The "Neo-conservatism" movement rose to prominence soon after the United States led an invasion on Iraq in the name of pre-emptive force. While the Neo-conservative movement had left clues to their ideology previous to the Bush Administration, their political philosophy had escaped the notice of the mass media and American population. Since 2001, the Neo-conservative policies have exhausted themselves against the Sunni-triangle and in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. The events of the last three years have discredited Neo-conservative ideology.
What is Neo-conservatism Ground zero for Neo-conservatism is the Project For A New American Century (PNAC). Their Statement of Principles contains a veritable who is who of the Bush Administration. Signatories include; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. Other prominent members who support the Neo-conservative view include the Under-Secretary For Defense Douglas Feith and media figures such as Robert Kagan and Irving Kristol.
While neo-conservatism see's itself as a new style of conservatism, their fiscal policy includes the traditional values toward tax cuts to stimulate economic activity. Their policies also include minimising state services. Neo-conservatives see patriotism as a "natural and healthy sentiment". They are opposed to world government as it leads to tyranny. This disdain for the United Nations and international institutions has led what is commonly known in the US as unilateralism. In Australia, Paul Keating called this "American exceptionalism".
Where Neo-Conservatism has come to public attention is through their interventionist foreign policy. The Neo-conservative movement sees the United States as having an obligation to defend democratic nations from attack by non-democratic nations. Neo-conservatives justify this through the historical record of the United States coming to the defence of France and Britain in World War II, and the defending of the state of Israel in the latter part of the 20thC. Finally there is the role of the US military in Neo-conservative policy, Kristol writes;
Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-a-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. ... And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.This is the often forgotten aspect of Neo-conservative thinking - the military is a tool for promoting American values, a government agent for change on the global stage. This philosophy was the basis for the "Doctrine of Pre-emption" which found its way into Presidential speeches and formal National Security strategies after the initial success of the campaign in Afghanistan. Pre-text for Pre-emption The Taliban in Afghanistan was quickly over-thrown by the indomitable might of the US military, though the Pentagon was later accused of deployment errors that allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape into the border regions of Pakistan. The military action in Afghanistan did break state support for Al Queda. No longer did Al Queda have the protection of the Taliban run Afghan Government for their bases and operations. The Bush Administration planned to use the same military power on the first target for pre-emption - Iraq. The difficulty the Bush Administration faced was to determine a suitable casus beli. Intelligence seemed to suggest that Iraq still harboured designs on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). These included nuclear and chemical capabilities along with the platforms to deliver these weapons trans-continentally. The intelligence the White House used to substantiate this pre-text was flaky at best and often discredited by the media or later intelligence. The White House was unable to garner United Nations or international support for this pre-emptive strike, other than the military contributions of the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. With the initiation of hostilities in Iraq, the dominant US forces quickly destroyed the twenty year old Iraqi command and control infrastructure. American might rendered the Iraqi ground forces a non threat and hostilities ended within two weeks as the United States tanks rolled through Baghdad. With the aftermath of formal hostilities between the militaries of the Coalition and Iraq, the search for the WMD's started and ultimately turned up nothing. What was a six month political campaign to legitimize the invasion of Iraq turned out to be spurious at best, deceit at worst. The Costs of Unilateralism The Second Gulf War showed two Neo-conservative values being demonstrated by the White House. These were the use of the US Military as an agent of political change and the unilateralist behaviour that did not need international support to legitimize American actions. It is interesting to compare the Second Gulf War with the First Gulf War. In 1990 Iraq had invaded Kuwait and occupied the small Arab nation. President George Bush Snr got the support of the United States Congress and then the United Nations. A multi-national force including Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia gave the action international legitimacy. A further advantage was that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Japan payed two thirds of the sixty-one billion cost of the conflict. In the Second Gulf War, the United States acted against UN and international opinion with only the UK and Australia joining in hostilities. International legitimacy for the conflict remains non-existent. The United States has also been stuck with the vast majority of the bill for the conflict and the ongoing cost of reconstruction, which is estimated at nine billion a month. While other nations have chipped in troops of varying numbers, one of the main contributors outside of the US and UK is Poland, whose deployment and ongoing cost is being paid for by the United States. The unilateralism that the Bush Administration displayed in the lead up to and during the Second Gulf War has successfully alienated much of the world. After the September 11th attacks, American embassies in Europe and Asia were flooded with flowers and well wishes. This "we are all American" empathy was quickly turned into international distrust as the Bush Administration pursued a Neo-conservative unilateral pre-emptive military policy. In a poll that asked the question, "Who was more dangerous to world peace" - the United States rated higher than Syria in all nations polled except the United States, Australia and Israel. The actions resulting from neo-conservative policy have alienated the international community and population. The costs of Neo-conservative policy do not end there, the tax-cut has had an effect on the ability of the United States to pay for the operations in Iraq. Tax cuts are a common conservative principle - but supposedly fiscal responsibility and constraint is also a conservative trait. The tax cuts have contributed to the United States running up the largest deficit in the nation's history and adding to the national debt. The cost of the Iraq conflict to June 2004 has been 151 billion, a considerable burden on the deficit. In essence the financial cost for the Second Gulf War has been covered by creditors to the United States. The Cost To The US Military The Neo-conservative view of the US Military hegemony is as a vehicle for the imposition of American values on the world stage. The core of the policy of pre-emption is for the US Military to act as the government's agent for international change. Iraq was intended as a conflict to forcibly inject democracy into the Middle East. A secular and democratic Iraq would not only act as an example to other Middle Eastern nations; but also by its presence, contribute to the regional security of Israel. The US Military's primary focus is the destruction of an opposing military. This is the task that the US military is trained and equipped to achieve. In the first two weeks of the Iraq conflict this capability was displayed highly effectively. The Neo-conservatives demand that the US Military adopt roles that are other than its primary task. This has led to indifferent results thus far and at best the security and stability of Iraq continues to remain in the balance. Insurgencies continue to place pressure on the legitimacy of the Iraqi council as well as the American and British occupation. The US Military is not trained to ensure a stable electrical grid nor monitor the quality of water, yet these are the tasks asked of them. A recent George F. Will article contained;
Biden [Senator Joe Biden] says he was told by a senior U.S. military officer that his tank drivers are now doing infantry work, his infantry is doing engineering work and his engineers are doing civil affairs work.Media personality Jim Hoagland reported that the White House is seeking to add counter-narcotics missions to the list of US Military tasks in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been reluctant to under-take this role as these are civil tasks for a police force, not a military force. The Neo-conservative view for the role of the US Military makes no distinction between martial tasks and civil tasks. This diffusion of roles is a slippery slope, military forces that forget that distinction end up losing capability and operational effectiveness. An example is the army of the Indonesian dictator, Suharto. His army consisted of 400,000 troops - of which 200,000 were military police. As an effective counter weight to Indonesian aggression of the time, Australia maintained a smaller dedicated military force of under 30,000. Quantitatively Indonesia would appear to have the advantage, but the civil tasks the Indonesia Army was put to meant that the smaller Australian military force had a qualitative advantage that more than made up for the difference in numbers. Another nation that has diffused the primary role of its military is Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces has adopted a strong peace-keeping focus and are constantly being deployed into United Nations missions. The Canadian Armed Forces have adopted the role and capability to match their deployments. If the US Military continues to be used and deployed in nation building operations, it will take on the roles, the capabilities and ultimately the identity these operations demand. The US Military would lose its dominant military ability to the requirements of United Nations style expeditions and Neo-conservative nation building. Pressures On The US Military The pressures and demands of maintaining the deployment in Iraq have had an adverse effect on the US Military - recently 5,600 retired personnel were involuntary recalled, the National Guard has approximately 160,000 members under stop-loss orders with 7,000 in Iraq directly effected by having their service involuntarily extended. The US Military is also seeking to move 3,500 troops from South Korea to Iraq. The US Military is over-extended and in doubt to be able to manage even a medium intensity conflict outside of the Middle East. Iraq is currently consuming a deployment of 140,000 American troops with no likelihood of exit. Not only is another pre-emptive operation against Iran, Syria or North Korea impossible - it will remain impossible for most likely another decade. American capability has been eroded through the misuse of the US military by the Neo-conservative policy of unilateral pre-emption. It is ironic that the global dominance of the US Military that Kristol defined as "uniquely powerful" has been placed in a situation by Neo-conservative policy that demands a paralyzing use of resources. The US martial hegemony that the Neo-conservatives sought to use to expand American values across the globe has been put in a position that severely compromises that very hegemony. Neo-conservative policy is destroying the aspect of the US Military that they admired the most. Conclusion The events of the last three years have discredited the Neo-conservative policies and in particular their foreign policy. The disdain the Neo-conservatives have for the United Nations and international consensus has left America shouldering the military and economic burden of an illegitimate invasion of Iraq. The Neo-conservative view of the US Military as an agent for change in the globe and means of spreading American values has added significant pressures to the services. The use of the US Military for all manner of tasks outside of a military role will lead to the erosion of American capability and operational effectiveness.
