Neocon Dreams in the American Heartland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7825039.stm

I found the above article, detailing the end of the neocon movement, excellent reading. It appealed to me on several levels. It is well written, fair, but most importantly for my own enjoyment, concludes that the neocon ideology has run its course. While I agree that political neoconservativism is for the time being much depleted, and whilst I should like nothing more than to believe that (like the author of the article) it is gone for good, I find myself unable to agree with his conclusion. The problem lies not with the politicians, but the electorate. Much more than any other ideology, neoconservativism offers stunning rhetoric appeasing to the American palate. Power, Democracy and Manifest Destiny, the pillars upon which the American psyche stakes its health. Of course, these desires are often tempered by other factors. The high valuation of American lives (above the value of their allies and especially civilians) plays a significant role. It seems incredible to me that, should another terrorist attack occur on American soil, that the neocons won't make a quick and well heralded return. What could be more appealing than fast paced democratic change in nations that have not felt its heady pull?

Of course, the new era of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7825562.stm) may provide just the opposite. Though she claims to have a platform of diplomacy and believes (as apparently so does Obama) that it is the tool to be most utilized. Interestingly, it is the one that has been utilized the least under the Bush regime. I have often wondered whether a contributing factor to this lack of use has been Bush's almost uncanny ability to irritate foreign leaders at the negotiating table. One need only thing of Germany's Angela Merkle to see why. Personally, Hillary has always struck me as more of a pragmatist than a principled member of any school of political thought. I have no doubt that she will be more willing to negotiate (Iran and Cuba have been repeatedly mentioned) but I also have no doubts that, should she deem it appropriate, she will recommend use of quick and incisive military action.

Many Obama supporters, myself included (I suppose I am one now that all of the genuine lefties have disappeared) will be hoping that he and Hillary adopt a neo-humanist approach. Military action in many places but exclusively for humanitarian purposes would seem to be an excellent approach to tackling many of the world's more pressing issues. Peace and stability could be furthered in many parts of Africa. Genocides could be prevented or, at the very least, their devastating impact could be lessened. Most importantly for many Americans, such a policy could be used to further long term security objectives. If farmers in Columbia are not paid and protected in the growing of food, then they grow drugs, the same is true of the poppy fields of Afghanistan. If genocides and militant instability are allowed to continue in central Africa then arms trading, child soldiery and the lack of political and economic stability necessary for economic action needed to help fight famine and the ravages of disease will not occur. Now I am not claiming that all of these problems could be solved. However, many of the situations could be improved with US humanitarian involvement.

The problem, once more, returns to the electorate. Will they understand that it is worth the lives of thirteen US soldiers to save 2,000 women and children in Mogadishu and, more importantly, that by doing so, and by helping to provide stability, the US discourages the social trends that breed their enemies? This is but one of hundreds of examples that could be prevented. I am not sure that neo-humanism will have the support it needs to be given a chance. Having said that, if it was ever going to, now is the time. Obama supporters still feel optimistic and like they can change the world. The world is waiting to see if they will.