Making neo-sense

Re “How neo are the neocons?” Opinion, April 22

Jonah Goldberg rewrites history. He says, “America’s forcible promotion of democracy has been both successful (Germany, Japan) and unsuccessful (Vietnam).” The United States did not enter World War II to bring democracy to Germany; rather, Germany was a democracy that had been stolen by a dictator. When our war with Japan ended, we left the emperor in place. The U.S. entered World War II because the democracy we were saving was our own; saving Europe’s democracies was only a secondary benefit.

The Vietnam War was never fought to establish a democracy; we fought to stop the spread of communism. We also failed to establish democracies in Cuba and China, but we learn to like some communists better than others.

Pete Alberini

La Mirada

If I for one moment thought that the invasion of Iraq was primarily motivated by a desire to spread democracy throughout the world, I would feel differently toward this administration and neoconservatives in general. Goldberg’s historical precedents notwithstanding, the distaste so many Americans have for neoconservatives comes not from their purported intentions, but rather those intentions they betray with their actions -- namely, economic hegemony and personal enrichment.

Andrew Matthews

Washington

In his defense of neoconservatism, Goldberg is evidently willing to abandon those issues that he defended vigorously in the happier times of “mission accomplished.” His years of knee-jerk support for the poorly justified and horribly managed Iraq war seem to have evaporated, and he now divorces that war effort from his narrowed definition of neoconservatism.

He now speaks of the “Bush administration’s mistakes in Iraq -- perhaps including the war itself.” Goldberg suggests that the neoconservatism of the 1960s and ‘70s was the real stuff rather than this recent example that resulted in the endless quagmire of Iraq. While admitting now that the war was a mistake, Goldberg attempts to separate the philosophy of the neoconservative movement from the specific actions it promoted to justify the invasion of Iraq. This is a real high-wire act, and Goldberg is carrying way too much baggage for the attempt.

John Vasi

Santa Barbara

Goldberg conflates Bush’s unilateral invasion of a country that never attacked us with Barack Obama’s assertion that he would unilaterally pursue into Pakistan those who did attack. Either Goldberg is ignoring the difference, or he can’t tell the difference. Either way, it helps reinforce the belief that neocons should never again be in charge of U.S. foreign policy.

Michael Olson

Pasadena