From: georgek@aol.com   
      
    End of the neo-con dream   
               By Paul Reynolds   
               World Affairs correspondent   
      
      
   The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.   
      
   The ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The   
   Project   
   for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into   
   disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown.   
      
   "The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a   
   voice-mail   
   box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap   
   things   
   up.   
      
   The idea of the "Project" was to project American power and influence   
   around   
   the world.   
      
   The 1997 statement  said:   
      
   "We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan   
   Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet   
   both   
   present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and   
   purposefully   
   promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that   
   accepts   
   the United States' global responsibilities."   
      
   Among the signatories were many of the senior officials who would later   
   determine policy under President George W Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald   
   Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby - as well as   
   thinkers including Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podheretz and Frank Gaffney.   
      
   The neo-conservatives were called that because they sought to   
   re-establish   
   what they felt were true conservative values in the Republican Party and   
   the   
   United States.   
      
   They wanted to stop what they felt were the isolationist tendencies that   
   had   
   developed under President Clinton, and even under the pragmatic   
   President   
   George Bush senior.   
      
   They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New   
   American Century" might work.   
      
   They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking   
   in   
   them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States   
   just   
   as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had   
   transformed Europe and the Pacific.   
      
   Attack   
      
   Since so much was pinned on Iraq, it is inevitable that the problems   
   there   
   should have undermined the whole idea.   
      
   "Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever   
   returns,"   
   says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the   
   Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton   
   administration.   
      
   "Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to   
   produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says.   
      
   "The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a   
   region   
   that has been less than susceptible to democracy.   
      
   "Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception   
   and   
   horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own   
   ideas   
   and the incompetence of the Bush administration.   
      
   "George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well   
   maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons'   
   philosophy.   
      
   "It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world.   
   After   
   all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so   
   it   
   appealed to his character."   
      
   In-fighting   
      
   The fading of the dream has led to a falling-out among the   
   neo-conservatives   
   themselves.   
      
   In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth   
   Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been   
   on a   
   Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.   
      
   In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he   
   known   
   how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I   
   probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."   
      
   Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent   
   teams in the post-war era.   
      
   "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but   
   together   
   they were deadly, dysfunctional."   
      
   Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said.   
      
   He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."   
      
   Defence and counter-attack   
      
   Other neo-conservatives defend their record, arguing strongly that the   
   original idea had an effect, and pressing the point raised by Perle and   
   Adelman that it was the execution of the idea not the idea itself that   
   was   
   wrong.   
      
   Gary Schmitt used to be a senior figure at the "New American Century"   
   project. Now he is director of strategic studies at the American   
   Enterprise   
   Institute (AEI), and he says the project has come to a natural end.   
      
   "When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is   
   why we   
   are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising   
   money   
   for it and it has already done its job.   
      
   "We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy,   
   that   
   it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy.   
      
   "Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we   
   had an   
   effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that   
   the   
   United States was 'the indispensable nation'.   
      
   "But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone   
   sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are   
   implemented. Obviously it makes life difficult with the specific failure   
   in   
   Iraq, but I do not agree with Richard Perle that we should never have   
   gone   
   in.   
      
   "I do argue that the execution should have been better. In fact, I   
   argued in   
   late 2003 that we needed more troops and a proper counter-insurgency   
   policy."   
      
   Indeed, not all neo-conservatives have given up all hope in Iraq.   
      
   The AEI, which has become the natural home for refugees from the   
   American   
   Project, is promoting an article entitled: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for   
   Success in Iraq".   
      
   The article calls not for a withdrawal of US troops but for an increase.   
   President Bush's decision is expected in early January.   
      
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm   
      
   --   
      
   Money.. What a concept!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)