The "neocons," as they are known in Washington, first emerged in the 1960s when a group of thinkers, all passionately anti-Communist, became disillusioned with what they saw as a dangerous radical drift within the Democratic Party to which they then belonged.

Advocating a tough policy of building up the US military and confronting the Soviet Union instead of merely using nuclear deterrence to maintain a balance of power, the movement's founders gradually shifted to the Republican Party and became a dominant voice in foreign policy under former President Ronald Reagan.

Twenty years later, with allies like Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz in the inner circle of President George W. Bush, neoconservatism has returned in a new guise.

This time, its proponents inside and outside the administration urge an invasion of Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein. This is teamed with a policy of unquestioning support for Israel and growing criticism of non-democratic governments in the Arab world, notably Saudi Arabia.

"By liberating Iraq and establishing a decent, tolerant government in Baghdad, the United States will achieve tremendous beneficial effects in the entire Middle East," said Ken Adelman, who was head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under Reagan.

Among these benefits, proponents argue, would be an instant strengthening of reformist forces in Iran and a weakening of radical Islamic forces throughout the Middle East, including among the Palestinians.

"By destroying Saddam Hussein, we would give peacemakers the opportunity to gain the upper hand over the suicide bombers among the Palestinians," Adelman said.

The neoconservative case is being pushed relentlessly by conservative magazines like Commentary, and the Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, whose parents helped found neoconservatism.

Conservative think-tanks such as the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century, add weight to the cause.

Gary Schmidt of the Project for the New American Century cast the debate over Iraq as between "old realists" who believed in working through diplomacy using the United Nations and neoconservatives who advocated a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

"I don't think there is any question that President Bush will come down on our side," he said. "I firmly believe he has made up his mind to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein," he said.

An important voice in the movement is Richard Perle, yet another former Reagan defence department hawk who serves as chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, a formerly sleepy committee of foreign policy old-timers that Perle has refashioned into an important advisory group.

The board recently invited RAND Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec to deliver a paper arguing that Saudi Arabia ought to be considered an adversary of the United States. The briefing was promptly leaked to the Washington Post.

Backers of an Iraqi invasion were buoyed this week by a Washington Post opinion piece by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who throughout his long career has been a staunch advocate of a "balance of power" foreign policy.

But in the densely argued article, Kissinger appeared to be ready to support military force against Iraq under certain conditions.

Even without Kissinger, the realism school retains some big guns, notably Secretary of State Colin Powell. Outside the administration, former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft has argued against invading Iraq.

Analysts said Bush's father, former President George Bush, always pursued a cautious policy when he was in the White House and halted the advance of US troops into Iraq at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Opponents contend that the neoconservative doctrine is dangerously simplistic and that an invasion of Iraq, far from boosting democratic forces in the Middle East, would only fuel anti-American rage, embolden radicals, weaken US allies and lead to more terrorism.

"The neocons have a view of the world that divides it into absolute good versus absolute evil. Their attitude towards an Iraq invasion is, if you have the ability and the desire to do it, that's justification enough," said James Zogby, chairman of the Arab American institute.

Other critics see support for Israel as central to neoconservative thinking.

"A small but well-placed group of neoconservative officials and commentators is primarily interested in eliminating what they regard as a threat to Israel," said Stephen Walt, a dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. "Absent their activities, the United States would be focusing on containing Iraq, which we have done successfully since the Gulf War, but we would not be trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We would also be pursuing a more even-handed policy in the Middle East in general," he said.

(China Daily August 15, 2002）