You people know nothing about neoconservatism. Its main tenet is not "that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world" - this is Wilsonianism, which is neither neo nor conservative. There were many reasons for the invasion of Iraq; it was only "neocon" in that it followed the rejection of realist ideas of containment and deterrence, proven useless on Sept 11 (and never redeemed). Mideast instability is not a miscalculation - old policies of stability led to illegit, oppressive govts ruling over miserable populations, and needing to invent external enemies (the West, incl. the US & Israel) to distract them. Democratization is not about an absurd belief that liberal secularism follows US tanks, but that all people (incl. Arabs) must take control of their own affairs, and when they do, they will eventually choose peace. Neocons knew the ride would be bumpy - people often must regret wrong choices before they choose right - but it had to start sometime.

JB, Prague, CzR

Neocons I would admit, are in hiding. They indeed got it wrong. Have read everything I could about neoconservatism. While not a formal movement , it is made up of powerful people, with considerable influence. Lots of sound ideas, many to honest for the public to hear, or understand. We realist look on the middle east, as a distinct civilization, that is 90 degrees out of phase with the west. Been that way since the beginning of time. One day their may be a clash of civilizations. No day will see the west, idea of democracy, ever be put in place.

Dan Green, Palm Beach Gardens, USA/FL>

The US is not far from Fascism. The omnipresent nationalist flags. The doctrine of illegal aggressive attack. Delusions of an American century (at least not 1000 years). Torture. Imprisonment without trial. And Iraq has paid this megalomania with the blood of its citizens. As did Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc. The neocons are pure evil.

Phil, Hong Kong,

Your correspondent conventiently forgets to mention the 655000 dead Iraqis in pursuit of a neoconism. He also forgets to mention that neocons advocate force and deception in their interpretation of what is good or bad and the means to acheive their version of good - a direct descendent of Fascism. Is neocon liberaism going to be implemented in Russia or Pakistan or Libya. It all comes down to energy resources and American interests - democracy is a cover.

Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, West Yorkshire

It's a well known fact that constant media witch hunts are destructive, a classic example of this being how the media caused the death of Diana. The media are largely responsible for empowering terrorism worldwide. There has been no balanced reporting from the media, only constant Bush and America bashing from the left wing dominated hate merchants, namely reporters, editors and producers. Terrorist organisations and rogue states know how to manipulate the media like puppets and they dance to every tune. Just look at how Iran successfully manipulated western media with the 15 hostages. When the media gets behind this war and supports true freedom and democracy around the world instead of their sick and perverse hate mongering Iraq will stand a fair chance, until then the terrorists, supported by the media, will win out every time. Yes, America made mistakes it's unavoidable in a war but the media has done worse than make mistakes, they have empowered terrorism and that is unforgivable.

Viv, London, England

Oh dear. On one side we have the agressive, assertive, "always right" Alpha male Anglo-Saxons, and on the other the side the concilliatory, feeble and "always wrong" Europeans. Unfortunately 70% of the current American population is descended from Europeans. My French in-laws live next door to a nice American couple, and my French friends have just moved to the US. Why don't you lot get off your PC's and go out and do some gardening?

Jon Kingsbury, Southampton, UK

"Many of America's cities are now more livable than London". Is that why Citizens have to carry firearms to protect themselves.

Bill MacLeod, Denny, U.K.

What is always so amazing is that the neocons try to convince everybody that their real aim was to 'bring freedom and democracy'. At the same time, they are the most ardent supporters of Likud Israel with its oppressing, racist policies which take away freedom from the Palestinians, steals their land and water and has been treating them like dogs for at least the last 40 years. Mr. Baker knows this but of course fails to mention this contradiction which immediately proves that all this 'freedom bringing' is nothing but a smokescreen.

John Hynde, Montreal, Canada

So we go home and leave Cambodia, whoops, Iraq to its own devices? And who will be responsible for that? The neo-cons of course.

Maybe we should have left Germany to Russia in 1948, or England to Germany in 1940.

Abraham Blinick, Toronto , Canada

Peter Posettie, Brisbane, Australia, I hate to use an American colloquialism, but you are "right on" in your assessment. There are many of us here in the states who agree with you, in fact almost half of the population. The saying from the Clinton years "it takes a village" is most appropriate, in fact it takes the entire world community to effect positive change for its citizens. The only positive way forward is, as you said, a mix of captalism which in its pure form is at best antiquated, and socialism. We all know the neo-conservatives and most convservatives have no interest in helping the world community, they are driven by greed and mistrust.

David Gaudette, Bronx, NY/USA

Re your article on desalination, there is a British Invention which by saving 87% of water used for flushing toilets will ensure desalination plants are not required in the U.K., and many places globally, it is called Propelair (and can be viewed on the website with the same name).
It is scheduled to be commercially available in 2008.

It may be worth an article.

David Marsh, Chelmsford, Essex

I think you've fallen into the short-termer trap. You look at Iraq and declare it a failure without acknowledging how long it took democracy to take hold where it has. Those who argued that more troops were needed in Iraq in the beginning also argued that it takes ten years to for an insurgency to play itself out. The story of Iraq is far from over and regardless of what happens in the next 6 to 18 months, democracy has every chance of taking hold. Britain's pre-democratic history is not exactly without violence. Show me where democracy has not been established at the end of a barrell of a gun and maybe I'll consider your argument as valid.

Rob Galdstone, Houston, Texas

Marxists always say that "communism would work, if only it were properly imposed." That is a far cry from Chesterton, who properly observed that Catholicism is seldom tried. The first involves the top-down managed state, the second the individual's free will.

Our American Neocons are nothing but Marxist dialecticians playing for power. They defy the Constitution, have nothing but contempt for the American people (calling their critics Al Qeda sympathizers), and grasp every day at ways to subvert our constitutional order. Both parties in America are now leftists, and the neocons have shown that they glide effortlessly from one to the other, always with a self-serving agenda.

Chris Inwien, Virginia, USA

Gerard Baker says that the “realists” may have been right in claiming that toppling Iraq would lead to instability. Well, no one can dispute that, but three caveats need to be added.
1. Events in Iraq since the invasion prove that it was already an inherently unstable country with deep sectarian divisions that would have led to bloodshed whenever the Baathist regime was eventually unseated.
2. The death toll during Saddam's reign does not support the notion that Iraq was "stable" before the invasion. Apart from the killing of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, he started two wars which cost over a million lives.
3. Had we not invaded, Saddam would now be rebuilding his WMD capability and would need to have been faced down at some point.
The Bush administration, for all its errors, at least realises that the main threat to the West is the use of WMD material by Islamic terrorists. However much Europe digs its head into the sand, that fact will not go away.

arnoldo, Coventry,

I accept the sincerity of Baker's views, but I feel that he and the other backers of the Iraq War have a lot to answer for. By the fall of 2003 it was obvious that the insurrection in Iraq was out of control. Baker and other supporters of the war should have done everything possible to induce the Bush administration to send more troops, even if it meant introducing conscription. Instead, supporters of the administration kept quiet out of a mistaken sense of loyalty. As a result, the policy of bringing democracy to the Mideast is in ruins, and Bush will go down in history as our worst president. Nice work, Mr. Baker.

Stanley Jacobs, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Was the real objective of this sordid and illegal invasion the desire to spread "liberal democracy" or to strip a nation of its natural resources(i.e. oil) and award contracts for reconstruction to companies closely linked to leading members of the Bush administration ?

ken, bournemouth, GB

SO CW2 who will you be backing in the forthcoming Kurdish Turkish war? Once the Iraq debacle has settled down to some extent, it is inconceivable that a newly invigorated Kurdistan flush with oil money will renew the fight to "regain their historic homelands". 6 million or less Palestinians compared to 27 million Kurds. 4x the trouble.

Elwin parsley, london , UK

I too remain, in principle, a neoconservative. I believe Enlightenment-based liberal democracy will help our world find peace, and I reject the pernicious life-negating mysticism of Romanticism.

The problem is the neoconservatives, myself included, failed to grasp the logic at the heart of Islamic theologies. We presumed Kantian reason alone would convince the Iraqis of the value of a liberal democracy, we simply failed to recognize that Islamic theologies are not mere romantic webs of superstition. Nazism or Stalinism are examples of superstitious romanticism at its worst; Islam, however, like Christianity, is built of mature competing coherent reasonable theologies. Our neoconservative arrogance was to under-appreciate their theological convictions and over aggrandize the logic of Western Enlightenment as self-evident truth. We will do better in the future, if we recognize that there is reason at the heart of all mature faiths.

James D. Carmine, Pittsburgh, USA

Neoconservatives are all about pitching the disadvantaged out of the lifeboat so that they can hoard larger scraps of the remaining resources without having to work smarter or harder. Examining their behaviour when given positions of responsibilty reveals everything one needs to know about these amoral "supermen". Just check out Wolfowitz's latest grand faux pas at the world bank.

martin, victoria, canada

You have set up a straw man. Neo-conservatives are those who have come from the left and seen how left-wing policies do least for the least well-off. Our left wing policies have produced sink homes, sink schools, sink hospitals, a wasted police force and a culture of rights-obsessed victimhood. Neocons have learnt from their past errors that the welfare state is the cause of the problem, not the solution.
The foray in Iraq may have been idealistic: it would have been much more pragmatic to have feted Saddam as a powerful Head of State and many on the left who salute the indefatigability of tyrannts, together with the Muslim Brotherhood marched through London for this cause. But neo-conservativism is not in essence about foreign policy.

Philippa Pirie, London, England

@ Peter Posetti

I must agree with you, Mr Posetti. As a German, I wish Britain, the US and also Australia had focused more on "working co-operatively" with Germany after 1933 instead of ultimately dragging it into a World War. You could at least have shown some "positive support" for National Socialism to "build the bridges of trust". I mean, who were you Anglo-Saxons to say that the German ideology was wrong in the first place, shouldn't every people have the right to live the way they want.
It is obvious that Arabs are not capable of having democracy, and only foolish and naive Americans could have thought otherwise. Some people like to have a strong leader, and the North Koreans call Kim Jong Il "Beloved Leader" for a good reason. Who are we in the West to criticize these people.

Sven, Munich, Germany

Britain's conservative leader has not only rejected neoconservatism. He has rejected all forms of conservatism, which is why he may just fail to win the next election.

Ian, Oxford, UK

Ahh, yes, Mr. Posetti, "the promise" of Europe. Enjoy it while it lasts. The only type of "working co-operatively in a shared environment" that Europe should be focused upon is the reproductive variety! Unless we see a major increase in European fecundity, 2 generations from now Western civilization will live on only in the Americas and Oz.

Peter, Princeton, NJ

I would have to disagree. I'm not sure where the term neocon originated but this analysis displays a complete ingnorance of what fueled the Bush policies following 9-11.
As with Occam's razor the most straighforward analysis is usually the closest to the truth. The US was attacked on 9-11 after years of indifference to attack after attack going back to the days of Lebannon and the Reagan Administration, through the Bush I and Clinton administrations. The Bush Administration if anything planned too big too fast or maybe moved too slowly.

The President responded differently after 9-11 as he should've. There were plans for the second invasion of Iraq going back to the Clinton administration but it wasn't till 9-11 did the impetus exist to finish the job This was only part of the plan. I'm sure that had things went better in Iraq we'd now already be in Iran and or Syria. I believe the neocon label is just another distraction from the fact that Iraq is changing for the better.

Mael, Chester, VA

Mr. Baker fails to note that the Iraq gambit is just another example of the Wilsonian strain American foreign policy. Americans were disappointed by the outcome of WW1, and turned against it. The victories of WW2 strengthened the Wilsonian vision, which was given institutional form in the United Nations. Then followed the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and now the Iraq War, each of which left Wilsonianism shaken but not dead by any means. George W. Bush's rhetoric is straight out of Kennedy, who used it (tragically) to extend the Cold War to Third World countries that were of no consequence in the global balance of power. How many more times can the Wilsonian vision be revived? Probaby every 40 years or sooner, as a new generation comes to power. It is inherent in the American psyche. I hope Mr. Baker's statement will be revived periodically to remind future generations of their predecessors' grievous errors. EAR

Earl A. Reitan, Normal, Illinois

Mr. Barker might also have said that naivete, a reasonable criticism of neo-con foreign policy, never appeared in the Left's lineup of plaints against the Iraq effort, but was always overlooked in favor of one which impugned U.S. motives, such as oil lust, Haliburton enrichment, or racist desire to colonize the melanin-bearing.

alex, Berkeley, California

Unfortunately, the Neocon experiment which Baker basically applauds, while admitting it has been a total failure in a practical sense, has brought misery and death to the homes of thousands of American families and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It has visibly damaged US prestige and power which is not something to be applauded. Baker doesn't address the latter at all while his response to the former seems to echo Stalin's comment about millions of deaths being a statistic. His feeble attempt to find a diamond in this mass of coal leave him looking both foolish and dirty.

John, CT, USA

The neoconservatives don't realize that their policy in the Middle East was consistent with the miseries of a sectarian, oppressive model of society.The neoconservative approach boils down to a depressingly familiar view that conflict is the paradigm in human behavior, where cultural (and unfortunately religious) ideologies must war for dominance; and it ignores the human realities that underlie democratic insitutions. It's a shame that at a time when the majority of the region's Islam population was able to see past the tragic nature of fundamentalist rhetoric, when they would sympathise with one of its most demonised targets after 11 September, 2001, that the Bush administration didn't spend its war chest more constructively, perhaps providing real havens for human rights, with hospitals, businesses, and schools--something more tangible than ideological accusation, something actually worth fighting for, such as the health and lives of loved ones.

Cian Marnagh, Farmington, ME, USA

The deathrows of the neocons parallel those of Mr Wolfowitch, President of the World Bank and chief advisor to President Bush in relation to developing US interests by invading Iraq. The other neocons advising Mr Bush, hopefully, will suffer the same fate once their vested and corrupt actions become fully appreciated by the body of public opinion in the US.

Edward Willhoft, Epsom, UK

a refreshing acknowledgement from an ex neo con, in particular I agree with the assertion that its not the execution that was wrong as so many neo cons cling to.

The whole idea was ridiculous, an intellegent, competent US president would have seen through the shallow arguments and even more shallow evidence, but history threw a George Bush at us.

Akram, London,

Mr. Baker, keep in mind the neocons left or were eased out. They are the originators of the idea of pushing democracy in the mid east, and regime changing the worst of the worst. They are not responsible for the incompetent execution of the idea by a president more concerned with the "Arab Street' than the American street, and a Secretary of Defense who idiotically tried to fight the war and Post-War on the cheap. The neocons were set up to take the blame, following an age-old pattern pf blaming the Jews for when things go wrong, when the real reason Iraq is a fiasco is that it was fought in a manner attuned to Saudi sensibilities, even as the Saudis quietly funded the very insurgency that makes an American-Iraqi vicotry so difficult.

Maine's Michael, maine, usa

The west should learn from Iraq. One can take a horse to the river but one cannot make it drink the water if if it is not thirsty. The Iraqis are not thirsty for secularism and democracy and the rule of law that took us hundreds of years to sculpt. On the other hand we were the bull in the china shop in Iraq and now it is our obligation to fix the broken china. That might require the dismissal of the Iraqi government which has proved inept and direct rule of Iraq for another five years till calm returns. We are fighting the Al Qaeda and we have to win, there is no other option no matter how long it takes. We should not have gone in in the first place but we cannot pull out now. Hopefully we will not try to nation build again anywhere else.

Roger, New York, USA

So what is the alternative to democracy and self-government? To leave tens of millions of people rotting in either theocratic or dictatorial slavery because they "deserve" it?

Restoring Eastern Europe wasn't an easy task either, nor is it finished twenty years later, and they didn't have hostile forces running state-sponsored agents provocateurs across the border to mindlessly kill and destroy infrastructure.

Finish the job now, however long it takes, however much it costs. Or else we shall "have to do it all over again in twenty-five years at three times the cost".

Kevin Simolke, Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

To me, neoconservatism, is not a particularly strong basis for what is going on in the Mideast. It is a cover for the grab by the Petroleum Industry of the Western Nations for the OIL of the Mideastern nations. I am quiet skeptical there is an honest ideology present in any of the present ongoings. The Bush family has a very deep engagement in the oil industry to put any neat compelling effort to spreading Democracy or Christianity.

Garland Tomlin, Toccoa, Georgia / USA

The neocons have placed our country in harms way not only for this decade but for years to come...and it ultimatley will hurt Israel. the policies put forth by the likud and the neocons was short sighted and morally wrong. Peace is the ony answer and we should be waging all our resources to develop a comprehensive peace for Israel and it's neighbors...but that means you have to bring realistic options and dialog to the table.

Gibran, fayetteville, AR

Imperialism comes with many disguises.Neo-conservatism is only the most recent version.The British could attest to the fact that imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan is unrewarding.
It proves again the truth of Churchill's obervation that Americans always do thr right thing, only after having exhausted every other possibility first.Unfortunately for Iraq,America has not yet finished exhausting the other possiblities.

bill klym, calgary, canada

Peter, I'm surprised at you. You must be the only liberal in all of Australia. Europe is fast on it's way to becoming the Caliphate the Muslims are so ardently striving for. Of course, if you are a follower of that Satanic Cult, then I suppose you would feel right at home. Cheers!

Peachy Carnahan, San Antonio, TX

The unfortunate consequence of seeing the "neo-cons" brought low will be the rise of the "realists". Realism means the USA won't lift a finger anywhere unless it directly affects the USA. It also means less support for all those lovely international organizations that rely on mutual cooperation for overall benefit. Get ready for more trade barriers and a lot of empty sympathy extended to places like Darfur. Dictatorships and corrupt monarchies will be publicly criticized on occasion, but as long as money is to be made by working with them - so be it. The USA is still too powerful for most bad guys to directly mess with, but many other nations are not. The Mideast looks bad now, but it could easily get worse in a hurry. For example, if Syria decides to reoccupy Lebanon in 2 years - does anyone seriously think the U.N., E.U., or NATO will intervene?

Jill, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

In the real world inhabited by most of us, theory and execution go hand in hand. To say that the theory is sound but the policy is flawed is is nonsense. That is communication from "La La Land." And does Mr. Posetti think "theory" is just a wish?...like
"Tturn the Middle East into Iowa." In that case, our greatest thinkers are the Miss America candidates, all of whom have theories like "Create World Peace," or "Fight Aids."

Donna Russell, Livingston, Texas

As a two time Iraq Veteran getting ready to go again in 2008. I will tell you the conservative party, Republicans, are doing fine. Maybe we should forget being attacked on 9/11, Its ok Saddam continued to break every UN mandate, Europe will soon be a muslim country under Sharia law, but I promise you it will not happen in the US. Pete in Australia likes how Europe is growing, I wonder if he has been there??? Unemployment in the 20% range, (4% in US)Taxes about 30 to 40 percent, Hey but you get free health care, You have to wait 6 months and then will get whatever doctor they give you. NO I will take the wicked, mean, empire building USA anyday. Work hard and you can be anything you want here, Even President. I support President Bush and so do the majority of us in the military. I have been with Kurdish Pesmerga soldiers in the North that would not let you buy spend a dollar for a coca cola, They would give you their shirts off there backs.

CW2 Sean Carney, Tampa, USA/Florida

Where in the world does Baker come up with the conclusion that promoting liberal democracy was a key case Bush made for invading Iraq. With the exception of his speech to the Amercican Enterprise Institute in late Feb 2003, long after his decision to invade, you will not find any such link by Bush among his almost-daily speechs and remarks. Just read Wolfowitz's interview with Vanity Fair in May 2003 in which he lists three reasons or the war and promoting democracy to transform the Middle Eaqst is not mentioned. The promotion of democracy only began to appear in Bush's remarks when it became increasinglt evident that no WMD's would be found.

gary R. Leadbetter, schwenksville,

Yes, we must cooperate with dictators and tyrants. They are people too. Only if we reason with them and talk to them nicely will they learn the error of their ways and start acting like the caring and compassionate socialists of Europe.

JB, New York, NY

"Hope emerging in Europe"?? Are you kidding? Through it all the US continues to grow and prosper, while Europe is slowly dying through self-inflicted wounds. Witness Germany's court ruling that Muslim men may indeed beat their wives, Britain's agreement to stop teaching the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslims, and Dutch and Belgian city councils controlled by radical Islamists. Sharia is not far behind; at that point the liberals in Europe and the US will have plenty to fear indeed - but not from neoconservatives or Christians.

Tony, Baltimore, USA

IMHO the biggest problem of neoconservatism is its confidence that the end justifies the means and that military might is, and always will be, preferable to diplomacy. I'm not a student of political philosophies so this is just one lay-womans take of it, but it seems to me that any governing ideology that values loyalty over competence, condones torture, "ghost" imprisonment, star-chamber trials, domestic propaganda, media suppression, political assassination, vilifying those who disagree with you, cronyism, and demands ideological purity...well, that doesn't sound like democracy to me.

They tend to forget that "democracy" is inherently liberal because freedom itself is inheretly liberal. Think of all the "free's" you know. Free thinking, free love, free speech, free expression...all ideals associated with liberals. You can't build a liberal democracy using conservative principles. It simply doesn't work.

Bianca Tate, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Middle East needed radical change to avoid greater misery is rational for the confident and the truly brave, strong leader. A more present and clear danger was Saddam back in Kuwait on to northeast Saudi Arabia, not to control oil but to stop the flow. The weapon of mass destruction, a box of matches.

james, Las Vegas, Nevada

Reversion to the mean occurs in statistics,politics and economic practise and theory.Moneterism and neo-conservative thought are out of vogue only temporarily. Central Europe and Asia are embracing centerist policies,and leave Old Europe in their wake.
I'd invest in Mongolia and China for a better perspective on modern developed thought.

DavidRafal, brampton, Canada

As an American, and decidedly left of center, I think the greater point is being missed completely. Neoconservatism is and would always be a failure because it erroneously assumes one major point: the U.S., being a righteous and Christian nation, has God on our side, ergo we are always right in whatever we say or do.

This is, after all, what neoconservatism is really all about. It is the replacement of our democracy by a theocracy based upon the religious beliefs of zealots/evangelists of primarily Protestant faiths. In the end all our social ills and those of the rest of world would be solved if everyone simply converted to whatever Protestant faith is offered by the religious right (the neoconservatives) and followed it's lead into the wilderness, so to speak. Noeconservatism never had any grounding in reality and why should it? After all, it's entire doctrine, based upon it's belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, is based entirely upon faith and nothing else.

Mark Alfson, Englewood, USA, Ohio

Gerard Baker is way too hard on neoconservatism-- Neoconservatism has resulted in absolute unquestionable wild success in several critical areas:
1) Social and Economic Policy-- New York City's rebirth and reduction in crime rate was largely due to following neoconservative principles, namely James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows theory. You British would be very wise to read his critical paper and see why many of America's cities are now so much more livable than London. Hint: Google 'Wilson Broken Windows'
2) Neoconservatives have to take responsibility for George Bush, true. But they also get credit for Ronald Reagan as they provided strong intellectual heft for confronting communism on all fronts. End of Soviet Union, anyone?

Andrew Berman, Tenafly, NJ, 07670

Spreading democracy at the point of a gun is not new to the neocons. It was John F. Kennedy, not the neocons, that said we would "pay any price, bear any burden..." etc. to promote democracy around world. And he meant it. In his short term he invaded Cuba and began the Vietnam War to "promote democracy". Failed policies. But was not democracy brought to Germany and Japan at the point of a gun? John Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt were hardly neocons.

Dave, Boulder, US

@Robert

America has been building bridges of trust with the world's thugs and dictators for decades and even brought many of them into power.

Peter Friedrich, Nuremberg, Germany

"I am certainly not the person, for a detailed philosophical study of the ideology."

In that, at least, you are correct,"

Kevin Dunn, Nedlands, Western Australia

The primary identifying stamp of a neoconservative in the U.S. is their willingness to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Oh, and to work hard to hobble liberal democracy in the United States. Their partially successful efforts to restrict our civil rights and rig our electoral system are notorious, and will be part of their enduring reputation.

"Neoconservatives" have done vile and repulsive things in the name of their ideology. They aren't conservative, and they aren't 'neo' - their brand of thuggery has been with us since humans climbed out of the trees.

E Carpenter, New York, usa

I think you are rather underestimating some of the shrewdest political thinkers in the West at the present time if you believe that they did not anticipate the current state of Iraq as a possible outcome. I think you will find there is no shortage of money going into the neocon think-tanks right now, as they struggle to find a strategy that will retain control of the oilfields, ensure security for Israel and limit the unavoidable conflict that is to come.

Charles, London, England

As someone who left Britain 20 years ago but who returns frequently, I can say that the quality of life in Germany is way above that in the UK. I said that to someone from Australia and was asked what exactly "quality of life" is. If you were to live here for a period of time you woudn't have to ask that question. In a survey that came out last week looking at the quality of life in cities around the world, Germany had three in the top ten. There are plenty of things that need to be changed in the country. But finding the balance is not an easy job for any country.

Wendy, Freiburg, Germany

"Aggressive Zionism"? Is this really how they talk in Londonistan these days? T S Eliot's the least of an English Jew's worries.

Joel, New York, USA

All of this makes a lot of sense...but what is the phrase 'aggressive zionism' doing there? It's certainly true that neoconservatism has a total commitment to the security of Israel, but where exactly has this translated into an aggressive zionism? Why is it that any and all steps Israel is forced to take to protect its citizens from brutal, merciless homicide bombers is characterized as 'aggressive.' Where is Orwell when we need him?

Joel Eigen, Lancaster, Pa

Neoconservatism is just conservatism without patience, which means, it is not conservatism at all. Real conservatives here in the USA were much more skeptical of the war than neocons.

As for the way Europe's governments/societies function, one would have to take by force my home and property before I would go along with the Godless, secular-worshipping, social-do-gooder, markedly misguided egalitarianism that smacks of industrialized European countries now.

Doug, Milwaukee, USA Wisconsin

Peter,

The problem with a "working co-operatively in a shared environment" political theory is that it ignores the most critical element in the current environment that has brought us to where we are today.

How do you work co-operatively with someone who denies your right to exist?

Steve, New York, USA

Napoleon had a dream -- the destruction of all the monarchies of Europe. It was a good dream, worth pursuing. In spite of some temporary setbacks, such as Waterloo, the dream happened.

Even after 200 year, France has not recovered.

Joe Davidson, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

'Monetarism was discredited'. This would be the same discredited doctrine that is used day-in-day-out by the world's second and third most important central banks? Just because the US central bank prefers to spend its time creating asset price bubbles, doesn't mean monetarism discredited. Direct links between M3 and CPI may have been retired, but there is no serious economist doubts that 'Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon'.

mcfarland, dubai, UAE

Hey Peter, if you think Europe's mix of "capatalism and socialism" is the answer, I've got a bridge for sale you might be interested in.

Nick, Sydney,

Chas,

Peter's love affair with Europe is fairly representative of the Left in Oz. They go on holiday to Europe, walk around some pretty villages and ride on a beautiful train. Hey isn't Europe wonderful!!

What they don't see is the high unemployment, the low economic growth, the grotesque bureaucracy, the ethnic and racial problems, the crushing weight of regulation and the corruption. Yet they argue for a European model in Oz.

Hugh, London (ex Sydney),

Nice straddle. Mind you, it beats a sharp fisking.

Dr. Frank Lippenheimer, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Exactly what level of positive support and trust does Mr Posetti think possible with a nation like Iran, or for that matter, Saddam's Iraq? Iran is a country that has just kidnapped 15 British naval personnel by flat-out lying that they were in Iranian waters; Iran's leader claims the Holocuast did not happen; Iran's leadership is developing nuclear power for what they claim is domestic energy despite possessing vast oil reserves. And what was Europe's response to that? Nothing.

Brian McDermott, Dublin, Ireland,

I suggest that Peter move from Brisbane to any major city in Europe and then let us know if the European "promise" is fulfilled.

chas bassos, bluffton, sc, USA

I'm amused at this assertion that neo-conservatism, like monetarism, offered the correct analysis but failed as policy. Monetarism failed precisely because it did not offer the correct analysis, because the world is a lot more complicated than the academic theorists supposed. Sounds familiar?

Adam Jackson, Freetown, Sierra Leone

Mr. Posetti's comments reveal a shocking ignorance of reality. Ah yes, hope from Europe -- the perfect model of collapsing welfare states and disasterously low borthrates made possible through a long-term security guarantee by a too-generous ally. If only America would build bridges of trust with the world's thugs and dictators, everything would be okay! If this is the state of thinking in Australia these days, hope from the world certainly won't be coming from that quarter.

Robert Thomas, silver Spring, MD

Good to see the Murdoch press finally facing up to reality.. I wonder if Fox News will follow the same path?

Owen, London, UK

"Neoconservatism" is a "throw- back" political theory of no worth in the past and, certainly, of no worth today. The focus needs to be more to do with working co-operatively in a shared environment where countries start to to help each other: provide positive support and to build the bridges of trust. We don't see this too much today because all of us are still too parasitic in our thinking and none more so than the neo-conservative theorists and their apologists in the current USA administration. There is hope but it doesn't lie with the USA, a better promise is emerging through Europe with a healthier mix of capatalism and socialism- there is the hope for all: pure capatalism is as good as dead in the water.

Peter Posetti, Brisbane, Australia

The difficulty in Iraq is that the invasion proceeded in the absence of a credible government in waiting such as the ANC in South Africa - resulting in the bloody chaos we see before us. That was irresponsible of the main sponsering powers. As for monatarism being discredited - this is in name only, since its insights are key underpinnings to the macromanagement of all major economies.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge,

Here, Here Bette S, I'm with you. The European West died 60 years ago and the calls of Hitler from them show the shambles of moral decay it has left behind.
Hitler, wanted to rule the world, America wanted to give a country the opportunity rule themselves.
Unfortunately, tribalism is the dominant philosophy of the Middle East at large. They cannot see past survival of the tribe. Seeing some of the comments from my friends across the pond they seem to be of the same thought. However we are more sophisticated it is called, "isolationism." There was another tribe called the Jews some 2500 years ago that were taken from "the bondage of slavery" and given its freedom. They too were unfit to rule themselves. It took 40 years of wondering through the desert before a generation emerged able to enter and understand state management and freedom.
The European West has concluded that freedom is not worth the fight, for this I am sorry and we will miss you.

Beth, Shelton, CT

Since the sermon of Clermont and up to the division of the spoils following the Great War, the near -east has suffered untold misery at the hands of the so-called civilised west. After watching channel 4's Mark of Cain last night I am convinced that there is far more brutality awaiting the populations of that part of the world at the hands of the modern day Crusaders.

Dr Izhar Khan, Aberdeen,

Those who say that you can not bring democracy to a country thru war and conflict must be ignoring history. Germany, Japan, and the
Philipines all achieved democracy because of war and occupation. India is democratic today because of Britian's occupation. Please consider the facts before you proclaim your truth.

Sam Piercy, Waxhaw, US

"The fact is, the war’s opponents had it right when they said the US would not be able to pull that brutalised, fractious country into the community of civilised states".
There seems to be no mention of the way we went into this war or the cost to Iraq,1 million dead and injured,the loss of their country.You make it sound like a classroom experiment that went wrong with the loss of a rat.That is my image of a true neo-con.There has never been any doubt among ordinary non neo-con observers that one brutal tyrant will be replaced by another,but only through brutality.I can only hope the subjects of this experiment appreciate all we have done for them.

JohnP, Newcastle, UK

America should quickly update its nuclear arsenal, build its Star Wars, forget about Israel and the Middle East ( so long as the USA gets its oil that is) and FORGET about acting as the World's policeman.Being the arbiter of the destinies anywhere outside the USA ( even in Europe) has brought nothing but criticism by the intended beneficiaries of its interventionism.The UK should stop trying to punch beyond its weight in world affairs and emulate another former World Power-Germany- if not (yet) Switzerland.Leave the problems of the East to the locals and to the Chinese and Russians, if they would be so foolish as to want to control the politics of the wider wold!

Johnny Wlaker, London , UK

?But it would be even more foolish to believe that ridding the world of tyranny is itself a mistake. The essence of good policy is fixing the right means in the right circumstances to that end? OK, so we know that. What are your brilliant suggestions? Liberalism's tenet of talk, talk and more talk certainly hasn't worked. While we talk, they plot!!!!

Bette S, Miami, FL

i would have thought mr. baker capable of more insightful analysis. the neo-conservatives would no doubt have proposed "liberating" somewhere like portugal when they perceived a european threat from hitler...if you are going to advocate massive, premature use of force, at least have the intelligence to use it against the real threat in the region. politcal and military captial all spent - what's left now to help stablise an even more distrubed region in the face of iran's belligerence...?

Stephen Jones, China, China

One thing the simplistic neo-cons seem to have failed to do was to run a mirror scenario, a 'what-if-it-happened-to-me' test. What if America was ruled by a secular despot and a foreign power decided to sort it out. How would ordinary Americans, local interest groups and external interest groups respond? How would American patriotism take it? (1) Not lying down, (2) In ways that are probably too complex to predict. That in itself should have been a warning to the neocons. The other simplistic error was the idea that 'liberal democracy' can be imposed. Surely successful democratic institutions only emerge with citizens' ownership and are sensitive to their history and requirements. Maybe the neo-con adventure has been a good thing after all. Its utter failure will immunise us from similar expensive cons for the rest of the century and help concentrate on the more important issues of poverty and the environment.

Bob Grundy, Londonistan,

Anyone with a reasonable degree in politics can tell you that political culture is the vital ingredient in how a democratic political system operates.

It took centuries for Britain's and Europe's democratic culture to develop. You simply cannot transplant political institutions to a country without the culture to allow them to operate.

This is so stunningly obvious (look at what has happened in Africa over the last 50 years) that to come out now and to admit with hindsight that it doesn't work is to admit to being dim in the first place.

Only a gradual introduction and development of democracy will work in the long term. This is precisely what happened in the West.

Marek, London,

Liberal democracy was one possible outcome, albeit the most desirable, amongst the neocons. But one has only to look at what the neocons were doing during the Iran-Iraq war to appreciate that maintaining a Shia/Sunni conflict was also an acceptable outcome.

I think it was also pretty well understood that liberal democracy cannot easily exist within a society where government funds are not derived from personal taxes. Oil revenue creates this problem. Voters, who do not pay taxes, have little interest in national politics but can feel bitter and alienated when they see how those who gain power use the money that they control.

Charles, London, England

Saddam Hussein held Iraq together for years, using methods frowned upon in the west. It should have been pretty obvious to all that the only way the US could hold it together was to employ similar methods, which was never going to happen.
The mistake was in comparing Iraq to Germany or Japan in 1945. The Germans were a nation flattened, but used to democracy prior to Hitler, and occupied by 4 major powers for years. They were also scared of the Russians and so cooperated with the US.
In Japan, also flattened, the people were ordered by their emporer, thought of as a god, to cooperate.
Neither of the two scenarios have any similarities to Iraq.

t lowe, birmingham, uk

"[T]he basic neoconservative diagnosis was [...] that the course of history in the Middle East needed a radical change if the world were not to suffer an even greater misery."

Mr Baker, it is surely not neoconservatism alone that would make such a diagnosis in foreign policy? Classic liberalism/idealism and its offspring neoliberalism/liberal internationalism would also draw a similar conclusion. The primary difference is the neoconservative emphasis on militarism as a tool of political change. While broadly-speaking liberalism recognises the power, or potential power, of international institutions and globalised market forces to bring about the spread of liberal democracy throughout the "uncivilised" world, neoconservatism by its very definition embraces, nay advocates, military intervention as the most efficient courier of democracy. It is on this assumption, rather than the obvious observation that the Middle East is in need of reform, that NC has been laid bare in Iraq.

Daniel Calder, Manchester,

what the neo-cons didn't get, still don't understand, is that you need to build up institutions that will support democracy, not bomb out the water supply system, the electricity network, the educational facilities, the hospitals, the public transport.
americans in the last several years has lost more freedoms than iraqis have gained.
the REAL philosophy behind neo-conservatism is NOT democracy; it is a money-making scheme, off the backs of taxpayers.
the shrubbery went into iraq without any kind of plan for apres-invasion. for every u.s. military, there is a private contractor from companies like blackwater and halliburton, with no-bid contracts and no accountability for the billions of dollars they've received. instead of making the iraqi situation better as they were contracted to do, they have done nothing but substandard work.
if another country looks at iraq as an example of democracy, who would want it.

ROZ mandelcorn, los angeles, usa/california

It was not just "an error of judgment". it was a symptom of the underlying basically undemocratic stance of neocons, i.e that the (neocon part of the) USA is entitled to wage war wherever it wants for whatever reason it chooses, and treat other countries'citizens as second class 9if even that).
This stance is what peeps out time and time again: in the (mal)treatment of Guantanamo prisoners, in the firing of attorneys, in the hiding/deleting of emails and use of inappropriate email accounts, in the illegal rendering of suspects to / from other countries, and so on an so further.
Calling all of this just an error of judgment is facetious.

bill, bristol, UK

Ian Aitken made a point which is hard to ignore, he observed that people don't know what the term neocon means but they know that it is something very nasty.

Mark Lyndon, London, UK

Ah, intellectuals: people who find smart ways to be stupid.

B Dukes, Fleet,

"...yes, me..."

Yes, you, Mr Baker. Having spent years lebelling as dangerous idiots those who felt the Iraq war was the wrong means to the right ends, I think we can take this as a sizeable retreat on your part. Congratulations!

DW, Oxford, UK

Neoconservativism is a complicated -- and dare I say it -- rich and worthy political philosophy (at least if one reads those of its originators who articulate it well and vividly, as compared to its detractors, who hardly bother to think about it in their haste to slander it). I am certain that it will survive in some form, perhaps as 'liberal interventionism', because it is not simply a mask or cover for a venal resource pillaging, but an attempt to promote democracy in terrible parts of the world. (Who can deny that the likes of Zimbabwe or Burma, let alone Darfur, would benefit from 'liberal interventionism'?)

TKehler, Vancouver, Canada

I believe, Mr. Baker, that you spend much too much time reading and re-reading your own articles that you tend towards writing in a style that emulates "The world according to <fill your own name here>. I could be wrong though as there are many of YOUs out there casting aspersions and making lame analogys.

As Mr. Bishop explains, to those "intelligent" persons who wish to understand, the picture of failure you have chosen to perpetuate is only your illustration. Your (U.S. hating) readership may appreciate the negativism, but would they not be better served with a clear picture or at least something a little more panoramic? "Realists" in my book choose the latter. "Mire" in that.

Even Mr. Summers senses more than just "failure" in Iraq. ;)

In any case, your writing off success is a bit premature.

D M Kare, Mpls, USA/MN

I think this is a little too black & white. Monetarism is discredited if you consider this as the sole basis for explaining the performance of the economy - but no one would deny that the money supply is not an important factor. Further although monetarism may be discredited no one suggests that as a result we revert to post war neo-Keynesian economics.

Neo-conservatism as a philosophy for guiding for foreign policy may have failed but elements of neo conservatism will survive. Further the failure of neo-con philosophy does not mean that we revert to the discredited Clintonesque policies of the pre-neo-con period.

Hugh, London,

This article has all the hallmarks of a PHDs worth of socio-political analysis, constrained by a 1000 word limit :)

Mark, Woking, UK

The point should not be that the attempt to install a liberal democracy in Iraq failed. The real point should be that the attempt should never have been made in the first place.

It is not the job of the United States, or any country for that matter, to impose a form of government on another country. To do so is arrogant...a trait regularly demonstrated by the Bush administration,

Stephen, Atlanta, Georgia

The neocons have collapsed? Last time I looked, Iraq had a democratic electoral system based on the "purest" form of systems, ie proportional representation as practised in Scandinavia, most of northern Europe, & New Zealand and is the electoral sytem of choice of emerging democracies such as post apartheid South Africa and Indonesia! As far as am aware it has a largely free market economy, a thriving currency and Bremer's privatisation orders have not been overturned.

Its atavistic and despotic neighbours are not happy about it, but they seem to be finding that the alternatives are worse. It is surely a triumph of the neo con vision that likes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are having to buttress up a proportionally elected state on their doorstep. Once the small minority of Iraqi Sunni Arabs reconcile themselves to the new political reality in Iraq, the Shia populations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf will fast be asking why they don't have proportional representation too? Game over.

B.A.BISHOP, Melbourne, Australia

"I still do not think, however, that the basic neoconservative diagnosis was wrong: that the course of history in the Middle East needed a radical change if the world were not to suffer an even greater misery".

True change must come from within.

That the NC's felt the need for radical change is still only a small part of the puzzle.

The real reason is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article554318.ece

The objective of occupation has already been acheived and will last for years to come.

This is no surprise to the majority in the world who knew there was ulterior motive.

How did such an intelligent person like Mr Baker not see it...

F.S.SUMMERS, LONDON.,