TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Neocons returning to Democratic Party?

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

By Diana West
Friday, June 27, 2014, 8:57 p.m.
 

Are the neocons going home?

By “neocons,” I refer to followers of the hawkish foreign policy school that began to coalesce in the 1970s around New York writers and academics who had rejected their communist or socialist lodestar to become vocal anti-communists. A generation or so later, from Kosovo to Georgia, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, from Ukraine and now back to Iraq, they consistently advocate the use of American power, often American troops, to establish and enforce a “liberal world order.”

By “going home,” I mean returning to the Democratic Party.

The question took shape while I was reading a profile in The New York Times about neocon-light Robert Kagan — brother of Iraq “surge” architect Frederick Kagan, son of Yale professor Donald Kagan, and husband of State Department diplomat Victoria Nuland. The Times describes Robert Kagan as “the congenial and well-respected scion of one of America's first families of interventionism.”

Kagan says he prefers to call himself a “liberal interventionist,” not a neocon. This may indeed be more appropriate for the Brookings Institution fellow and New Republic contributing editor that he is, but there's nothing “conservative,” or even “neo,” about it.

The Times reports: “Both Mr. Kagan and his brother are taking considerable pains to describe their advocacy as broadly bipartisan. ‘The urgent priority is to unite internationalists on both sides of the spectrum,' said Fred Kagan, while his brother, Robert, mentioned his briefing of a bipartisan congressional delegation at Davos and his good relations with top White House officials, including the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice.”

Davos? Susan E. Rice? Why not Samantha Power and Valerie Jarrett while we're at it? These are odd selling points — unless you're seeking Democrat brownie points.

The Times continues: “But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his ‘mainstream' view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

Do I hear an SOS? “Shipwrecked neocons seeking vessel to pour interventionist hopes into. Will deploy troops anywhere.”

The Times: “Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman. ‘I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,' Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach ‘could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table' if elected president.”

“‘If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.'” How about calling it “liberal interventionism”?

I can see it now: A new ship of state under Hillary Clinton sailing home, carrying a crew of neocons-turned-liberal-interventionists.

Diana West blogs at dianawest.net, and she can be contacted via dianawest@verizon.net.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Philadelphia U.S. Rep. Fattah indicted in racketeering case
  2. Patriots QB Brady, owner Kraft lash out at NFL
  3. Rossi: ‘Hockey guy’ Sutter will be missed
  4. Pirates notebook: Prospect Tucker unaware of ‘trade’ frenzy
  5. Steelers’ Wheaton adjusting his game moving to slot receiver
  6. Pitt student from China pleads guilty to role in international test fraud scheme
  7. Kang’s 9th-inning home run gives Pirates wild victory over Twins
  8. Driver accused of crashing head-on into Ligonier officer’s SUV waives right to preliminary hearing
  9. Van Halen plays plenty of favorites in First Niagara show
  10. School credit ratings a problem for several in Western Pennsylvania
  11. Afghan intelligence: Taliban leader Mullah Omar dead 2 years