It's not just Republicans who share the neocon worldview. Joe Lieberman obviously does. But so does Chuck Schumer (still a big Iraq war supporter) and even Hillary (on Israel and Iran). So let's not be too sanguine, Dems. These types are not all GOPers.

Here is a link and a couple of quotes from a piece about the failed Neocons in the current issue of The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JDQPPDR

"One neocon sums up the prevailing mood in the movement. The neocons are a “laughing stock”. Their “embrace of power” has been “a disaster”. Once upon a time they commanded an audience among Arab democrats and European conservatives. But now they cannot make themselves heard above the din of criticisms of Iraq. The “surge” is a desperate response to failure. Many people see Messrs Kristol and Krauthammer as exhibits in a Ripley's Believe It or Not exhibition: they marvel that they can ever have been so influential, rather than want to follow their advice again."

"They are also being marginalised—or at least slapped down a bit—within the conservative movement. The “paleocons” have always disliked the neocons, sometimes (disgracefully) just because they are Jewish. But now they are being joined by conservatives of almost every other stripe. Realists dislike them for their destabilising foreign policy. Small-government types dislike them for their indifference to government spending. Libertarians dislike them for their preoccupation with using the state to impose virtue. Neoconservatism could well return to where it started—the intellectual property of a handful of families called Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan."

My first impression on reading Wright this morning was that it wasn't that the neocons were not actually for or even against  democracy it was that they saw democracy for what it has become. They were able to see beyond the idealized mythic version that many people think of when they think of democracy, they saw it as the market place it is, a market place where money could buy elections. And here's the kicker, democracy still carries the idealized connotation and importance in the public mind so it could be cynically used, exploited for their ends, while at the same time be a fig leaf to hide behind, nay a flag to stand in front of.

We live in a Democracy (or are supposed to), yet look at it. Neo cons are using our military to facilitate what William Kristol calls a "robust foreign policy", Bush practically does what he wishes, big money rules politics, corporate America and the Corporate executives are runing wild, people who used to be regulated by government are now running the government departments that once regulated them; open borders, deregulation, free trade, globalization, the new world order, are all causing the public to join a race to the bottom, the idea that an expanding economy lifts all boats is an anachronism, and we're now seeing the destruction of the American dream, 'the idea that our children will have it better than we did.'

This is the version of "Democracy" Bush, William Kristol, and the neo cons want to spread around the world.

don't confuse the administration's shifting sales pitch for the war in iraq with the longstanding views of neoconservatism. while the neoconservative agenda of spreading democracy like a reverse domino theory is fundamentally based in old-fashioned hegemony, there is no denying that the neoconservatives imagine themselves johnny appleseeds of democracy. the glitch is of course in the nation-building and the extent to which they can game the system. this is where they 'misunderstand democracy'.

to underestimate the sincerity of neoconservative ideology is to underestimate its danger. like i said, the neocon view of democracy is hegemonic. it is about spreading american power and influence for the benefit of america through 'democracy'.

but 'democracy' doesn't mean the same thing to all people, though all sides believe themselves to be the true keepers of democracy. i certainly don't believe that the neoconservatives are the true keepers of democracy. but for all the corrupt and cynical (and not to mention idiotic) neocons, the ideology itself is idealistic (if misguided and wrongheaded), it is far too simplistic to imagine the neocons are nothing but hucksters looking to make a buck for themselves (there are far easier ways to make a buck).

your 'they's and 'these guys' about pakistan and saudi arabia confuse the agenda of neconservatism with the agenda of the administration. they are not one and the same. and while the neocons might suffer realpolitik as a necessary evil/means to an end, don't think for a moment that realpolitik is part of the neoconservative ideology.

However, Wright evinces the very worst of the American Left. Why is having military bases in Iraq, by definition in opposition to wanting democracy in Iraq?

Because American military bases are frequently opposed by the residents and population around them?

Because many people in foreign nations, particularly third world nations, experience a heavy presence of large American military bases as the source of a large outbreak of prostitution and particularly child prostitution, the drug trade, runaway growth of bootleggers, smugglers, thieves and crime, the nucleous of sex tourism?

I mean seriously. How do you think the Phillipines and Thailand became centres for international sex tourism and the child sex trade? Because their women are especially slutty? Give me a break.

A large American military base means large numbers of unattached men and very few women. In particular, it means large numbers of comparatively wealthy unattached men.

Large numbers of comparatively wealth unattached men mean an automatic boom in the prostitution industry and influx of prostitutes.

Prostitution is often a difficult, high stress, dangerous and risky undertaking. In many of these countries it is a low status undertaking and women are frequently lower or second class citizens. Which means that prostitutes are highly vulnerable to being robbed, abused, at risk for drug and medical problems, and prone to pimps.

It also require a certain amount of infrastructure and organization. Thus, hotels/brothels, bars, parlours, whoremasters of various sorts. All of the infrastructure is owned by men. Women, and particularly prostitutes, never have the capital for the infrastructure, they just work in it.

Now, of course, the laws of economics come into play. These are comparatively wealthy (in third world terms) unattached males. They're not indiscriminate purchasers. They want the youngest, the freshest, the most innocent looking (least worn, least diseased looking). This creates an inexorable market driver that selects for younger and prettier prostitutes. Indeed, it drives all the way to child prostitutes. Violence is employed to recruit and enforce discipline on increasingly younger and vulnerable prostitutes. More violence is employed for forced abortions, and to keep girls in line.

In short, quite by natural processes, a large American military base in a third world country fertilizes a large sex trade, and child sex trade, which in turn cultivates trafficking in alcohol and narcotics, criminal activities, violence of every sort.

You can see why the Phillipinos wanted to be rid of Clarke and Subic.

There's also the SOF Agreements which immunize American military from misdeeds upon the locals. Okinawa for instance has along history of grievances, including child rapes, against the soldiers. The South Koreans were upset by the fact that an American soldier 'accidentally' ran over two South Korean schoolgirls with a tank a few years ago.

This sort of history is well known. So in a truly democratic country, American bases may be one of those NIMBY things.

Moreover, Martin makes the point, and I agree with him, that the Iraqi's are not inclined to think highly of America's relationship with Israel, and this would be an obstacle to military placement.

And finally, I think that Martin is correct to assume that Iraqi's would not be happy with the notion of American bases in their country being used to project force or threaten other countries, particularly Iran.

Spreading democracy is an old "cover" used extensively by the US during the last century and now in this one to justify controlling the economies and/or governments of other countries to our advantage. (Probably the only people who ever bought the lie were Americans.)

It has been suggested by not a few people who know what they're talking about that one of our biggest mistakes in Iraq was to insist on that election. It was the catalyst, the Pandora's box that resulted in today's Iraq. If it was a neocon inspired move it would show them to be idiots, out of their league, out-of-touch-with-reality fools. If they are allowed to continue "spreading" democracy no telling how much further havoc the world will be thrown into. Someone needs to put a padlock on the AEI.

"The question for progressives to decide is how much of the neocon mission is wrong. Do we oppose the messianism, unilateralism and militarism of the neocons or (as many on the left have decided in the wake of Iraq) do we reject the entire premise that liberal democracy is the highest form of government that all people, regardless of culture, deserve to enjoy."

the fundamental problem progressives have always had with neoconservatives is their right-wing militarism. progressives have never abandoned their support for liberal democracy. progressives just don't believe that liberal democracies can or should be established through militarism. this is why the neocons broke with the left and became neoconservatives in the first place. it doesn't seem to me that there are any questions left to be decided. if anything, the answers progressives have consistently given have simply been proven correct.

I also wish that the Neo-cons agenda was really about "securing Israeli control of Judea/Samaria (i.e. the "West Bank"). I say this as someone who believes that this is the only way to secure peace and prosperity for both Jews and Arabs in the region.
Unfortunately, the neo-Cons supposed support for Israel is not, as some here seem to think, "unconditional". Neo-cons such as Charles Krauthammer and Elliott Abrams were enthusiastic supporters of Sharon's disastrous destruction of the Jewish communities in Gush Katif (Gaza Strip) and the northern Shomron. (almost everyone in Israel
today, including the Left now admits it was a disaster, bringing on the Lebanon II war and the endless rocket attacks and kidnappings emanting from Gaza). The neo-cons view Israel as an appendage of the US and of value as long as it serves what they perceive as US interests, or more specifically, President Bush's interests. Now, President Bush's closest friends and allies are the Saudi Royal family and the various Sheikhs and Princes in the Persian Gulf. All of these are quite hostile to Israel and in fact, Bush's friends, the Saudis are the biggest purveyors of genocidal Judeophobia in the world today. Thus, as President Bush is pushed over the years to press Israel for dangerous, reckless concessions that only increase the dangers of war, in order to pacify his Arab friends, these neo-Cons line up behind him and parrot the demands that Israel make these concessions. Another example was when Krauthammer, no great friend of the almost entirely anti-democratic Arab world, started saying that those who opposed Bush's plan to sell control of the US ports to IIRC Dubai, were "racists".
Thus, I who would no doubt be regarded as an Israeli "right-wing extremist" do NOT view these neo-Cons as serving Israel's interests and I think it is incorrect to attribute neo-Con policies as particularly serving Israel's interests when in reality they are all gung-ho America First patriots, period.

Weird. There are American military bases in Germany, Italy, Britain, Greece, South Korea and Japan, all democracies.

There have also been massive organized protests against the presence of American military bases in South Korea, Japan, Greece and Italy.

You might want to wander down to Okinawa or South Korea and ask around about how popular and well liked American military bases are.

It's noteable that all these bases that you mention were established out of the second world war, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Germany's bona fides as democracies is questionable, given allied occupations around the time that the bases were being established.

Poland and the Czech Republic are asking for NATO membership, not US bases.

Ask yourself about the prospects for establishing a brand new American military base in Ireland, or Iceland, or New Zealand, Australia, Western Europe, or any long term democracy. Pretty thin, I'd say.

There are also bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and regular port facilities in Egypt and Israel.

All amazing bastions of Democracy, I'm sure.

Of these, Kuwait's base is solely a result of the Gulf War, which you must admit are special circumstances. The Bahrain base derives from the 'Tanker War' phase of the Iran/Iraq War, though I could stand to be corrected on that.

No doubt there is some friction with the local population (actually in Japanese Okinawa there are a lot of problems but the Japanese are not asking the Americans to leave).

Raping thirteen year old girls is 'some friction'? Interesting. I must remember that euphemism.

Of course, we both know the role that the United States has played with respect to Japan's security. So this makes it difficult for Japan to really challenge or remove bases that have been in place for sixty odd years.

But I'll ask you, what are the prospects for the United States getting new bases in Japan?

Thus, many people, particularly democratic ones seem to LIKE having American bases, viewing them as protection against totalitarian agression, regardless of what Noam Chomsky might think.

Out of the twelve countries you cite, four (Germany, Italy, South Korea and Japan) were under or emerging from American military occupation when the bases were established.

Five were under, or underwent, military governments, monarchies, or other non-democratic governments (Greece, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, South Korea) when the bases were established.

Two of the governments you mention, Poland and the Czech Republic, are NATO not US military bases.

This leaves you with Britain and Israel who welcomed military bases. Two out of

And I'm not Noam Chomsky.

You were saying?

By ROBERT WRIGHT
Published: April 24, 2007

Neoconservatives have been airing an explanation for the failure of the Iraq war that’s so obvious you’ll wonder why you didn’t think of it yourself: the war wasn’t neoconservative enough.

Last week Richard Perle, on “The Charlie Rose Show,” echoed what his fellow neocon John Bolton told the BBC last month: We should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis much sooner. Then, presumably, the power of democracy to blossom pronto in even nutrient-depleted soil — the neocon élan vital — would have kicked in.

Nice try, but they’re just digging themselves in deeper. They’re highlighting a paradox within the neocon game plan that would have doomed this war even if it had been run competently (enough troops, a dollop of postwar planning, etc.).

On the one hand, we were going to bring democracy to Iraq. On the other hand, we were going to use Iraq as a platform for exercising military power. (Days after Baghdad fell, the neocon Weekly Standard festively titled an article “There’s No Place Like Iraq ... for U.S. Military Bases.”)

But wait. What if the Iraqi people, once empowered by democracy, decided they didn’t want their country to be a U.S. aircraft carrier? And isn’t that pretty likely? After all, America is bound to use bases on behalf of itself and key allies, and one key ally is Israel. What were the chances this would sit well with an Arab Muslim nation — not with the small ruling class of an authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia (our previous aircraft carrier) but with a whole electorate?

Maybe if we had resolved with miraculous speed the tensions besetting Israel — from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran — U.S. troops could have stayed in the Iraqis’ good graces. But neocons weren’t exactly pushing for dialogue on those fronts. They were going to let their new aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Iraq, do the talking. And surely Iraq’s majority Shiites would applaud the use of their soil to threaten Shiite Iran, right?

Meanwhile, neocons, and the Bush administration broadly, were endorsing the policies of Ariel Sharon, whose assertive policing of the occupied territories was proving counterproductive, helping to radicalize both Palestinian opinion and, via Al Jazeera, Muslim opinion globally.

You can empower people through democracy if you want. You can systematically antagonize them if you want. Doing both at once is ill advised.

Critics murmur that neoconservatism is “all about Israel.” I wish! Then the damage might be confined to one region. Alas, the neocon paradox — empower people and enrage them — is global. Neocons want to make China democratic ASAP; meanwhile, they pass the time arousing anti-American Chinese nationalism with vestigial cold war rants. Fortunately, they won fewer intra-administration battles over China than over the Middle East.

Even if neocons weren’t bent on spreading democracy, their chronic inflammation of world opinion would be unhealthy, because much of the world is already democratic and more of it will probably become that way.

But leave democracy aside. There’s another reason grass-roots opinion matters crucially.

A confluence of technologies, from the Internet to biotechnology, is making it easier and easier for far-flung hatred to assume organized form, intersect with weapons technology and constitute unprecedently potent terrorism. This growing lethality of hatred may be the biggest long-term problem we face.

Here’s a response favored by many left-of-center and right-of-center thinkers. Address the “demand side” — the desire to obtain and use nuclear and biological weapons — by reducing the number of people who hate the U.S. and the West. Address the “supply side” by improving arms control.

Neocons take the opposite tack: degrade the arms control infrastructure (the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, etc.) and antagonize the masses.

You can even do both at once! President Bush undermined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by agreeing to give nuclear technology to India, a nonsignatory. This ratcheted up anti-Americanism in Pakistan — a Muslim nation with nukes, jihadist recruiters and an unstable government.

Neocons have their own formula for controlling arms: invade countries you think may have them. Of course, this approach will have to grow more cost-effective on repeated application if America is to warm up to it. But — who knows? — maybe we just need to make the next few wars more neoconservative.

Robert Wright, author of “Nonzero,” is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and runs the Web site Bloggingheads.tv.

There are more one set of progressive answers.  There is a Wilsonian answer, which says that neocons fundamental mistake is their unilateralism and over-reliance on militarism.  However, Wilsonians generally believe democracy promotion should be significant policy preference and that multilateral intervenionism is necessary (and in the case of Darfur e.g., under-utilized.) 

Jeffersonians on the other hand agree that democracy is the best form of government, but believe that the U.S. should primarily focus on modeling it for the rest of the world, and refrain from trying to export it.  The neocons in their mind are simply dead wrong about just about everything.  If this means making common cause with the realists, than so be it; better James Baker than the Truman Project.   

Certain progressives such as David Rieff that were formerly Wilsonian, now hew a Jeffersonian position as a reaction to the Iraq debacle and the "complicity" of the liberal Wilsonians who lent support to the war.  The majority of the active commenters on this board (as well as the progressive blogosphere) are Jeffersonians.  They like to define Wilsonians as "neo-cons" or otherwise compromised by Iraq and therefore claim that the Wilsonian policy wonks need to be purged from the Democratic ranks. 

mhpine, you questioned the accuracy of MJ's understanding of neocon history. The difficulty in talking about "the neocons" arises because the neocon movement of the last decade or so isn't entirely monolithic, as it may have been in the Podhoretz days. The meaning of the term, "neocon" has evolved since the end of the Cold War.

MJ is correct regarding how the "A Clean Break: Securing the Realm" paper prepared for Netanyahu in 1996 (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm), eventually resulted in a coalescence of their ideas. This ultimately led to the creation of the PNAC in 1997 and the later position paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," (pdf available at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf )of 2000, in which the project was expanded to the entire world, as opposed to the earlier Cold War focus on the Soviet Union. That said, where some neocons' focus is heavily weighted toward Israel, the movement has also attracted many (Cheney is one prominent example) who were primarily interested in promoting U.S. hegemony throughout the world and aggressively remaking countries in our image, rather than Israel specifically.

You also said:

Do we oppose the messianism, unilateralism and militarism of the neocons or (as many on the left have decided in the wake of Iraq) do we reject the entire premise that liberal democracy is the highest form of government that all people, regardless of culture, deserve to enjoy.

The left can quite easily believe that liberal democracy is the highest form of government, while rejecting the idea that the U.S. should try to force other countries into "democracy" through an aggressive foreign policy. In other words, many on the left find the concept of "regime change" to be inconsistent with the very idea of democracy, if the change is brought about by elements outside the country itself.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Read Chalmers Johnson's trilogy for a different take about the feelings of local populations about the presence of American military bases.

Tom

I really don't find your analysis convincing. Even a cursory read of neocon thought shows a deep level of support for Israel. And Bush hasn't pushed Israel to do anything since he took office; his lack of action is an implicit endorsement of the status quo.
And yes, you sound like a "right-wing extremist."

Bush pushed Sharon to destroy 29 Jewish communities, uproot thousands of residents and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of their property, which Sharon obligingly did. Bush publicly committed himself to creating a Palestinian state although it is clear to everyone now that such a thing is not possible.
This is not "keeping the status quo". Also, don't forget the terror war during the period 2000-2002. Thousands of Israelis were killed or wounded, and Sharon kept saying there was nothing that could be done about it and Bush's minions publicly lectured Israel over minor security operations that were carried out. FINALLY,
after the Pesach Nite Massacre in 2002, Sharon was forced to move and Bush had no choice but to go along.

Some, maybe most of the neo-cons do have genuine feelings for Israel, but for all them, all of this is subordinated to American policy which is frequently at odds with Israel's interests, as is only natural with different sovereign states. And this is as it should be for American citizens involved in US government affairs. Israelis don't view these neo-cons as people particularly looking out for Israel's interests. However, my point is it is laughable to me to say that "Sharon controlled US policy", or the "neo-cons are Israel's puppets in Washington." Bush's chief interests and allies in the Middle East are the Saudi Royal family and the oil sheikhs, not Israel.

"...the idea that the neocon worldview originated in a 1996 briefing to Bibi is conspiracy mongering at its worst."

i don't know that it is 'conspiracy mongering at its worst' but describing 1996's "Securing the Realm" as an original manifesto certainly seems to mis-attribute the birth of neoconservatism by several decades (and inaccurately describe the history of neoconservatism's agenda). i do think however that is quite plain to see tha neoconservatism's ascension (resurgence?) in the '90s was indeed built around a decidedly more israel-centric agenda. while this does fit into their larger goal of a pax americana, downplaying neocon's recent/current obsessions with israel presents as many perils as 'conspiracy-mongering' might.