Ledeen is a strong admirer of Niccolò Machiavelli, whom he regards as one of the greatest political thinkers. In Ledeen's view, Machiavelli combined democratic idealism and the necessary political realism to secure and defend idealism in perfect measure.

If these neocons weren't sophists of the highest order who read literally *anything they want* into the classic texts of this culture, they'd remember that Machiavelli devotes almost an entire chapter in The Prince to reasons why you should never hire mercenaries like Blackwater: ...

Indeed. I agree 100%. I've read both The Prince, and some of Machiavelli's Discourses, and it never struck me as fair to categorize him as the evil forefather of totalitarian statecraft. The goal was to rule as well as possible on behalf of the state; to establish a model republic. Attacking Iraq (and eventually Iran?) benefits but a very small portion of American citizens (i.e. those directly profiting from conflict), and I suppose the state of Israel. A bit of an unhealthy alliance there. The link between the U.S. Military industrial complex & Israel has been pointed out for a long time, most notably by Chomsky.

If Machiavelli were around today, he'd scoff at the notion that these men are his intellectual descendants. Their cause is a complete perversion of the sort of statecraft he would've advocated.

Calling Strauss, Ledeen, et. al. "ideologues" always troubled me; ideology would imply some sort of "ideal." PROFIT from Military Conflict is such a limited and fleeting end in itself, it should never be considered an "ideal." What matters more is establishing a professional government that can operate to preserve it's citizens' civil rights, in a sustainable manner.

The mercenary mentality that pervades in their minds (that's really all it boils down to) is the most destructive and costly way to make a buck. It's not a long term solution.

The question they should therefore be pondering is... where is Israel going to get it's handouts when the USA collapses from the cost of footing the bill for the last 5-6 decades?

Great question. Certainly, all REAL Americans would choose a Republic. The tendency toward Empire seems fundamentally Unconstitutional, according to that "piece of paper" in the Nat'l Archives. Despite those who say otherwise, a nation can look out for its own self-interest without picking fights with everyone around it. Just maintain a navy to protect our shipping and commerce, an air force to protect our skies, and a reasonable plan to draft and enlarge the army should we be threatened on land.

I think of Thomas Jefferson, who despite his writings against Federal (and sp. executive) power, knew enough not to let Louisiana pass by. Another way to think of the empire or republic question is a matter of being assertive vs. aggressive.

But what to do with all the violent maniacs in the Pentagon who won't stand for this? Those who are now addicted to the cause of the American Empire, and the police state required to support it? Could a moderate man ever be president again? Look at how hard they went after Bill Clinton toward the end of his term.

Pulling back and toning down the rhetoric of slavish worship of the military would drive these people nuts.

Then again, maybe they are fattened and satiated enough from gorging on defense contracts in Iraq that they are willing to take a breather?