Have the Neocons Finally Jumped the Shark?

Here's my prediction: years from now, we'll all look back on this week as the moment when neo-conservatism finally jumped the shark.

For those of you not familiar with the origin (or meaning) of the phrase "jumped the shark," it refers to an infamous episode of Happy Days when Arthur "the Fonz" Fonzarelli literally jumped over a shark while on a pair of waterskis. Prior to that episode, the show had been in a steady decline and was well on its way to becoming a caricature of itself. But for many, the shark jumping scene was the the last straw; it was the point at which it became apparent that the show was no longer worth watching. The writers of the show had clearly run out of material and their attempt to up the ante had plunged the show, at least temporarily, into total absurdity.

Well the same thing has happened to our neoconservative pundits. In the wake of 9/11, the Bill Kristols, Mark Steyns, and Charles Krauthammers of the world were at the height of their influence. They were the vanguard of our new foreign policy paradigm, the chief cheerleaders of the decision to invade Iraq. They spoke excitedly about how our invasion of Iraq would be merely the first in a series of grand adventures in the Middle East. We would reshape the region from the ground up, one country at a time: first Iraq, then Syria, then Iran.

And it sounded good; it was a hit. Still reeling from 9/11, many otherwise sober thinkers eagerly lapped it up. But it was unsustainable. Reality eventually caught up with the neocons. Rather than reshaping the Middle East to our liking, the war in Iraq bogged down our armed forces, emboldened our enemies, diminished our influence and credibility, and greatly limited our options in dealing with other potential threats.

Unwilling to acknowledge these facts, but lacking any new material, the neocons found themselves in a bit of a rut. So, like sitcom writers trying to milk a few more laughs out of an increasingly overused catch-phrase, the neocons shifted gears ever so slightly and began calling for regime change again, this time in Iran. At this point, Kristol, Steyn, and company were increasingly looking like caricatures of themselves, but their views were still given a polite audience and considered "serious."

But then Israel entered the picture. Provocative acts by Hamas and Hezbollah led to a major Israeli offensive against both groups. Virtually overnight, Southern Lebanon was once again a war zone. This sudden and unexpected escalation of the Israeli conflict inspired the neocons. Before long they were engaged in the kind armchair war-mongering not seen since the heady days of 2003.

In a column in the Weekly Standard entitled "It's Our War", Bill Kristol called for regime change in Syria and Iran, including an immediate military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. He also called upon President Bush to leave the G8 summit, fly directly to Israel, and declare our intention to join the conflict against Israel's enemies. Other neoconservative pundits such as Michael Ledeen, John Podhoretz, John Hinderaker quickly joined Kristol's call to arms.

But I suspect Kristol's column will be remembered more for the people it shocked than the people it convinced. If there was a moment when neo-conservatism officially jumped the shark, this was it.

George Will, a staunch but sober conservative, described the column as "so untethered from reality as to defy caricature." He then described neo-conservatism as "spectacularly misnamed radicalism" and suggested that perhaps "the U.S. military has enough on its plate in the deteriorating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which both border Iran."

The same day, Chris Matthews went off on Kristol and his fellow neoconservatives, wondering aloud, "why does the President pay even five seconds attention to them?" and "when are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about?" Pat Buchanan then chimed in: "Are these people nuts?" (watch the whole exchange here).

Perhaps the best evidence of shark-jumping, however, comes from Greg Djerejian, who was a big supporter of the Iraq invasion. Djerejian wrote:

Three years ago, I would have poo-pooed anyone using the
word "radicals" to describe the neo-cons. No more. Any group
that can so brazenly (and breezily) avoid a real reckoning with
the continuing crisis in Iraq--which is descending into civil war
as we speak--any movement that has the gall to suggest as
some panacea that we mount significant military operations in
Iran and Syria and god knows where else (with Israel in
Lebanon to boot), well, their credibility is at a very low ebb
indeed, and they very much need to be urgently reined in.

In a follow-up post he notes:

Fanciful talk of wars on Iran and Syria (this includes ginning up
civil wars there or air strikes) and related cogitations replete
with easy, seductive talk of pan-regional panaceas in the offing,
but for new interventions, are really just irresponsible,
quasi-mastubatory drivel.

It's certainly a good thing that people are beginning to see the Bill Kristols of the worlds as the lunatics they are, but unfortunately, the neoconservative movement is far from spent. Remember, though it had a smaller audience, Happy Days was on the air for years after Fonzi jumped the shark. And as Paul Krugman points out today:

Mr. Kristol is, of course, a pundit rather than a policymaker.
But there's every reason to suspect that what Mr. Kristol says
in public is what Mr. Cheney says in private.

The question is whether this discredited group of faith-based adventurists still has the ear of the President. If so, buckle your seatbelts. We may be poised as a nation for the most spectacular shark jump of all time.