Neocons and liberal interventionists differ only in tactics, not imperial aims

Evidence

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power—and especially its military power—can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 404

In short, the neocons are an integral part of a foreign policy establishment that is pro-Israel and pro-US imperialism. The differences, such as they are, are of tactics, strategy, and rhetoric. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 449

The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power—and especially its military power—can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 469

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels Kumar’s framework of a single imperial project with rival factions; connects to reader’s question of which myths protect which material interests. — connects to: Neoconservatism is defined by unipolarism and military preponderance — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 379; Neocon Zionism stems from imperial politics, not Jewish ethnic identity. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 387; Lewis and Zakaria scripted two variants of the same imperial interventionism — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 420 (+4 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: A paradigm-shifting reframe: the real division in US foreign policy is not neocon-vs-realist but shared pro-imperial, pro-Israel foundations with only tactical variation — collapses a mainstream analytical framework.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 404; Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 449; Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 469

Broader Connections

• Neocons and liberal interventionists differ mainly on multilateralism, not goals #corroborates (0.92)
• Lewis and Zakaria scripted two variants of the same imperial interventionism #corroborates (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 420
• Neocons and liberal interventionists differ only over international institutions #contradicts (0.85)
• Neocons valued regional destabilization for its own sake, not democratic ends #contradicts (0.80) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 439