Why did critics question neoconservative support for the Iraq War?

Critics questioned the neoconservative support for the Iraq War based on several ethical and strategic concerns:

• Contradictory Foreign Policy: Critics argued that while neoconservatives championed the promotion of democracy abroad, they were simultaneously willing to support pro-American but deeply undemocratic regimes, leading to accusations of cynicism.1
• Lack of Skeptical Awareness: Although neoconservatives were known for their caution regarding the unintended consequences of domestic programs, critics noted a striking absence of this same skepticism regarding foreign intervention. Planners were accused of failing to foresee that the invasion could trigger catastrophic outcomes, such as large-scale sectarian violence and civil war.1
• False Justifications: The primary rationales for the war—the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction and a collaborative relationship between the Ba'ath Party and al-Qaeda—were ultimately proven false, undermining the moral and political legitimacy of the conflict.23
• Reckless Internationalism: Many observers, including some on the political right, viewed the war as an act of reckless internationalism that ignored the potential for long-term instability.2