I’ve called those movement conservatives who think that successful policy execution–in peace or war–is about “will”, as opposed to, let’s say, execution, Peter Pan conservatives. Atrios has a very good explanation of why they believe so strongly in will–their own personal experience:
I’ve been thinking about about certain Bushies – Bush himself, obviously, and Condi Rice – who seem to honestly believe that “will” and “resolve” are the way one gets things done instead of, you know, actually getting stuff done. I’ve finally decided that they’re basically people have always gotten where they were by manipulating others into doing things for them, and so for them getting things done is all about wanting it to happen bad enough.
While one can certainly go through life quite well getting others to take care of your bullshit for you, this type of thing does not really scale upwards to the level of global diplomacy very well. One can’t will success in Iraq, Maliki’s “resolve” can’t actually cause people to stop killing each other there, etc.
I think something else plays into this too: no one has ever said no to them. That also makes it easy to believe in “resolve” and “will.”