Neo-conservatism and catholic social thought

As the US is now involved in perhaps the most difficult foreign policy situation in Iraq since the Cold War, it is imperative that the new President has a firm and effective strategy for estalishing peace. However, it begs the question....is this war even endable? Or even further, does the war on terror even have an end? As Cheney predicted, has it not just become a quagmire?

It seems all three major candidates for Presidency all think there is some end in sight: the Democrats through a scheduled, immediate withdrawal and McCain through his "finish the job" strategy that may, in his own words, leave a US military presence in Iraq for 100 years. The problem with these options, however, is there is no moderate perspective - its either leave now or stay for the rest of all of our lives, literally.

So as catholic voters I think we have to ask, which foreign policy perspective will build solidarity, however restricted it may be, with the rest of the world? And, which policy toward this most difficult situation will lead to a greater respect for the value and dignity of human life amongst all the parties involved? Also, is it right to continue in Bush's Iraq policy?

The answer to this question, I think lies in the current administration's approach to foreign policy - particularly, neo-conservatism. Particularly, its influence can b seen through former members of Bush's cabinet.

As a starting point, Donald Rumsfeld was central in the development of a neo-con think tank named the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997, which actually sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 asking him to overthrow the Iraqi regime through diplotmatic, military, and/or political means. What is important for this discussion, however, is the group's view on the US' role within the international system. Specifically, the idea that the US, as the world's hegemon, has a duty and a right to secure its interests internationally, using even the pre-emptive war strategy as an effective means to that end. Further, it seems to hold that american exceptionalism perspective that we spoke of in class: the US is the world leader and the world seems better off because of it. The "city on a hill syndrome" seems to have "invaded" our foreign policy for the last 5 years, and has it truly secured our interests, or if not more importantly for the ideology, has it bettered the world? Has it furthered solidarity and social justice throughout the world, affirming the equality of all people?

So, then, to address the original question, it seems that such an approach to international relations has not only failed these last 5 years, but it is also hostile to the catholic social teaching of solidarity, justice and peace. As Americans, this policy has created a negative backlash throughout the world, where South American leaders have begun to call us the "evil empire", and much of the rest of the world is suspicious of our policies. Thus, is the eilitism of neo-conservatism's understanding of America's role in the world truly consistent with the catholic understanding of solidarity and peace? I think it has some serious contentions with it.

In terms of this election, I think from the eyes of faith, international relations is an incredibly important subject. McCain wants a peaceful end to the conflict in Iraq, yet, as stated in this article, he still does support the initial reasons we entered. Therefore, is is prolonged presence in the region hostile to anti-terror policy goals, such that it will only inflame more extremism? Obama and Clinton are looking for a immediate withdrawal, but will that, as an altervative policy, guarantee peace in the region? As catholic voters, it seems very unclear which leader will build peace and solidarity with the rest of the world most effectively. It all seems to swivel on what impact the persistence of us troops in the middle east has on fundamentalism.