as radical extremist Liberals before moving to the far right. This may be a surprise to many, but actually makes sense if you think about it. On the political spectrum, the farther left you move, eventually you end up right.

Communism is a totalitarian governing system that many extremist Liberals advocated and even admired. Compassionate Conservatism and Zionist Neoconservatism is not a far stretch from this type of governing system in which the domestic affairs are over socialized in the guise of Socialism and foreign affairs are tyrannical in the guise of National Patriotism. Therefore Neoconservatism and “Compassionate Conservatism” is a movement more like its tyrannical Communist predecessor. Communism promoted a domestic pseudo liberal form of Socialism. Communism like Neoconservatism brainwashed it’s people to become over socialized and dependent on the government for food, clothing, everything all the time thinking that they are “free” and “independent” and “patriotic” when really they are not, they are slaves to tyranny. To be a slave to the tyranny of Neoconservatism is a dangerous thing for all of America and the entire world.

Christian Compassionate Conservatives and Jewish Neoconservatives

It is important for everyone to know that today, in this 2K Generation world we live in that both Christian Compassionate Conservatives and Jewish Neocons are very much alike. They both favor a US military that supports Israel in its occupation of Palestine. They both favor a high military spending budget. They both favor liberal domestic issues. They both favor Global Imperialism. They both are in favor of a “New World Order” where the US and Israel are united. They both believe that Jews are the “chosen people in the Land of Zion” i.e. the Mid-East. But, unlike Jewish Neocons and their Compassionate Conservative Christian counterparts your average Conservatives express greater reservations about US military support of nation building in the Middle East. Jewish Neocons share no reluctance in their support of Israel and US domination and control of the Middle East and eventually the entire world. Conservatives tend to be more conservative about domestic issues than Jewish Neoconservatives.

Conservatives tend to feel that being concerned with foreign affairs more than domestic affairs is treason and Un-American. Conservatives tend to believe that America, within its borders, that is, America’s domestic affairs take precedence over foreign affairs unless there is an immediate threat. So you see Compassionate Conservative Christians are very different from your average Conservative. Compassionate Conservative Christians and Jewish Neoconservatives are both Zionists.

1973 – The OPEC boycott

Since the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s, the relationship between the US and the Middle East has revolved around oil, along with, after World War II, the status of Israel.

Ensuring access to abundant and cheap oil has topped the foreign policy agenda ever since. The catalyst for the 1973 boycott by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is the Yom Kippur War and US support for Israel.

Saudi Arabia lead a boycott against countries supporting Israel and oil prices went through the roof.

Boycotters demanded a complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territory. The boycott caused major economic upheaval worldwide, and pushed the US to the forefront of Israeli-Arab peace negotiations.

After OPEC’s boycott, every US president has been compelled to take an active role in Mideast politics and policy.

1982 - Reagan’s Evil Empire Speech

Reagan launched the largest peacetime military build-up in American history. Reagan withdrew all arms control talks with the Soviets, and instead pursued guerrilla movement military tactics around the world.

The Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed Star Wars, was the plan that reversed two decades of US defense policy by challenging the Soviet Union to a technological competition.

Targeting the Soviet Union as the “evil empire” reshapes the world’s strategic landscape. From then on, US foreign policy focuses more intently on the “evil” spheres that threaten US preeminence, underlining an addictive American “them against us” syndrome.

This Ronald Reagan “them against us” and “we’re number one” attitude of the 80’s resurfaced 20 years later with President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech.

Two very important Neo-con leaders in the Ronald Reagan administration; Abrams and then-UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.

And so, with President Reagan’s support, regardless of whether he knew it would lead to this or not, Neocons began to greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s, changing it forever.

“Israel is and must remain our closest ally in the [Middle East] region.”- “Israel and the Peace Process, Worth fighting For” Dan Quayle

“The United States should not allow its effort to help the peace process along to obscure its relationship with Israel. We may, and should be, an honest broker for peace, but we are not neutral between the two parties [Palestine and Israel]. We are interested in the peace process only to the extent that it results in a situation in which Israel finds itself more secure.”- “Israel and the Peace Process, Worth fighting For” Dan Quayle

“There are limited effective military responses to terrorism, and I certainly do not favor a wave of additional Big Brother-type restrictions on civil liberties that would do little to effectively curb the threat. But we have to remind ourselves that leadership is about making choices.”- Dan Quayle

Quayle, a remnant of the Reagan era, and his quotes from 1999, show early signs of what was to come under a religiously conservative Zionist run government.

“Time and time again, religion has infused political movements in America.”- “Religion and Politics, Worth Fighting For” – Dan Quayle

“…religious conservatives want to establish a theocracy.”- “Religion and Politics, Worth Fighting For” – Dan Quayle

These quotes illustrate early signs of common ideological thinking that would eventually lead to the Neoconservative and the Compassionate Conservative alliance.

But even with support from Republican Zionists like Dan Quayle and many others, the Neocons hit a bump in the road in the 1990s. Neocon cries failed to convince the Clinton administration to push toward Global Domination. Outside of Jewish Neocon and Christian Conservative think tank circles and Israel’s right-wing Likud Party, their calls for a regime change in Iraq and total military occupation of Palestine were ideas deemed too provocative and extremist by the political mainstream of the time, under the Clinton administration.

Bill Clinton was not a Neocon Democrat. He was a liberal Democrat. The Project for the New American Century urged Clinton to agree to an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with supposed links between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.

Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the US to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with US attacks. He ignored such letters. But, unfortunately, eventually, even for him, there where a few exceptions, where he gave into Neocon pressure, such as Clinton’s decision to launch isolated strikes at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, talks of preemptive military action was largely dismissed.

Despite being silenced by President Clinton who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, Neocons used the 1990s to hone their message, their so-called “politically correct” rhetoric and lies to brainwash Americans and successfully craft their blueprint for American World Domination.

Another corner of the Jewish Neoconservative US Government is occupied by several media empires. Neocon Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox Television network. His magazine the Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, acts as a mouthpiece for Neocons such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon’s government. The National Interest is a news agency now funded by Jewish Neocon Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger Empire in Britain and Canada.

The media network centered on the Washington Times is owned by the South Korean messiah and ex-convict, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by John O’Sullivan who once worked as an editor for Zionist Conrad Black in Canada.

Through media channels such as these and more, the Jewish-Neocon journalism filled with “politically correct” rhetoric and lies along with its Europhobic content, has succeeded in contaminating the US Conservative European-American movement.

The Neoconservative Zionist occupied pentagon was linked together in the 1990s by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly Standard offices. Using the Media PR television brainwashing techniques pioneered by their Trotskyism predecessors, the neo-cons promoted their Pro-Israel/US globalization and New World Order agenda. They also published a series of public letters, whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other Neocon members of the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the US to invade and occupy Iraq and to support Israel’s campaigns against the Palestinians. During Clinton’s two terms, these Neocon agendas were ignored. Bill Clinton frustrated Neocons and Conservatives alike. Neocons just couldn’t have their way with Bill. But, they eventually managed to get rid of him. But, Jewish Neocon long-time ties to Republican circles helped many Neocons win key posts in the Bush administration by crossing party lines.

Few Neocons supported Bush during the presidential primaries. They supported the Al Gore/Joe Lieberman ticket, mostly because of Lieberman not because they liked Al Gore. Al Gore does not favor a war for the sake of Israel. How Al and Joe ever managed to decide to run together is beyond me. As we now see, Al Gore is currently endorsing Deans run for the presidency and not Joe’s because Joe is a pro-war-for-Israel Neoconservative and Al Gore is not.

When Bush was running for the presidency the Neoconservatives feared that the second Bush would be like his father; a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the first Gulf war and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process and that his administration, again like his father’s, would be dominated by moderate Republicans instead of Zionist Neocons.

How did the Zionist neo-cons, Christian as well as Jewish, Republican as well as Democratic come to power and manage to capture and control the Bush administration?

Neoconservatives support Zionism and believe that Israel and the US should join forces in the domination of the entire Middle East. Zionism is the belief that Jews are the Chosen people and that “the land of Zion” or The Middle East was promised to them by G-d. Judea-Christian conservatives and Jewish Neocons who believe in this religious theory support a US/Israel led Global domination or “New World Order”.

What is ZOG?

The Jewish Neocons are everywhere; they are in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of the Israel lobby and have infiltrated the religious right, plus Christian Conservative circles, foundations and media empires. This Jewish Neocon US Governing System is what many people are calling the Zionist Occupied government or ZOG.

Simply said, ZOG is Zionist American Imperialism. It is the tyranny of the Jews.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs or JINSA

The major link between the Christian Conservatives, the Jewish Neocons and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud- supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush Administration’s liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a “pro- Israel activist”. While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborating with Perle, co-authored for Likud a policy paper that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories and crush Palestine once and for all.

Let’s break the Neocon Zionist Infrastructure down into groups:

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provide homes for Neocons when they are out of government. The money comes from foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations.

Current JINSA Leaders:

Norman Hascoe(JINSA President), Mark Broxmeyer (JINSA Chairman)Thomas Neumann is the Executive Director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs(JINSA).

Prior to JINSA, Mr. Neumann was the Executive Vice President of B’nai B’rith International. While at B’nai B’rith, he expanded activities to the USSR and Eastern Europe, creating a presence for that organization in that part of the world for the first time since before World War II. Mr. Neumann served as the National Director of the Intergroup Relations Division for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) from 1986-88. Prior to that, he served the agency as the National Director of Community Services from August 1, 1985, having previously been the agency’s Southwest Regional Director, responsible for the entire span of ADL activity in Southern Texas.

Board of JINSA Advisors include: David P. Steinmann (Chairman of JINSA Advisors), Honorable R. James Woolsey, Ambassador Peter R. Rosenblatt, Prof. Michael Ledeen, Elliot Abrams, Frank Gaffney and Jay Garner.

Michael A. Ledeen:

Michael A. Ledeen is one of the world’s leading authorities on contemporary history and international affairs. In a few years in government, he carried out some of the most sensitive and dangerous missions in recent American history. He has been profiled in the New York Times, and was the subject of a front-page article and a lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal.


Ambassador Rosenblatt (pictured above) has served and currently serves on the Board of several organizations. He was the founding member and board member of the Committee on the Present Danger from 1976 — 1993; the Coalition for a Democratic Majority from 1972-1993; the National Jewish Democratic Council from 1991-1995; and The Nixon Center from 1994 to present. Currently, Mr. Rosenblatt serves on the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Board of Governors for the American Jewish Committee, the U.S. National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Board of Governors for Haifa University in Israel, and on the Advisory Committee for the Search for Common Ground in the Middle East.


From 1967 to 1970, Mr. David Steinmann (pictured above) was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of that office.

Steinmann was a founding partner of the law firm of Ferziger, Wohl, Finkelstein and Steinmann practicing law in both Washington, D.C. and New York as well as before the highest courts in each of those jurisdictions and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Steinmann is Chief of Staff, Managing Director and Treasurer of American Securities, L.P., a merchant and investment banking firm in New York City.

Steinmann is Chief of Staff and Management Executive for the William Rosenwald Family Organization which is located in New York City. That organization oversees the business and financial interests of the Rosenwald Family. He has been with the Rosenwald Organization since 1976.

Mr. Steinmann is associated with many Zionist organizations: He is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and currently as Chairman of JINSA’s Board of Advisors. He is Chairman of the New York Board of Governors of the Middle East Quarterly and Treasurer of the Middle East Forum; a member of the Boards of the Center for Security Policy, the America-Israel Friendship League and the Golan Fund; a member of the Executive Board of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA); President of American Friends of Qatzrin; Executive Board member, Director and Secretary/Treasurer of the Donor’s Forum on International Affairs; a member of the Advisory Boards of the Center for Jewish Studies at Queens College, the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin and Insight Turkey International.




Tom DeLay - House Majority Leader (R-TX), the keynote speaker at the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)’s annual Justice Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner at the New York Hilton on November 16, said at the dinner that when he recently stood on the Golan Heights and looked out across the region, “I didn’t see any occupied territory, I only saw Israel.”

JINSA Senior Directors:Shoshana Bryen - Special ProjectsJim Colbert - CommunicationsMarsha Halteman - Corporate & Community Programs

JINSA Directors:Yola Habif - The Partnership NetworkKarla Jones - Operations

JINSA Managers:Leslie Edmonds - AdministrationDaniel Smith - Research & Communications

They can be contacted at:

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 515Washington, D.C. 20036 E-Mail -


Other NEOCON Org. LINKS related to JINSA:

The United Jerusalem Foundation:

Israel Defense Forces (IDF):


The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies:Eliot Cohen, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney and Thomas Donnelly

They can be contacted at: 1740 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036-1983 202.663-5600.

ZOA of Brooklyn:

Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America:

HADASSAH, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, is a volunteer Jewish women’s organization, whose members work to strengthen the American partnership with Israel. They mostly do lobbying, fundraising, gossiping, host kosher tea parties and hold Star of David quilting bees. They give all their fundraising money to the ZOA. Hadassah was founded in 1912 by Henrietta Szold.

The “Zionist Israeli News Connection” (ZINC) has been in existence since 1993 and is now looking for investors to start a news website.ZINC Director: Beni Mordecai:

This Year’s ZOA Awards:

The ZOA Brandeis Award recipients were Nina Rosenwald and Dr. Ben Chouake, who have been at the forefront of pro-Israel advocacy in Washington and beyond. Rabbi Moshe Zwick received the Zionist Educator Award for his extraordinary efforts to teach young Jews a deep and abiding love and knowledge of the Land of Israel. The dinner co-chairs were David Steinmann, former chairman of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and Sylvia Freyer, the prominent Jewish activist and philanthropist. The Master of Ceremonies was Dr. Alan Mazurek, chairman of the ZOA national board.

The Zionist Organization of America was founded in 1897.

Why are Christian Conservatives and Jewish Neoconservatives both Zionists?

Remember, the religious right (Right wing Jews and right wing Christian Zionists) believe that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. The Middle East is considered the Land of Zion. Zionism is the belief that Jews are the chosen people and all other human beings are inferior and as such have no rights.

“It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.”- Robert Kagan A Zionist Neoconservative

And so, it was to be, that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 would change the history of the world forever and became the catalyst that moved the Bush administration closer towards their dream of a New World Order and Neoconservative foreign policy that would outrage the entire world.

Many think that perhaps the 9-11 terror attacks where not a coincidence.

Just days after 9/11, one of the top Neoconservative agencies in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Bush agreed, choosing the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for the February 2003 speech where he declared that a US victory in Iraq “could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace.” AEI headquarters for Neoconservative policy had been calling for US control of the Arab world for decades.

Bush has completely rejected Powell’s advice on foreign policy. Powell did not advocate going to war. Bush looked toward Wolfowitz (”Wolfie”, as he calls him) for guidance instead (even before 9/11). Wolfie gave Bush something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad’s footsteps.

“The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of Neoconservatives.”- Richard Perle A Zionist Neoconservative

Also, another important item to note is that close Jewish relatives of the parents of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were killed during WWII in Germany. It appears that Wolfowitz’s Neocon Zionism is a reflection of his need for revenge and fueled by hatred.

It is not clear that George W Bush fully understands the Zionist strategy that Wolfowitz and other Zionist Neocon aides are unfolding. George naively seems to sincerely believe that there was an imminent threat to the US from Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, something the Zionist Neocon leaders say publicly but are far too intelligent to actually believe themselves. It seems that George W. Bush’s lack of intellect combined with his Fundamentalist Christian religious dedication to the Jewish people has led him to be brainwashed by the Zionist Neocon agenda. It’s important to remember here that not all Christians are Zionists. But yes, George Bush; Mr. Compassionate Conservative, and a Christian Zionist, is merely a puppet for the Neocon agenda that Dick Cheney plays a bigger role in orchestrating from his eternally “undisclosed location”.

Dick Cheney: Zionist Collaborator

The Neocons had a stroke of luck when Dick Cheney was put in charge. Cheney stacked the Bush administration with his hardliner allies. Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in with Cheney’s right-wing Neoconservative Zionist network; Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.

Cheney was on the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs’ (JINSA) board of advisers before becoming Vice President of the United States of America. Cheney’s JINSA buddies have joined him on staff of the US Administration. Richard Perle former JINSA associate is now chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and James Woolsey. Apart from producing propaganda, JINSA’s main activity appears to be arranging trips to Israel for senior retired officers who work for big arms companies supplying weaponry to the Pentagon and Israel. JINSA’s activities are helping to make the Neoconservative dream a reality.

The Neocons joyously took advantage of Bush’s ignorance and inexperience. The Christian Zionist Neocons took advantage of Bush’s Texas machismo, anti- intellectual, overt religiosity. When George W. Bush converted to southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis he began to sympathize with Zionist Christian ideologies. This along with his admiration for macho Israeli soldiers and an abhorrence toward liberals drew him closer toward Christian Zionism and Neoconservative ideologies. George Bush unwilling to label himself a Neoconservative for fear of abandoning his Christian Conservative roots decided to instead call himself a “Compassionate Conservative” which is basically the same thing as a Neoconservative.

George W: The Stupid “Good Guy”

George W. Bush feels he is doing “good” as the leader of his people. He whole-heartedly believes that he is leading a holy crusade against evil. George W. has been brainwashed by Wolfenstien, I mean Wolfowitz to believe in the concepts of a Zionist Manichaeism. Manichaeism is the notion that the world consists of a permanent struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark an idea which incidentally accords very well both with the thinking of Christian Conservatives and Jewish Zionist Neocons.

Important Neocon Figures

Important Neocon figures to be wary of: Inside this Jewish-American Neocon run government, the chief Jewish Neocon is Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. He is the Neocon defense mastermind of the Bush administration. Keep an eye on him.

Donald Rumsfeld is only an elderly figurehead who holds the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself is Jewish and it would be “too controversial” to have a Jew in charge of US support of Israeli defense. Others in power now include both Jewish Neocons and Christian conservatives. Such as; Douglas Feith, the number three at the Pentagon; Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney’s chief of staff; John R Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. On the outside are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the US to Saddam Hussein, without success.

The Neoconservative Jews and the Compassionate Conservative Christian Zionists have been broadcasting tons of propaganda on the TV, more now than ever before since, the capture of Saddam Hussein this December. As we approach Christmas it becomes more and more apparent the religious significance of this war.

As Michael Ledeen, a close collaborator of Perle’s at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told BBC, “I know the struggle against evil is going to go on forever.”

Good Against Evil?

As tensions increase around the world, many continue to contemplate who is good and who is evil.

I believe that who is “good” and who is “evil”, is always in the eye of the beholder.

The post 9/11-campaigns against Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that Jewish-American Neocon Zionists, feel that they are the “good guy.” Neocons self-righteously became even more zealous about foreign affairs after 9-11. They are especially concerned about foreign affairs that affect Jews and Israel.

Machiavelli, a favorite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote, “Men are more ready for evil than for good.”

Zionists feel that they are the “good guy” in the face of “evil” and therefore are not afraid to violently force regime change and reshape nations to their own ideological image. Jewish-Neocons believe the US must take aggressive military action to end anti-American and ant-Israel sentiments that they feel lead to “terrorist” activity, ignoring the fact that it is the US/Israeli destruction of other Nations that creates anti-Americanism and Anti-Israeli Nationalism.

One person’s terrorism is another person’s revolution. But, still, even after 9/11, many Christian Compassionate Conservatives (who believe that Jews are the chosen people of God) are still VERY frightened by the Jewish Neocon Zionists and view their plans as overzealous with Armageddon-like nightmarish consequences too terrible to even imagine. Many Conservative Christians look toward the Pope for answers;

“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”- Pope John Paul II

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

This highly controversial topic of Zionist Neoconservatisim and The New World Order dilemma is all very shockingly horrific and not often discussed out of fear. To openly discuss Zionism Neoconservatism and The New World Order agenda is to be labeled anti-Semitic or anti-American. But everything I say here in this essay is true. And the truth must be told.

Political Parties Blurred

Political parties are no longer simply divided by party lines, you see. Christian Conservatives and Compassionate Conservatives within the Republican Party are working together with Jewish Zionist Neoconservatives within the Democratic Party toward the same agenda; Christian Zionist and US/Israeli Global Domination.

To be a Democrat is no longer a simple thing. The Democratic Party has become split between Democratic Neocons and Democratic Liberals. This has forever fractured the Democratic Party and its principles.

You can not vote for a candidate solely based upon which political party he or she belongs to anymore. You have to look further and find out where he/she stands on foreign policy issues and domestic issues in order to find out what he or she’s political stance really is. Yes, politics has gotten more complicated and the world with it has gotten even more complicated. It’s not so easy to point the finger of blame anymore.

The Jewish Neocon Dream World

In a Jewish Neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be ruled by Israel and the US and other allies. This approach, they believe, is not only better for the US and Israel; it is better for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed by Israel. And with military force, not peace treaties. Neocons believe that any Nation or group that is outwardly hostile to the US and Israel are a threat and should be confronted aggressively. Many of these Anti-Israeli Nationalism groups are being accused of anti-Semitism which is ridiculous because Arabs are Semitic.

In the Neocon dream world The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East.

In the Neocon dream world the US would spend more of its financial resources on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. Less money would be spent on domestic affairs. This would make the American economy suffer but Neocons believe that it would pay off in the end when America and Israel rule the world side by side.

Jewish Neocons believe that this New World Order dream will happen because it is their destiny as the “chosen people.” Jewish Zionist Neocons believe that they can work with the United Nations when ever possible, but they must never be stopped from acting in the best interest of Zionism when it is necessary.

Post columnist Charles Krauthammer is a Neocon who wrote 15 years ago about the UN, “Let it sink,” he wrote. “It is corrupting.”

Jewish Neocons believe that world peace is only ensured by a powerful military capable of defeating any foe, the constant anticipation of new threats, and the willingness to preempt them. Neo-con Jews have consistently favored big defense budgets, a stance shared by the Christian Conservatives in which they formed an alliance with in the 1970’s. And so you have it; both Jewish Neoconservatives and Christian Conservatives both view peace to be distrusted, and all peace processes suspect.


“Peace doesn’t come from a ‘process’,” wrote Wall Street Journal editorial writer and Neocon, Robert Pollock last year in a column. According to Neocons, war is a natural state, and peace is a Utopian dream which induces softness, decadence and pacifism. WAR = PEACE. Sounds like something out of George Orwell’s, “1984” doesn’t it?

“Corruption of the national mission, combined with the myth that peace is normal, produces a solvent strong enough to dissolve the strength of our armed forces and the integrity of our political and military leaders”, Ledeen wrote in 2000.

Neocons claim that the purpose of Zionism is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestine are dismissed by the neo-cons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are all Nations of Semitic peoples, but bitter enemies with Israel because Israel wants to occupy all Arab land.

“Change - above all violent change - is the essence of human history.” - Michael Ledeen A Zionist Neocon

The Jewish Zionist Neocons and the Christian Zionist Conservatives (or “Compassionate Conservatives”) of the US Government are currently urging war with Iran next.

The Zionist Neocons will not stop until the “Land of Zion” i.e. The Middle East is completely occupied and under Christian and Jewish Neoconservative control and domination i.e. the New World Order.

As Catholic Neoconservative William Bennett wrote in a recent book, “America’s fate and Israel’s fate are one and the same.” It is important to note here that not all Catholics are Neoconservatives nor are they all Conservatives. Contrary to popular belief many Catholics are Moderates and even Liberals. Just as, not all Christians are Conservatives and not all Jews are Zionists. It is important to break these stereotypes when confronting the truth about who is behind all of this Zionist collaborative corruption in the US Government. One may not agree with the Liberal stance on domestic issues but it is important to note correctly that Liberals do not want to go to war in the name of Israel.


It is the Neoconservative Zionist and Christian Conservative Zionist (Compassionate Conservative) commitments to Israel that promotes war for the sake of Israel. They are fanatical about the righteousness of their so-called “holy war”. Also it is this common agenda, this ‘holy war” crusade that explains the willingness of Jewish Neocons to overlook any suspected or even imagined “anti-Semitism” of their Christian Conservative allies, whose own identification with Israel is based upon a “Christian Zionist” perception of Biblical scripture that recognizes a G-d-given right of the Jews to what both religions consider the “Holy Land”, at least until the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Jews don’t believe in Christ as the Messiah. The “non-Christian Zionist” Christian interpretation of the Bible would be that Jesus Christ came to save the Jews from sin and turn them toward Christianity so that there would be salvation and peace on Earth. This is why Christians celebrate Christmas. Jews view this Christian interpretation of the Bible as “anti-Semitic.” I suppose they believe Christmas to be anti-Semitic as well.

True Christians Oppose Zionism

Many leading Neocons have argued that Jews should not feel threatened the alliance between Christian Zionist Conservatives and Jewish Zionist Neoconservatives, because Christians Conservatives are not a threat to Jews. “Why would it be a problem for us?” he wrote some years ago. “It is their theology; but it is our Israel.” But the threat lies in that Christian Zionist Conservatives may find ere in their ways and go back to the true roots of Christianity again.

Below is a pictue of a map of Palestine in the time of Christ taken from the 1986 Saint Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible. Notice, contrary to Zionist beliefs, well-learned Christians know that Palestine existed long before Israel.

Israel is a Zionist nation that hates non-Jews. It is a hateful nation occupying and colonizing Palestine creating Palestinian refugees who have the right to return to their homeland.

Remember, not all Christians are Zionists. True Christians oppose Zionism.

Christians believe that Christ was the messiah who tried to save the Jews from their evil ways.

“I know the slanders of those who claim to be Jews and are not, but rather are members of the assembly of Satan.”- John - Revelations 2:09 – 2:10

Satan here represents evil. A good Jew is a Jew who follows Christ’s teachings. Therefore a good Jew is Christian. Christianity has nothing to do with ethnicity but everything to do with the way one chooses to live their life.

“Let us then pursue what leads to peace.”- Romans – 15:19

The first Christians believed that Christ wanted to save the world from evil. They called Christ the Prince of Peace. They believed that he alone could bring salvation to the world. Many Jews began to follow Christ’s teachings and converted to Christianity. The Jewish Zealots feeling threatened convinced an unwilling Pontius Pilot to crucify Jesus Christ. Christ wasn’t a threat to Rome, he was a threat to the Jewish Zealots.

The Bible is a book of collected writings by many of Jesus’ disciples. It has been translated many times and uses metaphors to send non-literal messages. A lot has been lost in translation and it is hard to be sure about what is written. But one thing is certain; the Bible has prophesized that the Jews would become a Synagogue of Satan and lead the world into an Apocalypse.

Christians are awaiting the 2nd coming of Christ to save them from Armageddon, the Apocalypse or end of the world. The bible also says that only God knows who the chosen people (who will be saved) are.

Over 2000 years ago, the Mayan calendar prophesized that the end of the world would take place on the exact date of December 24th,2003.

Whether these prophecies will come true or not is up for speculation. But, what I do know for sure is that on December 24th year 2003, millions of Christians (who are not Zionist Christians) will be celebrating a 2003 year old holiday commemorating the birth of the one they call “the prince of peace.”

Whether you are Christian or not, it doesn’t matter. On Christmas this year, please, pray for peace and good will toward men. That is what the true meaning of Christmas is all about.

“The peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds.”- Philippians – 4:07

Perhaps one day peace will come, people will really be free and I won’t have to write these articles anymore.

Merry Christmas Everyone! - Angela

Who Are The NeoCons?

Author: Diogenes

There is much talk of "NeoCons" in the media these days, but not many people know exactly who they are. Here is a partial list of the names of the people who have given the Bush Regime its foreign policy blueprint.

Elliot Abrams, Richard V. Allen, Gary Bauer, Jeffrey Bell, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Rudy Boshwitz, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Elliot Cohen, Seth Cropsey, Ivo H. Daalder, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Thomas Donnelly, Nicholas Eberstadt, Steve Forbes, Hillel Fradkin, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey Gedmin, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Buster C. Glosson, Charles Hill, Fred C. Ikle, Eli S. Jacobs, Bruce P. Jackson, Michael Joyce, Donald Kagan, Ronald Kagan, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Craig Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Robert Killebrew, Zalmay Khalilzad, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, John Lehman, I. Lewis Libby, Clifford May, Will Marshall, Barry R. McCaffrey, Joshua Muravchik, Steven J. Nider, Michael O'Hanlon, Mackubin Thomas Owens, Richard Perle, Ralph Peters, Danielle Pletka, Norman Podhotetz, Dan Quayle, Peter R. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert H. Scales, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Walter Slocombe, James R. Steinberg, William Schneider, Jr., Richard H. Schultz, Henry Sokolski, Stephen J. Solarz, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Leon Wieseltier, Paul Wolfowitz, Marshall Wittmann.

Please feel free to add the names of any other NeoCons I've overlooked.