John Lloyd is a lefty Brit journalist who supported, and still supports, the war in Iraq and the “neo-conservative” foreign policy of which that war is the leading current expression. In a review in the New Statesman of some books that are part of an ongoing debate among British intellectuals, Lloyd asks, “What is neo-conservative foreign policy?” His answer:
The best thumbnail definition is the one given by Paul Berman in his hugely influential Terror and Liberalism (2003) and quoted by Oliver Kamm: “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others.” It is that coupling, of national security with the promotion of freedom, that has given neoconservative foreign policy its potency, and why it is likely to last through a change of power in the United States after George W Bush — certainly if the Republican victor is John McCain, probably if the Democratic victor is Hillary Clinton.
Virtually all Republicans have accepted this close nexus between promoting freedom for others and protecting our own security, as have a large number of Democratic voters. Democratic leaders, however, seem to be split into three groups: a small one represented (and possibly populated solely) by Sen. Joe Lieberman who accept the neo-conservative premise of protecting security through promoting freedom; an amorphous group who may accept that premise but who are afraid to admit it for fear of offending their “base” (angry Move-On activists and Soros/Hollywood moneybags); and the vocal Murtha/Pelosi/Dean/Boxer leaders, currently the voice of the Democrats, who loudly reject the premise and favor instead an array of “timetables” and “benchmarks” and general world-wide plans for “redeploying” out of harm’s way.
A wish in the process of coming true for the Republicans is for the latter group to maintain its prominence, continuing to cow the middle group and virtually ex-communicate the first group, a group with almost no Democratic leaders but many Democratic voters.
What is a Neo-Con???
This definition by Paul Berman, of Neo-conservative Froeign Policy is quoted in this review of Oliver Kamm’s Social Affairs Unit fits perfectly:”Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others.” It continues to amaze me…
I tend to go to the source of Neo-Conservativism to see exactly what they’re up to.
For example, look at the letter sent to the President on September 20, 2001 from the Project for the New American Century:
PNAC Bush Letter 9-20-01
Nine days after Al Qaeda launches the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil ever, the PNAC sees fit to include only two sentences on Osama Bin Laden. The rest of the text shows what their REAL goals are.
Straight from the horses mouth. Had there been full disclosure and discussion about this prior to the Iraq War, I doubt there would’ve been large support for it.
–Cobra