longtimelurker: Not that it really has too much bearing on my life (not being an American), but I personally view them with deep suspicion. They seem to be a bunch of meddlers with FAR too much power to be deemed totally safe. It is quite scary exactly how much of your government (and senior members at that) are taken over with this philosophy, which is quite fundamentally flawed (IMHO, of course).
The problem is that the major issues lie with the attitude towards foreign policy which at such delicate times is a very serious concern. First and foremost is the belief that the world would be safer if everywhere was like America - now, I'm sorry, guys - but that just feeds the common view that Americans just want to run roughshod over every other culture in existance, whether by financial capitalist means or by sheer media dominance. This view is most clearly seen in the countries that the neocons want to 'help' most.
Secondly lies the notion that you can remove terrorism by bombing the hell out of it. Terrorism arises from the sheer inequalities in the world - if everyone was content and secure, then there would be very few willing to blow themselves up to further a radical cause. Israel is a very clear case in point here - if continued sheer aggression towards militants were the way to peace, then it should be the most peaceful nation on earth! A far more successful model to follow is that being used to sort out N Ireland at the moment - using diplomacy to increasingly sideline the paramilitary arms. By bombing another nation, you don't only breed resentment towards the aggressors (Iraq, anyone?), but make the poverty and hence desperation and call to terrorism tenfold worse.
Thirdly, and this is probably not a 100% neocon issue, is the placation of Israel. The recent issues surrounding the Israeli missile strike on Syria shows a very strong case in point. There is no way that a missile strike on a seperate sovereign country can be seen anything but an act of war. If Syria still had an army of any reasonable size then it would almost undoubtedly have responded in course. As it doesn't, it had to respond to the UN and ask for a condemnation. Of course, Israel, as ever, just relies on the US using its veto, even though EVERY SINGLE OTHER country on the security council made statements condemning the act. As long as Sharon feels protected then his acts will become more and more extreme. Now he has been given the green light to launch strikes on independant countries without fear of retalliation. In the days following, in a show of force, the Israeli air force flew fighter jets at supersonic speed over Syrian cities, together with the sonic booms et al. - and they wonder why there is such widespread Arab resentment?
It is madness really that the arguments they use to 'prevent' international terrorism are going to be exactly those that keep the fires of resentment burning well into the 21st century.