This brief essay is drawn from a larger dissertation project at the University of Vienna dealing with the subject of neoconservatism, written under the supervision of Prof. Heinz Gartner. In the limited space available here, we will primarily attempt to explain a few small facets of this political-philosophical phenomenon. We will also make an effort to illuminate the pattern of explanations offered for the military deployment in Iraq, which was vigorously promoted by neoconservatives in the United States. Who are the Neocons actually? What are their goals? What beliefs and experiences shape their thinking? The term neoconservative has never represented a coherent and unified political construct; there was no central link between the various political ideas that characterize the positions held by those thinkers typically identified with neoconservatism. The centrifugal forces within the neoconservative community have typically been predominant, until the movement is mobilized by the awareness of an enemy. This is most notably the case in the original animating impetus behind the emergence of neoconservatism in the U.S.: anti-communism and the pursuit of victory over the Soviets. Most histories of the movement trace its origin to a group of formerly leftist thinkers in the U.S. who in the middle of the twentieth century were driven rightward by the totalitarian excesses of Stalinism in the USSR. Almost all scholars who have studied the issue speak of a loose grouping of liberal intellectuals who share similar ideas and views and who mainly use publications in magazines (The Public Interest, The National Review, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard) to advance their thinking and disseminate their ideas. Martin Lipset summed up this view of the diverse and fragmented nature of the movement, stating that the perception of the neoconservatives as a tightly unified group is based on a phenomenon that most sociologists call “labeling.” Neo-conservatism, both as an ideological term and as a political grouping, is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the contemporary political lexicon. The reason is simple: the word has never referred to a set of doctrines to which a given group of adherents subscribed. Rather, it was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being described as “neoconservative.” The neoconservatives are perhaps the most prolific group of intellectuals in