[Peace-discuss] The New Neocon Alliance with Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Jacob Heilbrunn is an editor of the conservative-realist journal The National 
Interest. --CGE]

	The New Neocon Alliance with Obama
	Jacob Heilbrunn
	Posted March 31, 2009

This morning leading neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan 
held a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel -- in support of President Obama's 
Afghanistan policy. Kristol and Kagan, as Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen has 
reported, have formed a successor organization to the Project for the New 
American Century, which came into disrepute for its advocacy of the Iraq War. 
The new one is called the Foreign Policy Initiative.  Its contention is that 
America remains, in the words of [Clintonoid] Madeleine Albright, the 
"indispensable nation" and, furthermore, that neocons can play a valuable role 
in coming years in ensuring that it remains one.

At the Mayflower, the neocon pilgrims huddled around John McCain and other 
conservative stalwarts who spoke at the conference. But California congresswoman 
Jane Harman was also a speaker [Blue Dog Democrat and one of the five richest 
members of Congress]. It's clear that the neoconservatives are staking out a new 
course and want to retain an influential voice in foreign policy.  Their latest 
strategy is to move closer to Obama.  Kagan has already expressed his admiration 
for what he sees as Obama's determination to ensure that America remains No. 1 
around the globe.

The idea that the intellectual champions of the Iraq War are now trying to reach 
an alliance with Obama is certainly a tribute to neocon audacity. But it's also 
an inevitable development. The neocons have always been interventionists first, 
then conservatives. In fact, many traditional conservatives argue that there 
isn't much that's conservative about neoconservatism. In any case, the neocons 
aren't going away.

For now, the founding of the Foreign Policy Initiative suggests that there will 
be a fierce battle for the soul of the Obama administration between liberal 
hawks and neocons, on the one side, and between anti-interventionist 
progressives, on the other, over policy towards Afghanistan, Russia, China, and 
Iran.

Who's going to win it?