Let's not can the neocons yet

While there is little doubt that they played a significant role in the lead-up to the Iraq war, their influence on the present Bush administration isn't too pervasive. There are very deep ideological and personal differences over Middle East policy between the neo-cons i.e.

Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and so on, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell. There are good reasons to suspect that the neocon influence will wane in the weeks to come.

The neocon West Asian policy, as far as I can tell, is a high-octane mix of Trotskyite idealism, passionate support of Israel and Rand Corporation style mathematical political science. The neocons argue that it is in America's interest to use its power to make the world safe for democracy and the free market. This leads them to propose a plan that, depending on your perspective, is visionary or mad.

Neocons believe that oil money and American subsidies have made Arab dictators irredeemably corrupt and incompetent. They encourage religious fanaticism and anti-Israeli/ anti-American sentiment to deflect anger from their own ineptitude. The solution, neocons argue, is to completely re-make the Arab world in America's image "" to replace the corrupt Arab despots with democratic governments and free markets.

Freedom of political expression and economic growth, not peace accords and road maps, will solve the problems of the region. However, there is a slight problem with their happy proposal; the path from here to there is "" to put it mildly "" risky.

Excessive risk is precisely what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell would want to avoid. Their purpose is to conserve the current political and social structure "" both domestic and international "" in which they have enormous personal and political stake. Liberals and progressives choke at the sight of such people.

However, at the zenith of America's military, economic and technological power, many Americans can be forgiven for thinking that their current system is the right one.

George Bush grew up rich, made a pot of money from fairly dubious business dealings, was governor of Texas for two terms and now sits in the White House. No wonder that Fouad Ajami can write that President Bush is at home with himself, his country and family verities. Wouldn't you?

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell are different, though. They worked their way up the system, which found them effective and rewarded them handsomely. Cheney was widely praised as Secretary of Defence during the last gulf war. And in his last job as CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney reportedly raked in $ 36 million dollars a year.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell have no interest in establishing a new-world order in West Asia or elsewhere. They are realists and their foreign policy is more traditionally conservative. It emphasises the pursuit of American interest, promoting and securing American investments and working with allies.

Robert Kaplan writes of realists that their, "political sensibility driven by needs rather than by ideas...skill [does] not lie in creativity but in proportion, in its ability to combine elements...as given. Realism is thus about deftly playing the hand that has been dealt you." Now Bush and company (pun not intended) were dealt a very strong hand. There is no way they are going to risk a reshuffle.

So while the neocons and the more traditional conservative elements in the administration agreed over the course of action in Iraq, the concord is unlikely to last much further. The neocons are going to oppose Cheney, Rumsfeld and Colin Powell trying to salvage as much as they can of the ancien regime in West Asia.

The neocon hawks see the UN as the picture of weak multilateralism, which they hate. They'll surely resist any attempt try to get the UN involved in the re-construction of Iraq. The neocons will also kick up a fuss if the Bushies place their oil interests over democracy in Iraq. Most importantly, they will howl if the Bushies put pressure on the Sharon government, which they feel compromises Israel's security.

On the other hand, the traditional conservatives are going to resist neocon pressure to go after Iran and Syria unless they pose a direct threat to America. To no one's surprise, the Bush administration wasted little time in handing over plum contracts to those known to be close to the administration.

As the Iraqi occupation turns out to be tougher and bloodier than the government had expected, there are early indications that the Bushies are not toeing neocon line on the UN.

Besides, Bush has gone further than any American President by a backing a UN resolution calling for a Palestinian state. The neocons and their Likud supporters (Likud still officially opposes the creation of an independent Palestinian state) are deeply suspicious of any such move.

More tellingly, Bush has been vocal in his opposition to the security fence Israel is building. Tellingly, Bush has also threatened to reduce Israel's loan guarantees if they continue building the fence.

The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago, that the Bush administration was thinking about sending James Baker, the secretary of state to the first President Bush, to Iraq. Last August, Baker wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, urging the president not to "go it alone" in confronting Iraq and to "reject the advice of those who counsel doing so."

Though, the Washington Post report was later denied, whispers of this sort might mean that the current Bush administration has realised that it has bitten off more than it can chew alone. It needs allies and international support to win the peace in Iraq. In that case, the neocons better be hungry. There are going to have to eat a lot of crow.