12 October 2024
Neoconservatism: An Ideology of American Power
Pax Americana
Neoconservatism can be called an ideology, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy. It originated as a reaction to liberal policies in the 1960s and 1970s, took hold in the 90s and 2010. When american power was unchallenged, and has developed into a distinct worldview that prioritises the projection of American power and values globally. While the promotion of democracy is a key tenet, the underlying purpose is to maintain a unipolar world where the U.S. holds hegemonic sway. This pursuit of global dominance, backed by military strength, underpins neoconservative thought and has shaped many of its policies.
1. Beliefs, Values, and the Pursuit of Hegemony
American Exceptionalism and Unipolarity: At the heart of neoconservatism is the belief in American exceptionalism—the idea that the U.S. is a unique force for good in the world, tasked with spreading democracy and free markets. However, the broader goal is not simply to promote American values but to ensure that America remains the unchallenged global hegemon. A unipolar world, where America sets the rules (" the rules based international order"), is seen as essential for global stability and prosperity. This worldview interprets any challenge to U.S. dominance—whether from Russia, China, or transnational entities like the European Union—as a threat to its global order.
Moral Clarity and Interventionism: Neoconservatives often frame international politics in stark moral terms—good vs. evil—with the U.S. on the side of righteousness. This belief in moral clarity fuels military interventionism, justified by the need to spread democracy or counter threats. The overthrow of regimes such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, is seen as both morally justified and strategically necessary to maintain U.S. influence.
The Death of Diplomacy:
As a consequence, world gov.ts are divided into democracies and authoritarian regimes, into good and evil. When it comes to conflict resolution, this manichean view means that it is impossible to deal with or compromise with evil, after all, you do not sup with the devil, you defeat it, and this is why there is no diplomacy and no negotiations, only military and economic force in the service of uncompromising political objectives.
Unilateralism and Pre-emptive Action: Neocons tend to favour unilateral action if multilateral channels (like the UN) are seen as ineffective or opposed to U.S. goals. Pre-emptive strikes, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, are justified on the grounds of eliminating potential future threats to American dominance, even at the cost of bypassing international norms or institutions.
2. A Critical Review: The Consequences of Neoconservative Interventions
Despite the ideological clarity neoconservatives claim, the consequences of their interventions have often been far from the successful outcomes they envisioned at the start of operations. In many instances, neocon policies have led to destabilisation, prolonged conflict, and significant humanitarian costs. The most glaring example is the Iraq War, but there has been Afghanistan and Syria, and now, Ukraine.
The Iraq War (2003): Promoted as a necessary intervention to spread democracy and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War became the neoconservatives' defining moment. However, the consequences were disastrous:
Destabilisation: The removal of Saddam Hussein led to a power vacuum that fuelled sectarian conflict, civil war, and the rise of groups like ISIS. Iraq’s instability spilled over into neighbouring regions, contributing to broader Middle Eastern chaos.
Humanitarian Catastrophe: Hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the conflict, and millions were displaced. Far from promoting stability, the war resulted in widespread destruction and long-term suffering for the Iraqi people.
Damage to U.S. Credibility: The failure to find weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the prolonged insurgency, damaged America’s global standing. Neoconservatives’ insistence on unilateral action alienated traditional allies and raised questions about the legitimacy of U.S. interventionist policies.
The War in Ukraine (2014-2025): the fight at this time was over, not weapons of mass destruction, but Ukraine's admission to NATO. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Ukraine was not admitted to NATO. Otherwise, the consequences have been much the same: mass death and destruction, crippling costs, destruction of Western credibility and influence, and a war that could prove to be the greatest and the last of neocon catastrophes, with the destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and the creation of an alternative world order centered on China, Russia and Iran.
2. The Legacy of Endless Wars:
So Neocon-driven interventions - whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria or Libya - have often left countries in worse physical and financial condition than before and with a clear rejection of liberal democratic values. These conflicts have contributed to endless wars, with no clear exit strategy or long-term solutions. Moreover, they have drained U.S. resources and further eroded public support for military interventions, leading to what some describe as "war fatigue" and censorship of views at home in the U.S. and Europe.
Unintended Consequences: Beyond the immediate destruction, neocon policies have often empowered adversaries. The Iraq War, for example, enhanced Iran’s influence in the region, as Tehran expanded its footprint in post-Saddam Iraq. Similarly, the chaotic aftermath of Libya’s intervention has turned the country into a breeding ground for extremism.
Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban after a disastrous cut and run by America; and Ukraine will have lost a quarter of its territory, access to the Black Sea, as well as the destruction of its communication, infrastructure and energy systems in the remaining Western, neutral, rump.
3. The Nostalgia of Neoconservatism: Opening the Debate for Alternatives
As neoconservative policies have faced increasing scrutiny, future historians may look back on this neocon era not as the height of American power but as a period of nostalgia for a unipolar world that was already slipping away. The post-2014 global order, marked by the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the fragmentation of western alliances, represents a shift away from the neocon vision of U.S. global dominance.
The Decline of Unipolarity: The neocon dream of maintaining a unipolar world has become increasingly untenable. The rise of multipolarity - where power is distributed among multiple global actors - has created a new reality that neoconservatives are reluctant, unwilling even, to accept. The Ukraine crisis and the U.S.’s waning influence in the Middle East underscore the limits of U.S. power in this evolving order.
Alternatives to the Neocon Worldview: As the unipolar world continues to fragment, alternatives to neoconservatism have gained traction. These include:
Realism: A more realist foreign policy approach advocates for restraint and a focus on U.S. national interests rather than ideological crusades. Realists argue that the U.S. should prioritise diplomacy, avoid unnecessary interventions, and recognise the legitimacy of other powers' spheres of interest.
Multipolar Engagement: Rather than enforcing a unipolar order, some suggest the U.S. should engage in cooperative multipolarity, acknowledging the rising power of nations like China, Russia and Iran, while working through international institutions such as the UN to build a more balanced and stable world order. This would be an alternative to the NATO Alliance, which works only for a group of western countries.
Non-interventionism: Critics of neoconservatism advocate for a non-interventionist stance, focusing on addressing domestic issues and limiting U.S. military engagement abroad. This approach resonates with a growing segment of the U.S. population, weary of endless wars, foreign entanglements and growing debt?.
Rethinking Global Governance: Future historians may also reflect on the missed opportunity to reshape global governance. Rather than clinging to outdated notions of Pax Americana, the world might have benefited from pursuing new security architectures and cooperative frameworks, such as Gorbachev’s "Common European Home" or the UN-based international law. These alternatives, sidelined in favour of NATO expansion and unilateralism, might have led to a more inclusive and sustainable global order.
Conclusion
Neoconservatism, while rooted in a strong belief in American exceptionalism and global dominance, has faced significant criticism for its failure to achieve it's goals and instead its disastrous consequences. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have shown that unilateral military interventions, based on moral clarity and the pursuit of a unipolar world, often lead to mass depth destruction and displacement of peoples, lasting instability, long-term conflict, and the erosion of American power.
As the global landscape continues to shift towards multipolarity, the neoconservative worldview may increasingly be seen as nostalgia for a world order that no longer exists. The challenge for policymakers is to rethink America's role in a more pluralistic world and to explore alternatives that embrace cooperation, diplomacy, and shared leadership on the global stage. Whether the future lies in realism, multipolar engagement, or non-interventionism, the era of neoconservative dominance is fading, and a new approach to collective security and world order, will be needed to navigate the complexities of the 21st century.
The sun is setting on the American world order 
