George Clooney takes refuge in this Italian villa in Cernobbio

Congratulations on that Oscar you picked up. I couldn't be happier for you. Not only because I admire your Cary Grantesque panache but also because I admire your politics. As an advocate of a hawkish but high-minded foreign policy, I can't find much to cheer about in Hollywood, but you, my friend, consistently deliver. Dare I say it — you’re the No. 1 neocon in Never Never Land.

Oh, I know you try to hide your real views behind a lot of progressive rhetoric. You’ve compared George W. Bush to Tony Soprano and warned he’s leading the country down the same road as Nazi Germany. You gotta do what you gotta do in a liberal business. But your movies are what really count, and, no matter what you say, they’ve made the neocon case.

Even "Syriana," which has been criticized for America-bashing by a lot of conservatives, myself included, has a neocon message. It’s a protest against the influence of Big Oil on U.S. foreign policy.

Down the wrong path

Neocons argue that the policy supported by the oil companies — backing Middle Eastern despots — is leading us to ruin. It only helps create anti-American suicide bombers — as illustrated by “Syriana.” The movie suggests we should help liberal Arab reformers like the fictional Prince Nasir, just as neocons urge.

Then there's "The Peacemaker," your terrific 1997 thriller that sought to shake the nation out of post-Cold War complacency by showing how easily terrorists could smuggle a nuclear bomb into the United States. Neocons in the 1990s argued for a more ruthless anti-terrorist policy. Your character, Lt. Col. Thomas Devoe, didn't let legal niceties stop him from saving New York.

All that is prelude to your 1998 neocon masterpiece, Three Kings," showing that the 1991 Persian Gulf War didn't achieve its goals when it left Saddam Hussein in power. Amid frenzied postwar celebrations, your character, Maj. Archie Gates, observes gloomily, "I don't even know what we did here." Neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz said the same thing; they wanted to oust Saddam from power, not just from Kuwait.

You have to help those in need

You lead three other soldiers to steal gold taken from Kuwait, but it becomes apparent that, despite your crusty exterior, you can’t ignore the suffering of Iraqi Shiites who have risen up against Saddam at American instigation, only to be slaughtered. In the pivotal scene, you watch as an Iraqi goon shoots a Shiite woman in the head.

The Iraqi officer in charge is willing to let you leave with the loot. "You go now please," he pleads. "I don't think so," you growl. Then you beat up the Baathists on behalf of the Shiites.

The rest of the movie follows your attempts to get 55 Shiites to a refugee camp in Iran. You lose most of your bullion, one of your soldiers is killed, another is badly wounded — but it’s the right thing to do.

The message is clear:The U.S. should pursue its ideals in foreign policy, not simply try to protect strategic or economic interests. That is the essence of modern neoconservatism, and precisely the policy President Bush has followed in Iraq, notwithstanding the sniping he’s received from you and your friends.

We had to go in

Perhaps the problem is that you support the ends - getting rid of Saddam - but are leery of the military means. What alternative is there? As "Three Kings" showed, asking the Iraqi people to rise up against their oppressor wouldn't have worked. The United States had to step in, if only to make up for its betrayal of the Iraqis in 1991.

Anybody who wonders what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq today should rent "Three Kings." It makes an ironclad moral case for the invasion.

Good work, George!