My quarrel is simply with any view of the neoconservatives as clear-eyed realists.  I think ideology really does circumscribe the perceptions both of the American neocons, and of their European (particularly, but not exclusively) British fellow travellers.

Ah, sorry. I most certainly didn't mean to imply that they were realists or in any way clear-eyed. What I intended to suggest was that they view the world in terms of those who follow their orders and those who do not. Those who follow their orders unquestioningly are allies - those who do not are evil.

If this is indeed the case, then it is consistent with the political purge of the intelligence agencies - after all, anyone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear is not toeing the line and is thus ipso facto an enemy. It would also make them extremely susceptible to the kind of snake-oil salesman who tells them what they want to hear.

Want to invade Iraq? Find someone who will tell you that the Iraqis will welcome you as liberators. Want to do nothing about global warming? Find an "expert" who will tell you that action is unnecessary. Want to make tax downsizings that massively benefit rich fatcats at the expense of society? Find a Friedmanite. And, of course, dismiss all who present dissenting views as public enemies, rivals and cowards.

That they are motivated by ideology is certainly one possibility. That they are complete control freaks who are unable to tell the difference between honest disagreement and attempts to undercut their authority (or between honest agreement and sycophancy) is most definitely another.

Precisely because of this, the very great skill of the neocons in manipulating the United States political system -- and also the British -- generates results which are deeply counter-productive even in terms of their own objectives.

Counterproductive if the objective is to ensure US hegemony? Sure. Counterproductive if the objective is to line the pockets of BushCo? I am not so sure.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.