"George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons' philosophy.There are, of course, big debates over why the PNAC standpoint failed, which would take many years to go over in depth, I suspect. Still, the question remains - was it the "implementation" (by which not just the details of the Afghanistan/Iraq invasion is included, but also the people involved in the administration) that failed, or has the world changed considerably - sufficiently - since Reagan? Have people learnt lessons, and put "structures" in place that handle imperialist intervention more efficiently?
"It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world."
Again, I suspect it's nothing so "black and white". Invading two countries at the same time - the second because the first is drawing too much media attention - is a dumb idea. Invading Iraq and assuming that people will welcome you with open arms is a clear case of forgetting/ignoring your history. Links beween insurgency and surrounding Middle East regions should certainly be assumed too.
Whatever the mix, it feels like a good Christmas if the end of PNAC is being talked about. Have a merry one :)