From Neo-conservatism to Neo-liberalism

For the past 8 years of the George W. Bush administration the neo-conservative project has been the dominant force shaping American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. The project is grounded in the philosophical worldview of intellectuals and pundits such as Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol. It was implemented at the political level by adherents such as Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Douglas Feith and Dick Cheney.
The worldview of this group, largely Jewish, was shaped by the Jewish Holocaust and the failure of the western democracies, particularly the US and UK, to intervene aggressively to prevent the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. They see an obligation for the world’s economic and military hegemonic power to intervene, militarily if necessary, to spread western culture and values around the world with the goal of making the world a better and safer place. They see diplomacy as “we make demands, you agree to them and then we talk about what you want”. If you don’t agree then “preventive war” is justified.
With the election of Barack Obama we are shifting to neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism, while not a twin brother of neo-conservatism, is certainly a cousin. Its adherents such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyck, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer, Richard Holbrooke and Hilary Clinton, again largely Jewish have a similar worldview as their neo-conservative cousins. They see the road to peace and stability, particularly in the Middle East, as depending upon the “backward, unenlightened” nations of the region embracing, by force if necessary, western culture, free market economics and western style democracy.
They differ from neo-conservatives in their emphasis on “statecraft” as a preferable option, but at the end of the day if “statecraft” does not achieve the desired result, military force is justified.
One could see the dynamic that will shape US policy in the Obama administration during the Hilary Clinton confirmation hearings.
She expressed her support for so called “smart power”, but when it came to specific issues, like Iran and Hamas, the verbiage came right out of the neo-conservative’s “play book”.
With respect to Iran she said that the United States will “do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state” and “no option is off the table”. With respect to Hamas she said “Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by all previous agreements”. These are “conditions … that would lead to any kind of negotiations.”
With this group making up the Obama foreign policy team it doesn’t look to me like “change you can believe in”