On one level, the answer is self-interest. Many of the top think tanks, lobbying shops and law firms -- where prominent neocons earn fat salaries when they're not working in the government -- get gobs of money from military contractors, either as generous donations or hefty fees. It's never wise to bite the hand that feeds you.
Plus, when the neocons rotate back into government -- as they hope to under a new Republican president in 2013 -- they want to control a robust military that can shove around global adversaries. What's the fun in having to negotiate?
Some neocons also are deeply committed to the interests of Israel and see the proper role of the U.S. military as taking down Israeli adversaries that are beyond the capability even of the top-notch Israeli Defense Forces.
While Israel is capable of thrashing the Palestinians in Gaza or blasting apart Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, it couldn't reach out hundreds of miles and eliminate Muslim enemies like Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi or Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That requires the nonpareil U.S. military.
Getting Iran
And, with Hussein now gone and Gaddafi under siege, that leaves Iran as Israel's pre-eminent threat, and it is not within easy range of Israel's air force. So, some neocons are quite open about the need to maintain high levels of U.S. military spending in case Israel decides to attack Iran and its nuclear program.
The Washington Post, which has evolved into the neocons' flagship newspaper, has warned that any significant reduction in the U.S. military budget would jeopardize the power needed to confront Iran and other "rogue" states.
In a Tuesday editorial praising Defense Secretary Robert Gates for chastising NATO allies over their reduced military spending, the Post also noted that President Barack Obama was sliding in a similarly dangerous direction.
The Post editors wrote: "Despite an ongoing war in Afghanistan and the growing threat from rogue states such as Iran, Mr. Gates noted, European defense spending has fallen 15 percent since 2001, even as that of the United States has doubled.
"The American portion of NATO defense spending, which hovered around 50 percent during the Cold War, is now 75 percent." Mr. Gates rightly blamed European governments for being "apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.'"
The Post continued: "The secretary's sermon was well-justified. But we couldn't help wondering if the assembled European ministers would find some irony in his lessons. The Obama administration, after all, is pressing for big defense cuts of its own -- up to $400 billion over the next dozen years, on top of savings of a similar amount already identified by Mr. Gates.
"That will mean, the Pentagon chief said in a speech last month, 'a smaller military' that 'will be able to go fewer places and do fewer things.'"
Beyond criticizing the notion of limiting the Pentagon budget, the Post chastised Obama for withdrawing U.S. strike aircraft from the Libya campaign and for considering a significant draw-down in the 100,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan.
The Post cited, nervously, "some reports suggesting that senior White House aides are again pushing to abandon the mission of creating an Afghan government and army capable of defending the country by 2014."
"It's hard to see Europeans responding to appeals like that of Mr. Gates at a time when the United States is reducing its military capabilities, scaling back its objectives [in Afghanistan] and insisting on taking a back seat during a war [in Libya]."
The Post concluded, "It may be that NATO has a dim future, but if so it's not only because its smaller members are shirking their responsibilities. It's also because its dominant member leader is eschewing its indispensable role of leadership."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
