Dr. Tarpley is not buying Sy Hersh’s article. He says that some of the military people may want to stick around — or come back — post-Obama. As I understand his analysis he’s saying that some of these military brass that basically wholly accepted the neocon/liberal interventionist/”humanitarian” bomber policy are now trying to look like pragmatists/rational individuals. Now that some of the myths that the sheeple have been told about Syria have basically popped. Of course such as that any moderate opposition exists at all… Not clear to me if the Dr. thinks that Hersh would have wittingly gone along with this, or that he was actually bamboozled/roped in.
Some folks use the term neocon very freely, such as in “Obama is being advised by a bunch of neocons” or some such. I have a slight disagreement with these people on that. I consider that people in the Democratic Party that are incredibly similar to neocons, I like to call “humanitarian” bombers or liberal interventionists instead. I think that I heard an analyst that I respect a great deal say in an interview once that Woodrow Wilson was actually the first neocon! Haha, that is quite possibly correct.
The original neocons, people such as Irving Kristol, I do not believe opposed the welfare state. After all, many of them had attended City College for free/gratis compliments of John Q. Public! The latter generations of neocons however, differ with other types of Republican conservatives in the foreign policy arena mainly if not entirely, I would suggest.