Careful folks. We need to be clear when making assumptions about one group of people or another, especially in politics, whom we are talking about. It is easy for people of the younger, inexperienced generation to polarize political persuasions into two opposite camps when really, the matter of evaluating political affinity is much more complicated than conservative versus liberal, Republican versus Democrat. Honestly, creating such a black and white definition for political discussion is rarely helpful. It is more useful to color this landscape with many shades. It can be argued with success that the war in Iraq can be explained by actions of the Neo-Conservatives. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia:
Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of “new conservatives” in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to “big government” principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.
In the context of United States foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition. Critics define it as interventionist with hawkish views on foreign policy. Supporters define it as advocating the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.
Sure, I left out the citation requirements. In disucssions with political science professors, the above text generally satisfies the required definition. This is a realist perspective on foreign policy (opposed to just or pacifist). The past 50 years of U.S. foreign policy need to be examined, however, before making a decision where the future decisions are headed.