Repeat and Recycle: Is Romney Giving Neocons a "Second Chance?"

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

I just found this post and, though it's a hoary-bearded three weeks old, I find it interesting enough to dust off and shamelessly re-hash in a way that would be acceptable in no other time than our own: the Retweet Generation. So: For those Europeans (or interested others) out there who want to know what the leading Republican candidate's foreign policy might look like, check out the Atlantic Review's post on Mitt Romney's foreign policy team. 

Most controversial is the preponderance of George W. Bush administration veterans that comprise the list, including marquee names such as Michael Chertoff, Eliot Cohen, and Robert Kagan, to list just three. 

Liberal US commentator Rachel Maddow titled her response as: "Romney Gives Bush Neocons A Second Chance," but Joerg Wolf, the Atlantic Review's author, is less excited by the news, re-quoting Washington think tanker James Joyner who said of the announcement, "like Romney himself, it's not particularly exciting. Nor, thankfully, is it frightening."

Wolf concludes with this, highlighting the figures responsible for the Europe dossier:

"Nile Gardiner from Heritage is co-chair for Europe. The other co-chair is Kristen Silverberg, Chief Operating Officer at Vorbeck Materials; Ambassador to the European Union (2008-2009). I wish he would have advisors with a bit more experience. I can think of a few such think tankers in Washington.

"What do you think? To whom should the Republican presidential candidates turn to for advice on Europe, or on foreign policy in general? Which think tankers or former officials would make the best national security and foreign policy advisors for a Republican president?"

EurAmerican has kind of a thing for neoconservatism, in a hot-and-cold, critical-distance sort of way. See past post include the one here. 

As on the Atlantic Review site, comments are welcome here. 

"Neoconservatism and the Arab Revolutions"

Here's a teaser from Ross Douthat's review of discussion among neoconservatives about what the U.S. military should do or not do in the Arab crescent currently in tumult. He takes pains to highlight the present disparity between neoconservatives and the Israeli government, which are often mistaken for one another.

The New York Times columnist frames the ideas in a way that clearly belie his own empathetic position to neoconservative sensibilities. But he concludes, so true to form, with a soft-touch but clear rejection of the idea to wage intervention with any involvement of U.S. boots on the ground.

Douthat starts and ends as follows:

"[Here is] a good piece exploring the divide that’s opened between American neoconservatives and many Israelis over the revolutions and protests currently roiling the Middle East — with neocons welcoming the fall of Hosni Mubarak and the promise of democratic change throughout the region, even as the Israeli leadership classes wax more pessimistic about the likely consequences of replacing despots with more popular regimes. “Could there be a starker illustration of just how mistaken the neocon-Israeli conflation always was?” Kirchik [the author of the linked piece] asks, and he’s right: The last few weeks should bury, once and for all, the foolish idea that neoconservatism’s rhetorical commitment to democracy promotion is just a smokescreen for Likudnik dual loyalties or U.S. imperialism.

...

"... The last time we imposed a no-fly zone on a weakened Arab tyrant who we hoped would soon be toppled by his own people, the year was 1992 and the tyrant in question was Saddam Hussein — and we have been at war in Iraq, in one sense or another, ever since."