As a specific examples just look, in a realistic way, at the morass Israel/Palestine, Iraq, and Afganistan are today
The Israeli/Pal morass is hardly new, and most of it is due to Arab and Israeli polices of the last 30 years. News to me that neocons have been running Arab or Israeli politics for thirty years! Was Olso a neocon policy, or a failed liberal one? The neocon influence is new, and it is backing replacing the Arafat terrorist regime with something more tolerable to the Israelis and the US. There is a definite eye to results there.
As for the current state of Afghanistan and Iraq, it's too early to make final judgements -- but not too early to note that both these places have considerably improved from the hell-holes they were two years ago. The neocon position is that it would be a good thing for Afghanistan to improve, but it is absolutely necessary for Iraq to be a success story, since Iraq is of far more strategic importance.
In short, the neocons are looking closely at real-world results. You make not like their decisions, but they are looking at a set of intended results. Can you say the same for all those who marched for no war in Iraq, supposedly on "behalf" of the Iraqi people? |
