[Q]Preemption and use of force. Neocons believe that the United States must use a high-pressure approach to compel Arab regimes to change, by force if necessary. They argue that the region's problems are so great and the danger of another 9/11 so real?this time with chemical, biological or radiological weapons?that the end justifies the means. If the regimes of the region won't change, American power should be used to bring change about. The invasion and reconstruction of Iraq are not an exception but a precedent that, if need be, can and will be replicated elsewhere.
Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort. We supported the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq because we concluded that force was the only way to lance these boils. But force will not work as a normal tool of policy or social engineering in the Middle East. Our goal must be to have the Arabs embrace democracy and modernization, not to force it down their throats. At present there really are only two political voices in the Arab world: One is the regimes and their cronies, the other the Islamic fundamentalists. We need to help foster alternatives. A growing number of Arabs are calling for these changes, and we must find ways to help them transform their societies even if it takes decades and not months.
Nation-building. Neocons don't like nation-building, and the Republican Party has largely opposed it for more than a decade. Thus, while neoconservatives talk of democracy promotion, they have a hard time carrying through on it. Nothing better exemplifies this than the administration's fits of attention deficit disorder when it is forced to promote democracy on the ground in ways that go against its own ideological instincts?as is evident today in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Neoliberals see nation-building as a strategic tool. Winning the peace is as important as winning the war, only harder. In Iraq it is particularly worth the commitment because a stable, prosperous and pluralist Iraq could eventually become a model for the region, demonstrating that it is possible to be both "Arab" and "democratic."
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Many neocons are skeptical about the peace process. While they rhetorically embrace the goal of Palestinian democracy as a key part of a two-state solution, they prefer to do nothing, excusing their inaction by insisting that Arab autocrats first convert to democracy. Neoliberals embrace the peace process as a priority both for the security of Israel and to open the door for a broader transformation of the region. As long as the Arab-Israeli conflict simmers, those opposed to change in the Arab world will use the pretext of an Israeli threat to avoid reform. Moreover, successfully brokering peace between Israel and the Arabs will enhance America's credibility as an advocate of democratic reform in the region.
Empire vs. leadership. Neocons talk about empire and American primacy as a legitimate goal. They eschew traditional alliances as burdensome and prefer ad hoc coalitions or simply going it alone. They believe might makes right and international rules and norms are there for the bad guys, not us. Neoliberals believe in leadership through persuasion and strong multilateral alliances. Transforming the Middle East will take decades of sustained political, economic and strategic cooperation. That requires revamping our alliances, not discarding them. We want America to inspire not only fear among our adversaries but admiration and support from our friends.[/Q]
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030722.htm
Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort. We supported the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq because we concluded that force was the only way to lance these boils. But force will not work as a normal tool of policy or social engineering in the Middle East. Our goal must be to have the Arabs embrace democracy and modernization, not to force it down their throats. At present there really are only two political voices in the Arab world: One is the regimes and their cronies, the other the Islamic fundamentalists. We need to help foster alternatives. A growing number of Arabs are calling for these changes, and we must find ways to help them transform their societies even if it takes decades and not months.
Nation-building. Neocons don't like nation-building, and the Republican Party has largely opposed it for more than a decade. Thus, while neoconservatives talk of democracy promotion, they have a hard time carrying through on it. Nothing better exemplifies this than the administration's fits of attention deficit disorder when it is forced to promote democracy on the ground in ways that go against its own ideological instincts?as is evident today in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Neoliberals see nation-building as a strategic tool. Winning the peace is as important as winning the war, only harder. In Iraq it is particularly worth the commitment because a stable, prosperous and pluralist Iraq could eventually become a model for the region, demonstrating that it is possible to be both "Arab" and "democratic."
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Many neocons are skeptical about the peace process. While they rhetorically embrace the goal of Palestinian democracy as a key part of a two-state solution, they prefer to do nothing, excusing their inaction by insisting that Arab autocrats first convert to democracy. Neoliberals embrace the peace process as a priority both for the security of Israel and to open the door for a broader transformation of the region. As long as the Arab-Israeli conflict simmers, those opposed to change in the Arab world will use the pretext of an Israeli threat to avoid reform. Moreover, successfully brokering peace between Israel and the Arabs will enhance America's credibility as an advocate of democratic reform in the region.
Empire vs. leadership. Neocons talk about empire and American primacy as a legitimate goal. They eschew traditional alliances as burdensome and prefer ad hoc coalitions or simply going it alone. They believe might makes right and international rules and norms are there for the bad guys, not us. Neoliberals believe in leadership through persuasion and strong multilateral alliances. Transforming the Middle East will take decades of sustained political, economic and strategic cooperation. That requires revamping our alliances, not discarding them. We want America to inspire not only fear among our adversaries but admiration and support from our friends.[/Q]
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030722.htm
neocons & rightwings in power, though I am really only lefty on 2 o 3 issues. 
However I'm definitely not neoliberal either - neoliberalism represents the kind of agenda people like Thatcher and Blair advocate and I'm no fan of their ideas too.
