There was a time when America led by example. As Reagan put it in his 1984 RNC acceptance speech, "We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be a Shining City on a Hill." America was a beacon of hope, a shining example of what's possible. Somehow, in the last six years, we've lost our way and gone from Class President and Team Captain, to the class bully.

One's reputation is determined from in one's interactions with others, and so we must do a careful self-examination our foreign policy if we are to understand what went wrong. There seems to be no lack of proof that our standing the world is the lowest than any other time in modern history. A recent BBC poll this year found 73% of those polled in 25 countries disapprove of U.S. policies toward Iraq. Furthermore, 68% of those surveyed, including a majority in 23 out of 25 countries, said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East does more harm than good. Nearly half of those polled in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East said the United States is now playing a mainly negative role in the world. We find ourselves embroiled in a lengthy, expensive, and destructive war in Iraq, while Iran's influence is on the rise. Saudi Arabia is brokering agreements in Palestinian Territories, China is negotiating the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, and the European Union is trying to talk Iran off the nuclear ledge. The US is conspicuously absent in these discussions, save the periodic unilateral demands, and is clearly no longer a leader on the world stage. What happened? How did we sink so low? Weren’t we the leader of the free world?

To really understand how we got there, we must rewind to prior to Bush's election 2000, to a time when a new ideology was developing: The Neoconservative movement. The forum and crucible for this movement’s ideas is the The Weekly Standard, a news magazine edited by William Kristol, the son of Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol, widely considered the grandfather of Neo-conservatism, best summed up Neo-conservative principles in article entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion" published on August 25, 2003 in The Weekly Standard. Concentrating on the foreign policy aspects of Neo-conservatism, he wrote:

First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

Already one can see tenants that point towards the unbridled use of force, hubris, arrogance, a failure to understand the limits of military power, and the utter distain for others. Most Americans see War as a means of last resort, not an opportunity that should be sought out. So, how does this dangerous and irresponsible view translate to US foreign policy? And how did we let a minority few dictate national priorities?

In 2000 Vice President Dick Cheney, already heavily indoctrinated by the Neoconservatives, took office and got his good friend Donald Rumsfeld appointed as Secretary of Defense. He, in turn, appointed two self proclaimed Neoconservatives: Paul Wolfowitz as the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Douglas Feith as the Undersecretary of Defense. Counterbalances to this Neoconservative leaning administration such as longtime rival to Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, a former officer and soldier that understood the realities and dangers of war, were quickly outflank, minimized, and ultimately driven out of office.

The Neoconservatives found their chance to take control on September 11th. It was after the attacks on that horrible day in September 2001 that a funny thing happened. We were attacked by Al Queda, but we went to war on Terror. Terror is a tactic, used from middle school lunch rooms to the streets of Iraq. Why then did we go to war on Terror: an open ended, ill-defined, amorphous, war?

At Bush's council of war immediately following the attacks, all agreed that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were most likely behind the attack, but the Neoconservatives led by Wolfowitz, argued for an attack on Iraq. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, he did manage to convince the President that this was a much wider war than just Bin Laden, and thus was the birth of the "War on Terror".

Although they decided on the name: The War on Terror, it really isn't about Terror or Terrorists. Imagine a land where more than four million people have been displace and two million have died. A place where families and whole villages go to bed at night, not knowing if they will wake alive, or if militias will attack, burning their houses, raping the women and girls, and killing all in sight. A place where the violence is so extreme that some refugee organizations refuse to go. Where families must decide if the men should leave the camp to gather firewood and likely be killed, or the women should leave the camp to gather firewood to "only get raped". This, of course, is the Darfur region of Sudan. A place so horrible that visiting US government officials have reluctantly admitted that genocide is occurring. If there ever were a place to combat real terror, Darfur would be it. No, the War on Terror isn't about combating Terror.

Who are these Terrorists that we are fighting? Numerous attempts have been made to define terrorists and terrorism, with results that border on the absurd. On August 24, 2004, two Russian commercial airliners were blown-up and crashed with all on board, thought to be the work of Chechnyan separatists. The US government counted only one of crashes as a terrorist act (since only one that had foreigners aboard). There is currently rumors in Washington that in response to allegations that Iran is providing arms to the insurgents Bush has instructed the Treasury Department to declare both Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Al Qud Forces as Terrorist organizations and to block their assets. Yet, following the invasion we failed to secure Saddam’s arms depots, allowed tons of weapons to flow into the hands of the insurgents. We followed up on this mistake by providing tens of thousands of unaccounted weapons that disappeared into the hands of Iraqis, with many of these likely ultimately used against Americans. Even though we are bigger offender in arming the insurgency, it is the Iranian who are the "terrorists". Remember, Mr. Kristol extolled his readers that many people are unable to define America's real enemies. Implicit in that statement is the understanding that the Neoconservatives do. The War on Terror was a clear victory for Neoconservatives. With no clear definition of a terrorist, any definition is arbitrary, one that does not allow for any checks or balances. No litmus test, no accountability, and a war with no end. The Neoconservatives now controlled the levers of power and had a blank check to pursue war and inflict pain on those they declared "enemies" of America.

In addition, through this murky haze of defining and redefining the enemy, we've embraced the Orwellian concepts of 'targeted assassinations', 'acceptable collateral damage' (dead civilians), and the sacrifice of individual liberties in quest for an undefined goal. We've jettisoned world opinion and bullied those that don't universally support our position.

Later, in control of the levers of powers in place, the Neo-conservatives went to exercise their powers by declaring war on Iraq. The Neoconservatives strong belief in the use of force had a problem: most Americans believe that war should only be used a last resort. This problem is best manifested thought the convoluted case for War in Iraq. The neoconservatives, faced with public pressure and reluctance to go to war, were belatedly forced to invent a case for war, and did so poorly. Links between Al Qaeda and Saddam weren't convincing and evidence of weapons of mass destruction were flawed. It was only through sheer will, repetition, and arm twisting that the case was made and Iraq War Powers Act passed. It was only after no weapons of mass destruction were found did the idea of converting Iraq to a democracy surface, perhaps the true causa bella.

We now understand who these Neoconservatives are, and how a radical minority was able to hijack US foreign policy. But how do the Neoconservatives actually view the world? Why do they shun diplomacy? Why the hatred of the UN? Why did America embrace hypocrisy, such as unilaterally rejecting an Anti-Ballistic Missile with Russia because it was too limiting, while lecturing other nations about the evils of nuclear weaponry? How could we decry human rights abuses around the world, while we kidnap foreign citizens off the streets of friendly nations and send them to secret prisons and aggressively interrogate them? These questions didn't make sense - it didn't seem to be part of the American DNA. I believe America is a peace-loving, rule-of-law, take-the-high-road nation. What paradigm, what prism, what viewpoint could possibly make all the Neo-conservative actions make sense?

Then, one day I had an epiphany. The paradigm came to me. The neo-conservatives see the world through the prism of a parent-child relationship. America is the parent, the responsible adult, and the rest of the world's countries are children, some better behaved than others. Now suddenly, it came into focus.

Take the Neo-Conservative's distain for diplomacy. In regards to the Chinese led agreement to get North Korea to mothball their nuclear production facilities, John Bolton, the US's former representative to the UN and Neo-conservative, is quoted in the Washington Times as saying of the agreement:

"It is rewarding bad behavior of the North Koreans…"

"The danger of this kind of agreement is that it's a charade, it's a hollow agreement. And it will give people the illusion of security when it won't actually produce it. And even worse, it will say to countries like Iran and other would-be proliferators, if you have just have enough patience, if you just have enough persistence, you'll wear the United States down. They'll give up on point after point after point."

This summarizes the Neo-conservatives' view that speaking to Iran, Syria, North Korea, or others will "reward them". I was always taught that the way mature adults settle their difference is through discussion, and could understand how a simple discussion would 'reward' those you're talking to. Is it the height of arrogance or something else? To see the Neo-conservative viewpoint, look through the parent-child prism. As any parent knows, when bed time comes a child will want to negotiate. The rule is set, both sides know the rule, but the child intuitively knows that if they can get the parent to enter into a negotiation, then the rule isn't hard and fast. The child hopes that by pushing the right combination of buttons they can get the rule waived or at least extract concessions. Ahhh..the rule is "no nukes" and they want to negotiate - now we see why it will 'reward' the child, ahem, country.

On Iraq. Looking at the so called Axis of Evil, Iraq wasn't the worst of the offenders. North Korea had nuclear weapons, was known to sell those weapons to anyone with cash (the Scuds that Saddam used in the Gulf War were originally North Korean), partook in counterfeiting, drug smuggling, kidnapped Japanese citizens, sent whole families to concentration camps, and have starved or otherwise killed millions of its own citizens. If there was ever a nation that was a threat to themselves and the world, well deserving of being toppled, it was North Korea. But we invaded Iraq. Why? Again, look through the prism of the parent-child relationship. If kids are misbehaving, by taking one out behind the woodshed you send a message not just to that kid, but all your kids that you are serious about them following the rules and behaving. Perhaps Iraq was the softest target.

On hypocrisy. How is that we kidnap people off the streets of foreign nations, partake in targeted assassinations, and dump our nuclear obligations, while lecturing other nations not to do so? Again, use the parent-child prism. As a parent and adult, we can handle smoking, drinking, and staying up late - after all we're responsible, but the kids certainly can't do the same.

On unilateralism. We tell North Korea to stop their nuclear program and somehow expect them to stop, even though they've withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Agreement. In Iran's case, our goal is to end Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, however, our precondition to any discussion is for Iran to stop their quest for nuclear weapons. Now look through the prism and think of a kid asking, "why do I have to go to bed now?" "Because I said so." We know better and will tell the world what to do. After all, we're the responsible adult. As Mr. Kristol wrote, "This superiority [of America] was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial." According to the Neo-cons, Americans need to take their parenting roles seriously.

On distain for the UN. In 1994, prior to becoming the US representative to the UN, John Bolton said it wouldn't make a "bit of difference" if the top 10 floors of the United Nations - which include the secretary-general's office - vanished from the 39-story headquarters building. In the same speech, he said there is "no such thing as the United Nations," just "an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States." Pick-up the prism and you see that the UN is like having a family meeting and voting on bed time. The US, as the parent, knows best and will do what's right for the family, without need for democratic input from others.

On distain for others. As the US international polls sank lower and lower, year after year, the Neo-conservatives shrugged them off, and continued their ruinous ways. Now, in a bind in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United states calls for international support only to find a deaf audience. Even the United Kingdom, a long time supporter on the War in Iraq is packing up their bags and heading home. But, now look through the prism. A parent that practices tough love may not be always be in the graces of their children, but in the end they will respect the parent more than a parent who tries to win a child's affection by spoiling them. Likewise, we forge ahead in our foreign policy without regard to short term effect.

The list continues, but you get the point. The problem with this view is that it's one-sided. The Neocons may see the world this way, but the rest of the countries of the world may not see themselves as equals, but certainly as peers.

Take the following analogy: It is as if the US swaggers up to other countries with a beer in one hand and cigar in the other and lectures the other countries on the evils of drinking and smoking. One could easily substitute nuclear weaponry and human rights violations for drinking and smoking. Through the Neo-Conservative prism, this is an adult lecturing children - and no hypocrisy exists. But if the other countries are adults, then we are hypocrites. Prior to the Neoconservatives, we led by example. By not drinking and smoking ourselves, we held the high ground and could lecture other regardless without accusations of hypocrisy. Back when we led by example, we created treaties to limit nuclear weapons, we supported the rule of law, due process, international agreements and fought for democracy by helping others. We took the high road, and although not always a Saint, we did our best to create that "Shining City on the Hill".

Don't misunderstand my motivations. This neoconservative movement was not borne out malice and hatred of America, rather, they truly believed what they were doing was in the best interests of America. But it is illustrative of how a small cadre of well meaning but misguided intellectuals with radical ideas were able to hijack our nation and the tremendous damage that can be done. This should be a bipartisan wake up call to all to remain vigilant. This essay is in no way meant to be a condemnation of the Republican party or core beliefs. In fact, not only did American suffer as these radicals pursued their flawed and misguided theories, Republicans suffered a double blow. Casualties include Rove's visions of a meaningful domestic agenda, Bush's legacy, and the Republican party's "permanent majority". The Presidency in 2008, might be the next to be added to the list. No, Republicans and Democrats alike should be aghast the damage done.

We now realize that we must remain vigilant of all threats against America, both from outside our country and from within. With our new understanding of the Neoconservative movement, its ideology, and its methodologies, we can begin the slow and lengthy process of rebuilding our military, our reputation, and our standing as the leader of the free world. Although I realize it make take years to polish our image, I am hopeful that once again America will once again be that Shining City on Hill, the beacon of hope, that America whose core values I love, and that the day will come when American can once again lead through example.