[MMMMMM]

Fine post, Andy; here are a few quick thoughts:

Just because the PNAC authors might have the foundation of a Manichean world view, does not mean that they haven't drawn the approximately correct conclusions regarding world powers and struggles.

Just because they might have some hubris or arrogance, does not mean their strategy is fatally flawed.

Just because they see the world in terms of good and evil, does not mean that certain systems are not worse than others--specifically "worse" are communism, theocracy, Islamism, and fascism--and any combination of the above. So, even if you don't believe in "good" and "evil", you probably do believe in "better" and "worse"--and there really isn't much practical difference between the two sets of terms when you compare the first set to the second set. In this world we constantly must try to choose betwen "better" and "worse"--if "good" and "evil" offends your philosophical sense of decorum somehow, try using the other set of terms;-)

Islamism {politicized Islam), communism, and fascism are all inherently rigid in the ideological sense. They also have an expansionist philosophical theme which is actually conquest-oriented. If we do nothing they will attempt to overcome us. It is because the relatively free West is strong, that the West has not been conquered by one or more of these totalitarian ideologies.

Those ideologies, and the political systems married to them, are NOT acceptable to humans wishing to live a relatively free life, nor for those who wish not to see others oppressed or enslaved. Such systems are inherently incompatible with liberty and human rights. So I don't buy the argument that "it may be OK for them", or the multiculturalist view, that all cultures are equally OK and valid. Cultural aspects which promote fascism or lack of human rights are NOT OK. The Saudi government and Wahhabi culture, with its fascistic state religion and its oppression of women and non-Muslims, is NOT OK.

Yes, the PNAC may be a bit overly aggressive or assertive in its approach (I haven't browsed it since quite some time, so I can't say for sure).

Yes, there are some dangers in and of hubris.

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing they disagree about with their hero Reagan is in their pessimistic view of human nature and society. They see the world as a Hobbesian one of conspiracy and struggle where perpetual military competition for supremacy is the normal state of affairs and moderation is unadvisable and virtually impossible, where trust is elusive at best, and where adversaries must be preemptively crushed lest they crush you first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lean towards the optimistic view of human nature on a personal level and in small groups. The larger the group, however, the worse it generally gets. I believe that on the state level, the view you ascribe to PNAC authors is mostly correct and is borne out by bloody history throughout the ages. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the enemy must always be crushed first; but pre-emption, when practical against a serious, dangerous and determined foe, is simply a wise strategy.

If dictatorships and theocracies can be replaced with democracies, all of humanity will win. I realize that's a big IF.