“I don’t espouse the view that I offered”

Yeah, you were for antisemitism before you were against it. But it is consistent with something you said previously:

“That probably doesn’t make any sense at all-sorry..”

Now we apparently expect better of the democrats, which is why you hear the word “bipartisan” so much from republicans lately.

And if Bush isn’t stupid, well, he’s no Eisenhower. Eisenhower listened to scientists. He relied on them. Now we have THIS guy in charge of our party.

Is this what we are, really? Do we want science itself to become a “liberal” stance? Are we the Amish now?

I like your blog. Keep it up.

No coherent argument, no facts presented, no examples given, no links, credible or otherwise, just a flat statement. Typical medium BDS. Advanced BDS involves name-calling and vulgarisms.
 

In his Afterword, he makes a cogent point about how civil wars start and how we could very well end up in one.

…everybody thinks it’s the other guy who would be the oppressor, while our side would simply “set things to rights.”

Rarely do people set out to start a civil war. Invariably, when such wars break out both sides consider themselves to be the aggrieved ones. … The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to “prevent” the other side from bringing about its supposed “evil” designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

I have seen “knife-sharpening” comments from Left and Right: “someday it’s gonna come to blows, you just wait and see…”

And on the Right, the grim reminder that the conservatives are better armed.

Right now it’s mostly confined to the blogosphere, but when it becomes the water-cooler talk… watch out.
.

Also, notice the demonization of their opponents. A prime example is Amanda of Pandagon/John Edwards. I’ve recetnly read many of her posts, and she doesn’t even attempt to rebuke any form of conservatism. The Religious Right just wants to keep her from having sex. Bush just wants to enrich his oil buddies. People defend the Duke Lacrosse players only because they’re rich white boys. The Catholic Church opposes birth control only because it wants more tithers.

Furthermore, this emphasis is a brilliant debating tactic. When discussing affirmative action, they need only say “you don’t care about black people,” so by defending yourself the topic is no longer on the merits of AA but instead on whether or not you “care.” As they bring up motivation, you end up playing defense.

Be not surprised by the hatred, Ms. Neocon, for their demonization of their opponents isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

But it’s to be expected from most who are so willing to dump the label on people. It’s easier to cry “Neocon!” as disparagement than deal with the substance of someone’s stance, or their argument’s legitimacy.

Of course, for those whose identity is not quite so invested in a fading ideology — e.g., your friend — such a bogey doesn’t have quite the desired impact. A calm discussion can often be enough to counter it, at least for a while. For the truer believers, however — e.g., the more obsessive and repetitive trolls here — it’s hard to see anything overcoming their increasingly desperate fear and their need to find some group to hate. They really are like lost souls.

Do you people ever look in the mirror?

Do you Justaguys ever look in the mirror?

Most neo-cons of my acquaintance are the standard “liberals mugged by reality” who knew that continuing to do the same things that didn’t work over and over and expecting different results because this time the “objective reality” planets were lied up, was an exercise in futility.

I’ve never been anything other than a conservative with the exception of a couple of years when I flirted with the liberal wing of the “Republican Party. I find that the most interesting neo-cons seem to be the ex leftists and the red diaper babies, followed by left liberals.

I am disgusted by the covert and overt anti-semitism directed at them but its’ been coming ever since the Palis became leftist darlings.

Dicentra, in some of the circles I move in, its’ gone beyond knife sharpening and moved into the realm of impatience for the dance to start; a sort of initial prep of the battle ground, just to sort things out.

This is something I’ve noticed a LOT in the last four years. For the conservatives, including neoconservatives, the main enemy has always been external. For the leftists, or at least the opponents of the war and the Bush administration, the main enemy has always been their political opponents in the US.

As for the Jewish thing, the fact is that Jewish individuals are prominent at practically all possible spaces on the political spectrum. The idea that attacks on neocons have a particularly anti-semitic tinge can easily be countered by examining attacks on liberals, or communists, or libertarians etc, all of whom have Jewish people as major figures.

Besides, the rather hysterical accusation flying from this blog (and others) against those who oppose neoconservativism (’They WANT us to lose. They HATE America.’) leads me to believe that it’s not al respectful disagreement on your side either.

Liberals and “progressives” scream the loudest about Bush shredding the Constitution and striping Americans of their rights. Only they are unable to tell you exactly which rights are being taken from them. It certainly couldn’t be the freedom of speech, they exercise that with abandon, not at all caring what effects their words have. More angry shock, the more vulgar the better.

Meanwhile, I hear that the new Democrat Congress, (Ohhh…that alone pisses them off!), is planning more “hate” crimes resolutions, which naturally, will not apply to the special political protected groups its meant to protect. Along with a “Fairness Doctrine” to demand traditional conservative talk radio make room for liberal views that couldn’t make it with their own separate networks. They often accuse us of being “Orwellian”.

Bunnies is right. Its about motivations and feelings that matter, not truth. Now, not all liberals are that way but most Ive talked to are. (Im friggin surrounded here). That’s why there must be such a degree of control on speech and thought. Liberals would like to tell you 2 and 2 equals 5. They even have scientific consensus that says so. You are a mean bigoted homophobic racist and your going to loose your tenure if you disagree.

If Bush is the guy who’s the oppressive dictator, he’s not doing such a great job of that either.

I think neocons have been treated with about the same level of hostility as communists.

The idea that attacks on neocons have a particularly anti-semitic tinge can easily be countered by examining attacks on liberals, or communists, or libertarians etc, all of whom have Jewish people as major figures.

No, the specific attack is that the neocons (especially at the top) are part of a Jewish plot. I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence over the US gov. While pointing out that Jews are prominent in other political movements (Karl Marx was Jewish) is a good counter to that argument, it isn’t the same as saying the communist party (etc.) is a Jewish plot. (Although some anti-Semites have made that claim as well — though I have only heard that claim when I specifically researched the history of conspiracy theories.)

Besides, the rather hysterical accusation flying from this blog (and others) against those who oppose neoconservativism (’They WANT us to lose. They HATE America.’) leads me to believe that it’s not al respectful disagreement on your side either.

It’s not hysterical when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is (they love what they could make it, of course). This isn’t nearly universal, but it’s prominent enough to be noticed.

This is best understood in terms of the paleocons, who seek a homogenous culture, protectionist economic policies, and isolationist foreign policies. Neoconservatism is optimistic, cosmopolitan, liberal in the classic sense, and globalist.

Rather than blindly support tradition, neocons make a distinction between traditions, and dare to believe the classics have something to teach us.

Our culture is dominated by the three prophets of collectivist-liberalism: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Marx thought that all social systems were a sham, and Freud instilled the idea that most reasons were simply rationalizations. Darwin provides the positive side of ideology, implying by his doctrine that everything is a raw struggle for power– the left’s relativist defense against a value-based politics is power itself.

Paleocons have nothing rational to say against that, except for kind words about Prudence and Wisdom. They say Providence has given us a great tradition, and if we deviate from it, we unleash the dark side of man. This argument is impotent when socialism itself becomes the tradition.

Neocons argue something different. One, like the classics, they see ought as implying is– Max Weber’s fact-value distinction is rejected. Secondly, neocons reject the Sophist distinction made through Rousseau and beyond about nature and society. Instead, neocons see men as born incomplete, as society as something that completes the programming.

So you can see why the kind of regime a society has matters to the neocon philosophy, while it doesn’t matter to the paleocon and the liberal-collectivist. You can also see why the Marxist pattern of exposing everything as hypocritcal is rejected, along with the value-free Psychological Man and the language of relativism, victimhood, and therapy that surrounds him. And the Darwinist spirit that everything is permitted identified as the self-destructive nonsense that it is — we are conscious beings, and the human soul that sits in judgment of itself has always been a problem for the crude materialist reductionist.

Also, there is a definite difference between what Darwin actually wrote and ‘Darwinism,’ particularly Social Darwinism.

Marx’s vision of the future was a society without order where groups existed without individuals– a formless, hazy dreamworld. Like Chomsky, Marx never spelled out how the perfect regime looks like. No positive program is ever offered, just a vision of heaven on Earth used to condemn everything on Earth.

I’ve read more than my share of Marx. I went through a socialist stage myself, and probably am the only one here who has read all three volumes of Das Kapital.

The claim that Darwin was not a Darwinist is a commonplace, and it is also false. Darwin was a Darwinist in the real sense of the term– a scientific racist in the worst way. Of course, instead of claiming Darwin was a man of his time, there is a hysterical effort to make Darwin out to be a saint, a defender of the truth against the powers that be. This happens because in the liberal-collectivist mythology, Darwinism is not a scientific theory explaining how events interlock, but an all-encompassing creation myth permeating down through every aspect of human reality.

This view may explain why the left has been so obsessed with quoting majority opinion as evidence of whether we are winning in Iraq or not. “Well, 57, 63, 72% of Americans think not!” That would be a fairly irrelevant measure of whether we were winning in Iraq. But it’s an excellent measure of whether they are winning the battle they are really fighting.

Really? Have there been major efforts in Congress to ban any party espousing neoconservativism as an ideology? Have people been hauled in front of investigative committees and forced to declare if they ever were a neocon and to name eveyrone else they knew who was a neocon?

‘I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence’

I’ve heard the same charge levelled at liberal Democrats, whose record of supporting Israel is exemplary. The fact is that Israel is a democracy (or so I’ve been told) and as such has widely divided public opinion on many issues. Both the Dems and the neocons tend to express views which in Israel would rang from the center to the center-right.

‘It’s not hysterical [to say the Left wants America to lose] when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is’

So you say. But, as I’m trying to make clear, the vast majority of them don’t see it that way. For one thing, the non-neocons don’t just include ‘the Left’ but the paleocons, liberals, centrists, libertarians, and any other political gradations I’m forgetting. That’s the majority of people. If the majority of people, by virtue of not being neocons, hates America and wants us to lose, we’re screwed.

Look, I realize that examining political prejudices apolitically is not easy, but I think if one really cares to examine how neocons and neoconservativism have been treated by their ideological opponents there’s really nothing unique about it.

1) I’m poskonig above. I didn’t realize I wrote under a different name, and yes, I’ll be consistent in the future.

2) To deal with the inevitable strawmen — Yes, I believe the theory of evolution has the big picture correct. Yes, I believe science more often than not delivers objective truth about reality — I have a Bachelor’s in physics. Yes, I think Ann Coulter is a moron.

But as a theory of human beings, Darwinism is hopelessly and inevitably incomplete. David Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales and Mary Midgley’s Evolution as Religion are good places to go for a secular critique of the doctrine.

Excellent point. The MSM has triumphed, it seems, in its disinformation.
Leftist illusions about Iraq or the Muslim threat have become the ‘voice of the people,’ as Pat Leahy loudly announced this week.

Are you poskonig? If not, I’m not sure why you’re telling me about Marx. What you say about Marx is true, of course, but has nothing to do with what I wrote.

If you have read all three books of Das Kapital, my hat’s off to you. You can deal with more intellectual pain than I.

JHB: The claim that Darwin was not a Darwinist is a commonplace, and it is also false.

No, actually it’s true. The scientists and philosophers and pundits who became ‘Darwinists’ in the 19th century actually rejected natural selection in favor of Lamarckism. Natural selection was Darwin’s contribution; if you reject that, you reject Darwin. But since Darwin’s “Origin” started the movement, they took Darwin’s name. (They were never picky about the facts, it seems.) Look at T.H. “Darwin’s Bulldog” Huxley, or nearly any of the scientists of the 1860s-1890s. Most rejected Darwin’s theory, even as they proclaimed Darwin their champion.

Darwin was a Darwinist in the real sense of the term — a scientific racist in the worst way.

This is not the historical definition. Use it if you like, but do not insist I do.

Of course, instead of claiming Darwin was a man of his time, there is a hysterical effort to make Darwin out to be a saint, a defender of the truth against the powers that be.

Yes, you are quite right about that. But that’s not how Darwin saw himself, and those who declared him saint and hero in the 19th and early 20th centuries REJECTED his main theory, natural selection. They took him up as their saint, but rejected him as a man. Those who lionize him today are mostly unaware of the history behind their claims, and how far it has been distorted by men like Draper and White, etc.

Yes, Social Darwinism has many flaws. But Darwin didn’t have much to do with its development. Read what Darwin actually wrote, then read Huxley and those who made ‘Darwinism.’ Two different things.

This view may explain why the left has been so obsessed with quoting majority opinion as evidence of whether we are winning in Iraq or not….

Very interesting point. I’ll have to think about that.

Ah, good point. I was thinking communists after 1970. I should have been more specific. Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.

me: ‘I’ve read a number of comments to the effect that they are part of Zionist control / influence’

LA: I’ve heard the same charge levelled at liberal Democrats, …

You’re still talking about individuals. The neocons, as a group, particularly as a group of presidential advisors, has been repeatedly accused of being a Zionist cabal. I have not heard this publicly about any other group, as a group, in the last 20 years or so, outside of statements by truly fringe radicals who see any power group as a Zionist cabal (or belonging to the Gnomes of Zurich, the Masonic rulers of the planet, the Illuminati, etc.).

me: ‘It’s not hysterical [to say the Left wants America to lose] when the left keeps taking actions that indicate they do indeed want us to lose, and that they really don’t like America as it is’

LA: So you say. But, as I’m trying to make clear, the vast majority of them don’t see it that way.

In that, I think you are right. They don’t see it that way, and I recognize that.

LA: For one thing, the non-neocons don’t just include ‘the Left’ but the paleocons, liberals, centrists, libertarians, and any other political gradations I’m forgetting. That’s the majority of people. If the majority of people, by virtue of not being neocons, hates America and wants us to lose, we’re screwed.

I didn’t write about ‘non-neocons.’ I specifically addressed the Left.

LA: Look, I realize that examining political prejudices apolitically is not easy,

Hear, hear!

LA: but I think if one really cares to examine how neocons and neoconservativism have been treated by their ideological opponents there’s really nothing unique about it.

I don’t know. I’ll have to think more about that part of your argument. Certainly, the treatment of Bill Clinton during the last years of his presidency is similar to how neocons are treated now. On the other hand, the hatred of the neocons goes beyond US borders, which hatred of Bill Clinton didn’t. But I guess we were talking about domestic politics …

I’m rambling, so time to call it a night.

No, and that’s precisely the point. Look, political enmities have always existed, and have frequently gone over the top, as happened with Clinton and the right in the 90’s for example. But that’s not really the point here. What’s bizarre about the left and the “neocons” lately is that the latter are singled out and attacked as a group, without any understanding of what its putative members have in common much less how they operate as a cabal. But that doesn’t make their situation unique, by any means — in fact, it makes it very similar to the kind of coded stigmatization of certain liberal and left groups by some of the traditional (i.e., paleo-) right, which saw them primarily as jewish dominated movements. So the contemporary use of “neocon” as epithet by the left is just another illustration of the disturbing parallels between this latter-day left and the much older right.

It is also true that Jews are overrepresented in ANY significant political or religious movement in the Western culture during last 150 years - after their release from ghetto, in all forms of Socialism (Marx, Trotzky, Bernshteyn), pacifism, feminism, existentialism, etc., just as in all opposite movements (Leo Strauss, Barry Goldwater), anti-Communism, etc. So what? This is a vocation of some sort, deeply ingrained in Jewish psyche, may be, on genetic level. And it is also a cultural trait, idea of “tikkun” as “correcting” the world. One need not suppose any “cabal” behind it - only admit that some tribes possess some specific traits and capabilities, both genetically and culturally. Does such admission makes anybody a racist? No. No more, than admission of obvious fact that black people are especially good at light athletics. Playing ideas is a sport of a sort, and no wonder some populations are naturally better equipped to it than the other.

Most of the ideas(as presented by neo-neocon) people have of neoconservatism are informed by a relatively small group within the United States - or rather, a network of elites from government, media organizations, NGO “think-tanks” - whose influence extended disproportionately within the Bush administration after Sept.11 2001 - an administration whose policies are widely regarded in negative terms - and in very observable and measureable ways.

These are the neoconservatives i.e Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, AEI, Cheney, Project for a New American Century, Daniel Pipes, the Weekly Standard, Kagan etc - who have become household names since the Iraq war(most for the wrong reasons), and whose ideas inform the general views of this ideology that are offered in said essay.

Now this particular sub-group may not be an accurate or fair representation of what neo-conservatism is supposed to be - but that is the valid framework where this ‘hate’ has come from.

And these views, I’d further offer, aren’t mostly informed by the ’strategic’ failures of the Bush administration in handling the Iraq war. The fact that most of this branch of neoconservatives has a high degree of Jews in it - or that the President is a fundamentalist Christian - doesn’t alone explain the extreme emotional rejection being discussed. But the fact that one of the central doctrines of these neoconservatives is the goal of advancing the military dominance of Israel and the U.S in the middle east - hegemony at any price - with the aim of securing and framing U.S interests with Israel’s.

Like it or not that is the dominant theme in neoconservatism as we know it today in America.

We shouldn’t equate the notions of “neocon: contempt for counterculture” with “paleocon: cultural homogeny” — I think the contempt would be a little more selective rather than having contempt the whole of counterculture?

This is one of the main misunderstandings of neo-conservatism by the left that neo-neo speaks of. Because neo-cons do not shy away from the use of military power - the use of overwhelming and aggressive force - this has led liberals to make many false assumptions about them, to wit:
1) They are heartless and cruel
2) They are power-hungry tyrant wanna-bes
3) Military power is an end, rather than a means (lies are the means)
4) We have much more to fear from them than from any outside enemy.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem so reluctant to use force that they are willing to accept any outcome that avoids it, no matter the cost. Perhaps liberals would say that is untrue, and they do understand that there may, theoretically, be a case where the use of force is necessary, but the real gulf between libs and neo-cons lies in where that line is drawn.

History has shown us that freedom and democracy really do need to be protected, sometimes by force, and that fear of using force sometimes just delays the inevitable battle. History also teaches us that people willing to use force with very good intentions can do a lot of harm.

But somewhere between those extremes is where we must forge our path, and I believe neo-cons are trying to do that, and I wish liberals would recognize it. They (libs) are needed, to prevent a swing to the other extreme, not to stop all progress.

In a couple of years they’ll come up with something else (probably shorter and more obscene), and “neo-con” will be consigned to the ash-heap of history.

They know Bush, etc., aren’t really a menace, but the Islamofacists are.

I don’t think the issue here — to the extent that we’re speaking of a genuine issue and not merely a carefully coded bigotry — is as simple as finding a line between untenable or unacceptable extremes, and hence I doubt that “libs”, as they’re presently constituted, are necessary at all. Since at least Wilson, there’s been a strain of foreign policy theory that’s sought to construct a world order in a top down fashion, by building big global organizations and padding them with the trappings of “law”. Once upon a time, this sort of “liberal internationalism” might have seemed at least idealistic, however unrealistic; now, in light of the abject failure of both the League of Nations and the United Nations, it just looks cynical or deluded (or both). “International law” is a mere facade, occasionally a useful cover for deeds that need doing, but lacking any of the legitimacy of actual law except in the minds of willing fools.

Neoconservatism, at least in its foreign policy mode, arose as a realistic alternative both to this seedy dream and to the overtly cynical, hegemonic realpolitik of Great Power “spheres of influence”. Instead, it proposed the gradual construction of a new world order from the bottom up, building democracy and the institutions that support it one country at a time. Which, in itself, has nothing to do with force. It’s simply that neoconservatives — unlike the vacant liberals for whom “force” would threaten to wake from their dreams — also don’t shrink from it when force is used or threatened against them or their allies.

Jen - It absolutely is a stated goal - and very much of the people that I have listed - in order to achieve the ideological goal of having the middle east composed of liberal democracies allied to U.S and Israeli interests.

The problem is that liberal democracy doesn’t always have the intended outcomes - observe the election of Hamas in Palestine - and not one of the people listed has, that I’m aware of, called for the inclusion of Hamas in the political sphere that they are ‘constructing’.

Military dominance is primary to the goal of protecting U.S/Israeli interests - if democracy doesn’t have the desired outcome than it is democracy that will be suspended and not military conquest.

To equate “liberal democracy” with “the election of Hamas in Palestine” is a prime example of your ideological blinders. If you believe that that election had anything to do with real “democracy”, then there’s no use in trying to discuss anything else of substance with you.

It’s kind of like the choice between the gas chamber and the firing squad; yes, it’s a choice, but hardly “democratic”.

Next, to address your points on this thread:

TC: Jen - It absolutely is a stated goal - and very much of the people that I have listed - in order to achieve the ideological goal of having the middle east composed of liberal democracies allied to U.S and Israeli interests.

Jen’s point was that it wasn’t THE goal, but a tool. Your point is that it is A goal, which gains a tool to be used towards THE goal, so you don’t really seem to be disagreeing with Jen here. Also, I would disagree with ‘and Israeli interests.’ For neocons, Israeli interests are only important insofar as they support the overriding US interest in having a liberal democratic Middle East.

The problem is that liberal democracy doesn’t always have the intended outcomes - observe the election of Hamas in Palestine …

Liberal democracy isn’t defined by having elected leaders. You’ve left off the ‘liberal’ part, there. Also, I think the Palestinian elections had an excellent result. It forced the Palestinians to decide, to have a hand in the making of policy, and therefore a stake in the outcome. The result may be bad, but it may be very good. We don’t know yet.

Military dominance is primary to the goal of protecting U.S/Israeli interests -

The spread of liberal democracy in the ME is the single most important US interest there. The neocons will use any means to achieve that, and are currently using everything from pure diplomacy to mixed diplomacy / military force. Military force has never been the primary tool, and nowhere are we using military force alone.

if democracy doesn’t have the desired outcome than it is democracy that will be suspended and not military conquest.

False. In fact, the US has repeatedly taken actions that hurt the cause of military dominance because those actions were seen as important for the nurturing of liberal democracy. E.g., letting Sadr go last year. This has been a big frustration for many on the pro-liberation side, but it has been necessary, IMHO.

Military conquest is and always has been irrelevant to neocons outside of achieving the goal of spreading liberal democracy.

In that sense, the neocons have a lot in common with communists; both groups are revolutionary movements who will use whatever seems productive to achieve their desired political goals. Those goals are different (and therein lies the biggest point of departure), but even the motivations - the spread of the power of the people, the end of oppression and tyranny, etc. - are very similar. Each has a favored economic system which is supposed to bring out the best possible social situation. Both movements are progressive, although the marxists are deterministic and the neo-cons are not. I’m surprised you don’t see this.

Also Hamas, contrary to popular perception, has shown some willingness to engage in negotiations with Israel(and has carefully observed ceasefires unlike the IDF, unfortunately )- there is enough there that calls into serious disrepute the Western reaction and treatment of Hamas - that has further inflamed the occupied territories and brought shameful suffering onto the Palestinians.

Anyway - gotta run - guy in pj’s- I’d like to respond to your post but I’ve got no time right now - hopefully later…

They’ve done so well with the cease-fire between them and Fatah, too!

Really, this is beyond ridiculous.

“We will never recognise Israel. There is nothing called Israel,” he told Reuters. “We, in the Hamas movement, will not abide by anything.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hamas-wants-West-to-end-blockade/2007/02/10/1170524329388.html

Great “negotiating” stance, don’t you think?

Right, because we know from the media, firing back constitutes breaking a cease-fire.

TC, the thrust of my point is not just that it is incorrect to call military power the goal, rather than an important tool, but that doing so deliberately misrepresents the neo-cons for the purpose of making liberals seem to have some moral high ground.

Liberals portray themselves as being caring humanists, while neo-cons are portrayed as vicious tyrants bent on world domination, whatever the cost. That argument relies on the incorrect assertions you have been making about neo-cons love of military power, for military power’s sake alone. When you take into account and understand what it is that neo-cons are truly working for, when you recognize that liberal democracies represent the highest standard of human freedom, prosperity and achievement in the world and that neo-cons want that for everyone, everywhere in the world, regardless of race or religion, then the libs’ so-called “moral high ground” is seen for the farce it is.

1). The use of U.S military power is the primary tool of the goal of promoting U.S and Israeli interests in the world. This is stated explicitly and clearly in neoconservative doctrine. I notice you haven’t provided any evidence to the contrary.

2)A secondary tool is the promotion of democracy - a distinct second. I’ve provided one clear example of such with Hamas - and there are others. But again democracy is only as relevant in that it promotes the original goal - securing U.S and Israeli interests in the region i.e “Securing the Realm”(are you familiar with the term”).

The topic isn’t about what liberals or leftists portray themselves as - that is a seperate issue. If you don’t like what are verifiable facts about the American neo-conservative movement this is not the fault of liberals or left-thinking peoples.

And I have to take issue with your use of such terms as ‘love’ and ‘hate’ for my description of neoconservatives - I’m taking about a serious examination of policy, and I’m not speculating on their emotional motives - or those of their critics.

You won’t find any liberals disagreeing with your assesment of liberal democracies - you will on the right - but you will find extreme rejection to the means…

And I’m avoiding the rhetorical, emotion laden partisanship.

It goes without saying that we’re talking about two bitter enemies with a history propping up that hatred - without any engagement and compromise we’re aren’t going anywhere….

“False. In fact, the US has repeatedly taken actions that hurt the cause of military dominance because those actions were seen as important for the nurturing of liberal democracy. E.g., letting Sadr go last year. This has been a big frustration for many on the pro-liberation side, but it has been necessary, IMHO.”

This doesn’t contradict that military dominance isn’t a goal. A goal means something you are striving to achieve something - looking at Iraq I think it’s clear the U.S hasn’t established military dominance - and that it had to deal with the devil - so to speak - doesn’t mean that it is going to compromise it’s goals by allowing a Shia dominated theocracy to take form(look at Hamas) - but as you say it was necessary in the short term(for military reasons)to do so(and we can see now with the coming war with Shia Iran that the goal has some way to go).

I think you’d be hard pressed to deny that neoconseravatives have a firm belief in military conquest to achieve their goals - tenuous links to communism that they may/may not have notwithstanding…