Like the jackals that they are, the neo-conservatives have recently been attacking their leader, President Bush. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent blogger who describes himself as a neo-conservative has said that, “the people in this administration have no principles”, and that Bush, ‘is not a responsible human being.”

     Bruce Bartlett, an economist who served on the staffs of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush has used the words “inept,” “irresponsible,” “vindictive” and “unconscionable” to describe the current president. Even William F. Buckley Jr. has said, in reference to Iraq, that, “the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.”

     Fangs are being bared.

     It would be easy to pass these attacks off as resulting from Bush’s unpopularity in the public opinion polls. The plunge in his standings has certainly been dramatic. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, he had a 90 percent approval rating. As I write this column, his approval rating is down to about 36 percent. That means that the people who use to approve of him, but who now no longer do, constitute about 54 percent of the overall population. There are undoubtedly some Republicans who want to avoid being dragged down by Bush in the next election.

     But ideologues like Buckley, Bartlett and Sullivan are not primarily motivated by opinion polls. They are not running for office, and do not depend on the voters for their jobs. Many neo-conservatives are driven by their ideology to pursue U.S. military domination of the entire world, and would be perfectly willing to accept Bush’s drop in popularity as long as it advanced their global political agenda.

     For some, the more important reason they are turning on Bush is that his little adventure in Iraq is destroying one of the central myths of the neo-conservative ideology. The destruction of that myth, in turn, threatens to do real damage to their plans to mount more military invasions in the future.

     In the aftermath of the Viet Nam war, most Americans realized that war is extremely costly and bloody, and that using military force to try to impose our will on other people is counter-productive. That new recognition did not sit well with military hawks. To try to salvage their dreams of the future use of military power, they began promoting a countervailing myth.

     They argued that we only lost the Viet Nam war because politicians prevented the military from doing its job. If only the pansy pacifists like Richard Nixon had been willing to give the military free rein, they claim that we would have won the Viet Nam war, and all would have been right with the world.

     Three years ago, when President Bush started the current invasion and occupation of Iraq, the neo-conservatives thought they finally had a chance to prove their argument. President Bush was one of their own. Republicans controlled both branches of Congress. No more Mr. Nice Guy in foreign policy. The dogs of war were going to be unleashed, and the neo-conservatives were loving it. Those of us who are opposed to war tried to tell them it would be another Viet Nam. They laughed in our faces.

     Cut to the present. The neo-conservative myth that it is the politicians who lost the Viet Nam war is being shattered. Even with neo-conservatives in control of the government, we are losing again. It is not the politicians who caused us to lose, it is the very idea that a military invasion can solve a political problem.

     The truth is that military power can kill people, but it can’t make them like us. To the contrary, when we invade another country it increases hatred and resentment against us. Unless we are willing to kill or imprison nearly the entire population, armed resistance to a military invasion and occupation cannot be stopped. The people who live in the occupied country will always have greater stamina for resistance than we will have for killing them. Their interests are permanent and immediate, while our interests are temporary and remote.

     The American people are relearning this important lesson, and it threatens to prevent further U.S. invasions of resource rich targets like Iran. So the neo-conservatives are turning on Bush because he is destroying one of their favorite myths and ruining their chances for fun and profit in the next invasion. They apparently hope that they can salvage their precious myth if they can blame that pansy pacifist George Bush for being incompetent and losing the war.

     The opportunity for peace loving Americans to get rid of this pernicious myth is knocking. Is anyone going to answer the door?

---