Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and self described neoconservative. His article, published in the Washington Post on November 19th, 2006, reflects quite succinctly the general position of neocons. He wrote:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, shattered the relative calm of the post-Cold War years, confronting the United States with a deadly enemy and an urgent need for a strategy. There was little disagreement among the different ideological schools over the need to smash al-Qaeda and kill Osama bin Laden. Most also agreed that the threat went beyond one man and one group; 9/11 was only the latest and biggest of many terrorist attacks on the United States. Why were so many young Middle Easterners willing to throw their lives away to kill Americans? Why did terrorists enjoy so much indulgence in the region? What could we do to change all this?

Liberals had an answer. To eliminate terrorism, the United States needed to address its supposed "root causes," such as poverty and hopelessness. But neocons found this unconvincing. The 19 killers of 9/11 were mostly well educated and middle class, and the man behind them was a multimillionaire. Even if poverty did help produce terrorists, what could be done? Could the threat of terrorism suddenly help the world figure out how to end global poverty? Traditional conservatives had few answers, focused as they were on conventional questions of statecraft and "big power" politics.

But neocons did have answers. We agreed on the need to address the root causes of terrorism, but for us that root cause was the political culture of the Middle East. Political culture did not mean Islam. Rather, it meant a habit of conducting politics by means of violence. At the time of the attacks, not one of the region's rulers (apart from Israel's) had been freely elected to his post. All relied on force and intimidation.

The neocon solution involved overhauling the way the region thinks about politics so that terrorism would no longer seem reasonable. This was a wildly ambitious idea, of course, but similar transformations had occurred in Europe and much of Asia over the previous half-century. If democracy had shown its potency in discouraging war elsewhere, it stood to reason that it also could be a cure to terrorism in the Middle East.

This latter extrapolation, admittedly, was just a hypothesis, but Bush embraced it because it was the only strategy on offer.

Let's take a closer look at Mr. Muravchik's and the neocon's hypothesis and the facts on the ground. Let's start with those areas where Islamic Fundamentalism has and are gaining ground: the Palestine Territories, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Chechnya, and the tribal areas in northern Pakistan among others. The common thread: a failed government. Islamic charities have been stepping in and provide basic necessities, such as food, hospitals, schools, and security. The growth of Islamic Fundamentalism seems to be inexorably tied to the failure of countries to provide the basic services that are required by the people, where people's basic need for security, food, shelter, and clothing outweighs the need for freedom and democracy. The fundamentalists understand that their strength is brought about through chaos. Hence, insurgents in Iraq, Hezbollah and Syria stirring up trouble in Lebanon, and the Taliban creating havoc in Afghanistan. The core reason for Muslims embracing radical Islamic Fundamentalism seems to the "root causes".

A second problem the Neocons have is using cold war accounting. During the cold war it was democracies on one side, communist regimes on the other, and a constant battle to win the support of those countries not already aligned (usually dictatorships). However, this is no longer true - by simply being a democracy doesn't mean that the country is pro-west. Democracies in Latin America, the Palestinian Territories, and Iran where elections have brought hardliner anti-American leaders to power. At the same time, we have found friends in Vietnam, Pakistan, Indonesia and other non-democratic countries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against democracy. Democracies tend to operate free market economies that are much more efficient than planned economies or state run economies. Democracies also tend to have less corruption (the last batch of Republicans aside) and be more accountable to the people. Democracies tend to be more moderate: they zig and zag from pulled to left and then to the right, but the ultimate path is more centrist. I find this last trait quite ironic because the Neocons thought by installing democracies in the middle east, they would be able to prevent long pointless wars (such as the invasion of Kuwait and the Iran/Iraq war) - and now the America people (as a democracy) are not tolerating a long, pointless war in Iraq.

My point is that our best means of fighting terrorism is to fight the root causes of terrorism (poverty and hopelessness). America should be a beacon of hope, not of fear. Coax countries towards democracies, assist people in finding democracy, but don't force it on people. The society has to want it - and over time democracy will spread on its own merits (like the collapse of communism which fell due to its own shortcomings).

Iraq was an experiment based on a hypothesis. It was one hell of an bet: $300 billion, 3,300 dead, over 20,000 wounded, a destabilized Middle East, world opinion of America at an all time low, and control of the congress who voted the Republicans out largely over Iraq. It's time for Bush administration and the neocons to admit they failed. If they stubbornly stick to their guns, insist on staying the course in Iraq, then they're likely to add a Republican Presidency to the list of casualties.