Second, neoconservatives generally have based their outlook too much in the direction of states being the sole actors. Such a view oversimplifies the debate, as terrorism is often not tied to state sponsorship, but to loose networks and webs of connections around the globe. US efforts have focused on regime change, which has shortchanged other counterterrorist efforts at a great cost—Afghanistan, for instance, remains a hotbed of warlords, drug trafficking, and radicalism. The tie-in to a libertine, free trade ideology has inflamed, rather than alleviated, ethnic tensions, and the United States has shown little interest in helping these nations soothe their growing pains.

Third, there is now a renewed, obsessive focus on China. Neoconservatives have been over-hyping the China threat without seriously examining the evidence. The threat from China is more on the diplomatic front than from their military strength; China is rushing into regions of the world that the United States has affronted or where it has simply lessened its efforts at the hard grind of interaction and diplomacy. The fact that neoconservatism continues to focus solely on military threat misses the subtlety of the real Chinese threat.

The neoconservative doctrine also rests on a controversial vision of the executive branch: the unitary theory of the presidency. While the Bush administration would like to think it alone should have the power to control the direction of foreign policy, US Congress, in reality, does share that power. The recent US Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, in fact, sends a clear warning of crossing constitutional boundaries to the President.

As 2008 approaches, voters will most likely not see another Bush Doctrine advocate as a candidate. Unless bases of both parties manage to nominate a candidate with isolationist tendencies, both parties will field candidates that are pursuing further democratization and counterterrorist efforts. Thus, neoconservative rhetoric—language about liberty and democratic values—will still be there. The only difference will be talk of eliminating the radical Islamic threat that will be matched with greater action. This is a different approach than the current path because it will be based on greater collaboration across all areas of foreign policy rather than on the geopolitical focus of toppling regimes.

As neoconservatism loses its influence, Peter Beinart, a hawkish liberal who now regrets his support for the Iraq War, believes that a realistic foreign policy, one that is yet more ambitious than neoconservatism, can be created. Such a foreign policy would be based on Tony Blair’s vision: a foreign policy that not only recognizes the importance of interdependence on matters of counterterrorism and a host of other issues, but also places universal values at the heart of its mission and eagerly seeks to prevent problems, not necessarily by force, from becoming global threats. Despite Beinart’s creative effort to balance the need to protect US interests with the desire to spread liberal ideals, it remains to be seen whether his alternative or something similar will become the new approach to the War on Terror.