The Iraq War • 433defense, had in 1992 authored "Defense Planning Guidance," which pro¬
posed military guidelines for the Pentagon: ( 1 ) US policy should strive to
prevent the emergence of a rival superpower; (2) it should safeguard US
interests and promote American values; and (3) it should be prepared to
take unilateral [military] action when collective action cannot be orches¬
trated. In a similar spirit, Perle, aided by Feith and others, wrote a policy
brief in 1996 for Israel's Likud called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm." It advised Israel to work with Turkey and Jordan to
contain, destabilize, and roll back threats to its existence, especially Syria.
Israel should uphold the right of hot pursuit of terrorists in Palestinian ar¬
eas and promote alternatives to Yasir Arafat as a leader. Israel should also
forge a new relationship with the US government, abandon its pursuit of a
comprehensive peace with the Arabs, and possibly aid Jordan in restoring
the Hashimite monarchy in Iraq, thus weakening both Syria and Iran.
Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu did not adopt the "new strategy."
Israel did not consult with Turkey or Jordan on any regular basis, but it
did cease to regard Arafat as a peace partner and came to reject any peace
process that might lead to an independent Palestinian state.
Apparently, the neoconservatives have little use for diplomacy. For a long
time, and in many countries, two contrasting approaches to international
relations have developed and contended for control. One approach favors
diplomacy and mediation as the first resort when an international conflict
arises. They would uphold and strengthen international law and keep the
United Nations viable, hoping to promote human rights and dignity
throughout the world. In the US, many leading Democrats and Republi¬
cans promoted this position just after World War II, though some did not.
The opposing approach sees diplomacy as a façade, behind which force,
meaning military power and the will to use it, settles international disputes.
Its advocates, including the neoconservatives, scorn international law and
view the UN as a nuisance. They argue that the US can win any struggle
when it really wants to do so, and they blame its defeat in the Vietnam War
on a failure of willpower. Neoconservatives admire Israel's assertiveness
and their efforts to maintain control over the territories that it has occu¬
pied since 1967. Consequently, they have aligned themselves with Israel's
right-wing parties, notably the Likud.
The neoconservatives, promoting what they called the "Project for the
New American Century," wrote an open letter to Bill Clinton in 1998, ad¬
vising him to remove Saddam Husayn from power. Allied with Wolfowitz,
Perle, and Feith were the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its parent organization,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Commentary, the National