>The neocons are far from fucked
<http://againstwot.com/right/right.html>
WHAT NEOCONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION?
Prior to the Roberts hearings, many liberals stole a page from their own foreign policy analysis and worried about a 'neoconservative revolution [that] would transform the nation's constitutional morality'. But in the post-Roberts, post-Miers landscape, and with the Alito nomination finally making its way to the Senate today, we are left wondering: what neoconservative revolution?
In fact, the neoconservatives have been something of a left-wing bogeyman, scaring together opposition through frantic invocations of a conspiratorial vanguard threatening to destroy our nation. Newsweek only recently cottoned on to what others already noticed a while back: Bush, far from being the spearhead of a radical movement, is an increasingly isolated president, unpopular even within his own (fragmenting) party, and with nothing new to offer since the invasion of Iraq almost three years ago. Most of the major neo-conservatives, like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Frum, have resigned or been pushed out of their positions of power and influence; Rice's elevation suggested Bush wanted yes-(wo)men over ideological comrades.
---
<http://www.slate.com/id/2134511/>
Managing conflict doesn't mean avoiding crises. By Ian Bremmer Posted Monday, Jan. 23, 2006, at 10:32 AM ET
Over the last year, an important shift has occurred in U.S. foreign policy. Though White House rhetoric remains as uncompromising and self-assured as it was during the days when neoconservatives talked of regime change in multiple states, assertions of confidence and determination veil a reversal of the most ambitious aspects of the Bush foreign policy. The president's low approval ratings and the growing unpopularity of the conflict in Iraq have transferred power and influence within the administration away from aggressive neocons toward more risk-averse "conflict managers."
New faces have emerged. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a forceful advocate for regime change in Iraq, has moved to the World Bank. In his place, former Navy Secretary Gordon England has won praise as a pragmatist and problem-solver. A skilled diplomat, Undersecretary of State Nick Burns has become a guiding force in the formulation of Middle East policy-at the expense of arch-neocon Elliott Abrams.
These and other new players have implemented fresh policies. Where the administration once threatened foreign antagonists like Syria with regime change via threats of military intervention or active support for opposition forces, it now more often seeks a cautious, multilateralist approach intended to protect a stable status quo. U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's initiative to directly engage Iran on Iraq's future security is noteworthy. Burns approved the plan. Abrams strongly opposed it.
On North Korea, the administration has moved beyond its mantra that Pyongyang's nuclear program is "unacceptable" toward efforts to stabilize the diplomatic conflict. The administration offered genuine support for opposition forces in Georgia and Ukraine, and denounced heavy-handed treatment of demonstrators in Uzbekistan. Yet, following the recent elections in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, regime opponents there who complained of electoral fraud found little support from Washington.
On China, despite the widening bilateral trade gap, the White House has resisted congressional efforts to brand China a "currency manipulator." President Hu Jintao's unwillingness to offer Bush a meaningful revaluation of the renminbi or concessions on the protection of intellectual-property rights during a recent visit to Beijing did nothing to harden the administration's approach.
[...]