Was it the desire for world power under Christianity?
I think you are overstating this point and perhaps confusing reality. I have yet to read of any neocons who have appealed to religion as a justification for American hegemony or referred to American economic preeminence as a Christian imperative.
The reality is it is simple. Money. The argument is also simple. Neocons (and other economists) believe business be protected to greatest advantage i.e. allow them to remain in business to make the most money possible, which in turn will benefit all the citizens of America. The neocons believe this is the fundamental issue at stake, that America will no longer have that global advantage when China & India bring to bear the full weight of the economic explosion. The believe we will lose our position in the world which in turn will directly affect all American citizens.
Read the current series of articles about Cheney in WaPo.
Religion has nothing to do with what these people want but is a vehicle to be hi-jacked and used much as the OBL has used Islamic fundamentalists to try and implement his agenda.
The current Iraq debate provides a perfect example. More and more of the powerful elite are coming to eschew the cost of absolute predominance in Iraq and accept something short of the "total victory" (i.e., absolute hegemony) that the neo-con's insist upon.
I have never been sure that everyone understands what is going on (especially me). I suspect there are underlying principles which have been excluded from conversation as not being seen or considered not relevant. This is the reason I keep asking for answers to my questions.
A perfect example would be Cheney as exposed in Gellman/Becker's current article. From his perspective he understands precisely what is at stake and knows precisely what must be done to achieve those goals.
My question is to what extent does government control business. There can be no doubt business is essential for the economic well being of our country. So how does government (assuming government has the right) balance the equation of what is best for business and at the same time what is best for the people. If we follow Cheney's line of thinking government has no right to be involved and thus business should be left alone to pursue their economic goals of making money.
When congressmen voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, I seriously doubt if any of them were considering any economic premises on which this action was based. So are those people who are now campaigning against the war considering the economic consequences? I believe they are again inspecting short sighted policies without regard for the validity of the underlying principles.
For some the answer is simple, we have to find alternative energy sources which can replace our dependence on foreign oil. I believe when Cheney met with the energy barons in 2001 they told him exactly what they needed from the government. I believe they told him they needed 15-20 years (this is of course just a speculative baseline)of continuously increasing oil supplies which would guarantee US economic preeminence and offer enough time to figure out how to transition away from oil (presuming alternatives are found) and continue to make money.
Unfortunately the ME situation is "complexified" by Israeli considerations. Thus we may be left with no guarantees from Iraq (lack of stability) or SA (tenuous power structure) and of course nothing from Iran. Thus the three largest oil reserves are in jeopardy of not fulfilling our economic expectations.
On the reverse the same thing can be said of those who continue to support Iraqi policy i.e. they apparently don't understand the underlying economic issues.
For some leaving the ME would be tantamount to certifying our economic death. For me it answers many questions. It says we need to find alternative energy sources. It says we no longer are compelled to be involved in the ME due our reliance on their oil. It says we allow people to determine their own destiny. It says we can re-formulate ME foreign policy and base it on realpolitik.
Will we leave for the right reasons? Petraeus & a number of others have emphasized that a political solution must be had. This is of course only one aspect. The other being a critical assessment of the underlying ME foreign policy principles.
