Conservative Approaches

If somebody is in favour of intervening militarily, it’s often neoconservatives. That’s their general position, and you can find neoconservatives in many Anglo-American conservative parties—Canadian Conservatives, British Conservatives, and especially the U.S. Republican Party.

Don’t get confused by the term, because sometimes academics or the media use “neoconservative” as if it just means “today’s conservatives” in general. But when the term is used in connection with U.S. war and foreign policy, it usually refers to a specific group: U.S. defence hawks who favour a strong military, high defence spending, and a willingness to use military force. They tend to support a more aggressive foreign policy and see military power as a legitimate tool for shaping world politics.

Peak influence: George W. Bush and the Iraq War

In the Republican Party, neoconservatives reached their high-water mark during the George W. Bush presidency. Their most famous (and controversial) example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. had gone to Afghanistan first, after 9/11 in 2001, because the group responsible (al-Qaeda) was based there and the Taliban government was harbouring them. NATO also invoked collective defence, and the war in Afghanistan ended up lasting about 20 years.

But in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq. One major public rationale was weapons of mass destruction, including claims Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons. Those weapons were never found. Many analysts describe Iraq as a war of choice, in contrast to Afghanistan as a war of necessity, and argue that neoconservatives had long supported regime change in Iraq and used the post-9/11 moment to build public support.

Cold War roots and “moral clarity”

Historically, neoconservatism grew out of the Cold War era. Early on, it was tied to the most hardline anti-communists—people who wanted a tough, confrontational posture toward the Soviet Union.

Over time, writers and thinkers helped formalize it into a more coherent worldview. A key element is that foreign policy should promote Western (or American) values—especially democracy and capitalism—rather than simply “mind our own business.”

That’s why you often hear neoconservatives talk about “moral clarity.” In this framing, foreign policy isn’t mainly about neutrality or balance; it’s about picking a side—identifying who is right and who is wrong, and supporting the “right” side.

A classic illustration of that mindset is George W. Bush’s post-9/11 line: “You’re either with us or against us.” The point isn’t whether you agree with it; it’s that it captures the neoconservative preference for a clear moral division rather than shades of grey.

Typical neoconservative themes

Neoconservatives tend to emphasize:

  • Strong support for traditional allies (NATO, Europe, Japan, etc.).

  • Very strong support for Israel in U.S. politics.

  • Preference for dealing with democracies and allies rather than dictatorships (at least in principle).

  • A belief that the U.S. should remain a dominant global power (American exceptionalism often fits here).

  • High confidence that military power can create political change—especially through interventions and regime change.

A common critique is that advanced militaries can win initial battles and remove regimes quickly, but nation-building is far harder—and Iraq and Afghanistan are often cited as examples of that problem.

After Iraq: decline, but not disappearance

The Iraq War badly damaged neoconservatism’s credibility with the public, and it helped open the door for a different Republican foreign-policy mood—more skeptical of “forever wars,” more nationalist and inward-looking.

But neoconservatives didn’t vanish. They remained one faction within the party, sometimes influencing policy depending on who holds key roles.