Although they remain a powerful force in the administration, especially in foreign policy and defense, the "neocons," as they are called, have lost a string of internal battles lately. They wanted more confrontational U.S. policies toward Iran, Syria and North Korea, and many argued that President George W. Bush's "road map" to Mideast peace demanded too much of Israel and too little of Palestinians.

Most neocons believe in using U.S. military power to oppose despotism and spread American values around the world. Many have strong ties to Israel, which they see as a threatened democratic outpost in the Middle East. Leading neocons have called for the destruction not only of Iraq but also other Arab and Muslim regimes that finance, support or tolerate terrorism.

The neocons agitated since the mid-1990s for "regime change" in Iraq. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the neocons pressed their case for war against Iraq to eventual success.

The hawks argued that Saddam and his banned weapons presented an imminent threat to the United States, that the regime would be easily overthrown and Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that American power could be used to reshape the world, beginning by creating a democratic Middle East.

"There will be dancing in the streets throughout Iraq if we liberate that country. The idea that it's going to damage us in the Arab world is nonsense. We will be seen not as invaders but as liberators," predicted former Pentagon official Richard Perle, a leading adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

On Capitol Hill and elsewhere, the case for war is coming under growing scrutiny, as weeks go by without hard evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons being found.

Lawmakers and some within the Bush administration are expressing rising alarm as U.S. soldiers are killed almost daily by anti-American elements in Iraq and estimates of the size and duration of the U.S.-led occupation force grow.

If the hawks are having second thoughts, it doesn't show.

"A lot is riding on (Iraq), but it is not the success or failure of a particular mythological ideology," said Robert Kagan, a neocon and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, an influential conservative think tank.

On the seesaw balance of hawks and moderates within Bush's sharply divided foreign policy team, the hawks appear - at least temporarily - to be on the downswing.

The moderates, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell and uniformed military officers, have won several recent policy battles.

They blocked plans by some in Rumsfeld's office to install Iraqi exiles in power in Baghdad, although at least one senior Pentagon official is still assisting the exiles there.

Bush has decided for now against a military strike on either Iran or Syria, both designated by Washington as state sponsors of terrorism. Instead, much of the White House's diplomatic energy is going toward the Middle East peace process, which involves degrees of pressure on Israel, a close U.S. ally.

The president and his political advisers appear more focused on domestic issues and leery of risky new military ventures as Bush begins his re-election campaign. They also are concerned about a possible schism in the president's political base between neocons and traditional conservatives, many of whom question the necessity of attacking Iraq.

But if Bush wins a second term, those who advocate regime change not just in Iran and Syria, but in traditional U.S. allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, could be driving policy once again.