Neo-Neo-Conservatism is Developing in U.S.

As U.S. troops have occupied Iraq longer than expected, the situation causes new concern of the possibility that the war on Iraq could become the second Vietnam War. The two wars are worthy to be compared in at least at one point. It is the history of an ideological division in the U.S. intellectual society.

James Atlas, a famous columnist, on October 19 in the New York Times, wrote, “Like neo-conservatism which began to develop during the Vietnam War with great momentum, neo-neo-conservatism is developing through the Iraqi War.”

Neo-conservatism was the intellectual trend of thought that provided the theoretical grounds for the Iraqi War to the Bush administration. It attracted public attention because of its powerful influence over political affairs.

Neo-neo-conservatism also insists that war on Iraq was proper. It explains that the anti-war movement helped the survival of illicit dictatorships such as the Saddam Hussein regime. It has the same assertion as neo-conservatism’s that during the Vietnam War, the anti-war campaign promoted communism proliferation. Neo-conservatism was formed through the criticism of the anti-war movement.

However, people who are classified into neo-neo-conservatism have their own different reasons.

Michael Ignatieff, the director of Human Rights Policy of John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University, made his position clear that the war was proper with the reason of improving human rights in Iraq after U.S. removed the Iraqi tyrant, Hussein.

Michael Worger, a political philosopher, condemns the anti-war movement that stuck to a “hands-off” policy even after witnessing the events of September 11th.

Christopher Hitchens, a columnist, supports the war of a revolution that broke down the illicit Iraqi regime.

All of them agree with a turnover of the Hussein regime but do not support Bush administration in common.

Neo-neo-conservatism accords with the conservatives in that it supports war. However, it is same as neo-conservatism in that the root is progressivism. Both maintain that they were developed in the efforts to overcome the limits of progressivism. They are similar even in that each one wants to be considered as an ideology and not as a political union of the early stage that is formed through war.

Hye-Yoon Park parkhyey@donga.com