"Benevolent Global Hegemony"

Matthew Yglesias takes neoconservatism at face value, and takes a stab at deconstructing the 1996 essay by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." Yglesias does a good job attacking the ideological incoherency of their approach. I'll take the easy way out and attack the results, as evidenced by the neocons ultimate dream, the invasion of Iraq. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role.

What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world.

Let's see:

1. Strengthening America's security: failed
2. Supporting America's friends: failed (unless by "friends" we mean oppressive dictatorships)
3. Advancing American interests: failed (the Iraq war has not improved our access to oil)
5. Standing up for American principles: failed

So the neocons, thanks to 9/11, were granted the ultimate power to conduct a war of choice that would exemplify their foreign policy approach, and so far it has produced resentment among our allies, ground up our military in the sands of Iraq, destroyed our reputation as the shining beacon of liberty to oppressed nations, revealed us as torturers, checked our ability to deal with existing terrorist threats while at the same time producing new threats, and upturned the power structure of a region we are heavily dependent upon for energy resources.

The dream of the neocons is dead, and so is their absurd and childish fantasy of "benevolent hegemony", a dream that has never existed in world history and shall never exist so long as men are not governed by angels.