Recently, my mind has (tragically) been occupied with the neocons. More specifically, I mean their foreign policy, and its relationship to the pro-Iraq War section of the British left.

There is a section of the British left in favour of an interventionist foreign policy. Given the outpour of overwhelming anger at this group from the outraged anti-war left (“How dare anyone disagree with us!”), it’d be hard to blame anyone for not knowing it. But they’re the people behind the Euston Manifesto, who wanted Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Iraq, and who supported Blair abroad in Labour.

What do they want? In their own words a, “reconfiguration of progressive opinion,” to what they perceive of as a more moral stance, especially in foreign policy. They’re pro-democracy, pro-human rights and pro-freedom. And they want to see this everywhere. Perhaps the Eustonians most distinctive commitment is a total opposition to tyranny across the globe – the cause of their international interventionism.

Essentially, the origins of the Eustononians were almost in the bad behaviour of the anti-war left. Disgusted at the stark apologism of RESPECT and other parts of the anti-war movement, they felt the need to take a stand and mark out the principles they felt the left has lost. It’s often hard to blame them. The behaviour of the anti-war movement has all too often been questionable. I find it hard to be comfortable with the elements in it that are quite happy to declare the UK a police state while denying that Saddam Hussein was actually a dictator. Jan Sloboda, I’m happy with; George Galloway, not at all.

So I can sympathise with the Eustonians, up to a point. They clearly want to do some good. Moreover, they’re certainly preferable to much the liberal-left these days, with its Michael Moore-esque fixation on eternal whinging. Often, the strongest argument of the pro-war left is that it’s all very well to moan about sanctions or a war to topple a tyrant as immoral, but what else is there to do? You’ve got the choice of denying that a dictator is a dictator (which is wrong), or doing nothing and practically supporting the dictator (which is also wrong). Take your pick.

No, I wouldn’t want to either.

When I disagree with the Euston Group, it’s usually over practise, not principle. In simple terms, I don’t believe it’s possible to import democracy on the barrel of a gun. War unquestionably brings out the worst in humanity. The senseless slaughter of man against man reveals a bestial, irrational side perfectly at home with narrow tribalism. How couldn’t it? When two groups of men are trying to rip bloody chunks out of each other, the, “us and them,” mentality must solidify pretty fast. Add to this the differences of language, culture and, most visibly, skin, that are present in situations like Iraq, and there’s even more material for opposition to work with. It’s not hard to see how a determined militant could turn a man against someone who, rationally, is their best friend.

Robespierre may not have known much (of use, at least; I’m sure he was very bright), but he was spot on when he said, “No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.” (Ironic, given that that’s what he tried to do to the French…) No-one loves armed missionaries. You cannot force someone to be free. It must come from within – the people must want it. Support that revolution if you will. Seek it. But it must be perceived as from the people, not from abroad. Otherwise, it will fail – as has done from 1792, right through until 2002.

But, I can sympathise with that the Euston Group want, at least. They want democracy. They want freedom. They want to help people. How can I oppose that and keep a conscience?

Now let’s have a look at the neocons. They say they want freedom and democracy too. Do they? No. They act in America’s interests – which they feel are served best by their conception of freedom (that is; laissez faire capitalism), their conception of democracy (sometimes) and their international stability (always).

“But look at our commitment to freedom around the globe!” They cry. “We love freedom and hate tyranny. We saved Iraq! We oppose North Korea! We stop Rogue States from having the Bomb, and you wouldn’t want them having that, would you? Think of the children! We’re the true democrats, buddy.”

And, of course, superficially they’re right. They have, theoretically, been some of the strongest supporters of democracy around the globe in the last few decades.

That’s theoretically, though. Look a little closer, and you’ll realise that the neocons haven’t pursued a moral foreign policy since the days of the democratic revolutionaries in the early eighties. Even before Reagan was out, the old realpolitik of Kissinger that neoconservatism began as a reaction to was back in – Nicaraguan nukes, anyone?

So how can we go about exploding the myth that neoconservatism is freedom’s best friend? We’ll start with the wars they have fought. Iraq will do. The Americans had three priorities when the dust first settled; stability, their conception of democracy (everyone has a vote, and screw the civil freedoms to make it work) and the speedy introduction of a free market. Why? Because it suited America. The stability because less troops would be killed, and because it’s necessary for capitalism to function properly. The democracy because they believe that it works for stability, because it works well with the free-market, and maybe because they actually believe in it.

And the free-market? The money, my friend, the money.

Of course, the neoliberal officials sent to sort out the country thought the best way to do so would be to cut back the government as far as possible. This process, known as de-Ba’athisation, went a very long way. As well as very legitimately cutting out the totalitarian regime and the Ba’ath party almost totally, it virtually removed the government from every aspect of life in Iraq, theoretically at least. This was to free the market. This, happening in the midst of a war which rather made stability impossible, didn’t work hugely well. We’re – or rather, the Iraqis – are living with the consequences today.

What does this tell us, though? Ultimately, that the greatest concern of the neocons when they went into Iraq was the free market. I won’t judge whether that this was through greed, or a doctrinaire commitment to neoliberal economics, or the fact that they genuinely thought it would be best for everyone. A stable free-market on good terms with America – which, if the war had worked, Iraq might have been – would work in their interests. That it didn’t was perhaps their fault, perhaps not – but they certainly didn’t help by pursuing what they perceived to be those interests.

Now, let’s look at the wars that the neocons haven’t fought, and the fusses they haven’t made. Pakistan. Musharraf isn’t democratic in the slightest, and yet they support him. He keeps the terrorists down, they say. He supports them in Afghanistan, they say. He maintains stability, they say. But now the country is a powder-keg ready to explode, with the distinct possibility of the Islamists rather than the democrats taking over. Musharraf has recently been actively crushing democratic movements. One of the leading Pakistani democratic leaders has been murdered, and he wasn’t able to stop it. The country is manifestly not stable.

And yet the neocons aren’t calling for him to go.

Russia. Their economy collapsed after the neoliberal disaster of the nineties, and from the ashes rose Putin’s stern, unbending and very possibly undemocratic nationalism. Virtually every independent observer said the recent elections were not fair or free. He is holding onto power after he goes as president. It’s sliding towards the possibility of dictatorship.

And yet, the neocons aren’t calling for him to go. There is some rhetorical opposition, yes – but on neo-Star Wars, not the brutal silencing of opposition.

So why don’t the neocons get their act together and start complaining here? What makes these attacks on democracy so different to Iraq and Iran? What makes them swallow their apparent principles here?

The answers to these questions could be long and complicated. But one thing is notably true in both cases, and many similar cases. Pakistan and Russia both have open free markets to which the US economy, to one extent or another, has access. So does the massively repressive China, to a limited degree – along with many other authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes the neocons tolerate. There’s a strong government to maintain stability so that a free-market can function. Foreign companies – the American market – can invest. This means profit for America, it means strength – it’s in the national interest. Capitalism prevails.

But, what about Iran, North Korea, and pre-invasion Iraq? Would they let American goods on the market? Of course not. More than that, their leaders are often hostile to foreign involvement, and provide a theoretical threat to the USA, relative sizes notwithstanding and ignored. In their current states, they don’t represent anything in America’s interest – and might even harm it.

That’s ultimately the difference between the neocons and the pro-war left, on the foreign policy front. The neocons now want to serve America’s interests – which they best feel are guaranteed by a global free market. If democratic guarantees that, then they’ll support it – and if a brutal dictatorship guarantees the stability required, they’ll support that too. They want their type of freedom – economic freedom. The Euston Group types, on the other hand, are genuinely interested in freedom, democracy and human rights – real freedom.

That’s what the neocons wanted thirty years ago, when they were the democratic revolutionaries. That’s where the Eustonians should stay – on the principled, truly democratic side. And to stay there, they mustn’t engage in the sort of realpolitik that got the neocons where they are now by allying with the neocons. They’ve as much business doing that as the anti-war left has grouping with Islamic fundamentalists – none whatsoever. The enemy of their enemy is not their friend.