Guess what? Neoconservatism is back, in the form of the 2012 GOP presidential candidates. Or so Politico tells us:
When George W. Bush left office in 2009, liberal Democrats and a fair number of moderate, traditional Republicans proclaimed the good news: the GOP neo-cons were dead, chased from Washington in disgrace.
But as Republican presidential hopefuls begin to develop foreign policy platforms, a clear and surprising pattern has emerged: they're back, and so far winning the fight for the direction of the party.
In spite of the tarnished reputation of the neo-cons and the movement by many in the tea party wing of the party towards a more isolationist foreign policy that is open to real cuts in defense spending, all but one of the leading 2012 candidates - in early speeches and campaign books - appear to be toeing a hawkish, interventionist line and promising increased spending on the Pentagon.
How do we explain this? Simple: There is a conflict happening somewhere in the world to which Americans' collective attention is being drawn. Therefore, Republican candidates are advocating military action. Is more of an explanation really necessary?
I may be painting with too broad a brush here, but generally speaking, what Republican candidates want to demonstrate is that they're tough and strong. You don't get any points from primary voters for saying that any particular conflict isn't really our business, or that none of the options before us is attractive, or that the price of acting aggressively is far higher than the benefits to be gained. You get points for talking about how what we really need to do is blow some stuff up, and that will solve the problem.
And in some very particular circumstances, it can. But probably not in Libya. Nevertheless, the candidates (with the exception of Haley Barbour) are all advocating military action, at a minimum the imposition of a no-fly zone, which is a substantial undertaking. Rick Santorum fondled his "WWRD" bracelet and advocated airstrikes, saying, "If you want to be Reagan-esque, it seems the path is pretty clear." John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador, Fox News pundit, and occasional presidential mentionee, suggested that we impose a "no-drive zone for Gadhafi’s military vehicles" in Libya. Think for a second about what that would require. A full-scale invasion, perhaps, and at a minimum, it would mean we'd be carpet-bombing the country, no doubt killing thousands of civilians in the process. And that's from a guy who's part of the Republican foreign-policy intelligentsia.
But all this sure does sound "tough." What could possibly go wrong?
