AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

THE NEOCON LEGACY

A powerful neoconservative voice has risen against the prophet of neoconservatism--George Bush. Francis Fukuyama, known all over the world for his provocative and yes, celebratory thesis about the end of history, has written a withering attack on Bush and the betrayal of the neoconservative agenda. The carapace of ideas such as preventive war,benevolent hegemony, war against terror are analysed and critiqued in great detail in thois booik. When the Iraq Qar was attacked on humanitarian and strategic grounds the neoconmen retaliated with sarcasm and felt that humilisating the messenger was enough to discredit the powerful arguments against the direction USA was tsaking as a consequence of neocon ideas of unilateralism and shock and awe.We may recall that Francis Fukuyama was an ardent supporter of the Iraq war and when he starts lamenting the horrendous cost of the wat even neocons must take note.

Traditionally conservatives trace their intellectual legacy to Edmund Burke and have always opposed overseas expansion and entangling commitments, a phrase we even find in the speech of George Washinton. Preemtive war and war to build democracy argues Francis Fukuyama render American foreign policy hostage to extra political interests. History cannot be accelerated through American agency, he writes. Like the Communists of old, the neoconmen too believed that they were on the right side of history and the chosen instruments of American destiny in the poist USSR world.

The major contribution of Francis Fukuyama lies in his treatment of the decision to wage war in Iraq without the approval of the UN. The main justification for the war the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam has turned out to be a mere will-o-the whisp. Indeed the standing o9f the only superpower has taken a huge blow due to the false case made out by the neoconmen to justify the war. The foreign policy establisment seems to have been side lined and neocon thik tanks and ideologues like Paul Wolfowitz created the blue print for the war without a broadbased national debate over crucial issues. As Fukuyama maintains the US armay was woefully ill prepared for the war and did not expect the resistance. Those of us who have been following the war from a different perspective knew that the real challenge lay after the fall of Bagdad,

This book must be read by everone interested in Iraq.
19,045 views 67 replies
Reply #1 Top
Thanks. I will read it.

The were two basic choices about the Iraq War both of which were incorrect. The first was the idea we could alter the political reality in Iraq to make us more secure. The second was the lack of man power to prevent the rise of secular discord among the factions in Iraq.

Bush was warned by his father not to invade Iraq and Bush was told by the generals what resources were needed to establish AND MAINTAIN CONNTROL IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM FELL. BUSH DID NOT LSITEN TO EITHER HIS FATHER OR THE KNOWLEDGEBLE MILITARY LEADERS.
Reply #2 Top
What's done is done; what's undone in the future is paramount.
Reply #3 Top

Indeed the standing of the only superpower has taken a huge blow due to the false case made out by the neoconmen to justify the war.


I's even worse! What with hundreds of thousands of lives saved because Saddam cannot kill as many people any more as in his better times, and with the refusal of the US to finance Hamas' war against the Jews, I am surprised that so many people still like the US.

Usually world opinion is sympathetic only to mass murderers, to Jew-haters, and to fascists. It helps if they are communists as well.
Reply #4 Top
The death rate in Iraq so far and the future deaths from the sectarian violence that will most likely continue will replace one type of killing for another.
Reply #5 Top
I find it very sad, bahu, that your differences with the Bush administration have blinded you to how corrupt and evil the UN's support of the Hussein regime was. I remember you talking about how Iraqis were starving under those sanctions. We find out that not only were they a sham, but that the main anti-war nations were both profiting illegally from them, and were poised with deals already inked to harden his regime the moment the sanctions were lifted.

You don't have to agree with Bush, but you do your argument a disservice to pretend that the UN would have ever gone to war, no matter how just the cause, with its major players so steeped in corrupt alliance with Hussein. Frankly, if I have to choose an illegal war to remove him, or illegal acts that make him more powerful, I have to look at the man for what he was and choose the former.
Reply #6 Top
The issue for me is not is the Iraq was legal or not. The issue is that we had no business attacking them. They did NOT posse any danger to the U S. Today Gen Zinni was on Meet The Press. He confirmed that the Intel did not support Saddam as a danger. He was contained by the no fly zone. He had no effective military after the last Gulf Way and he did not pose A DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES. Thus we have placed our military in danger and may spend up to a Trillion dollars for WHAT? Bush had no justification for this was and we then did not provide the force level which Gen Zinni clearly stated today was called for by the Iraq war Plan and which has created the mess that we have today in Iraq. I suggest you read his book, The battle For Peace. You will see just how wrong Bush was for attacking Iraq.
Reply #7 Top

The issue for me is not is the Iraq was legal or not. The issue is that we had no business attacking them. They did NOT posse any danger to the U S. Today Gen Zinni was on Meet The Press. He confirmed that the Intel did not support Saddam as a danger. He was contained by the no fly zone. He had no effective military after the last Gulf Way and he did not pose A DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES. Thus we have placed our military in danger and may spend up to a Trillion dollars for WHAT? Bush had no justification for this was and we then did not provide the force level which Gen Zinni clearly stated today was called for by the Iraq war Plan and which has created the mess that we have today in Iraq. I suggest you read his book, The battle For Peace. You will see just how wrong Bush was for attacking Iraq.


So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
Reply #8 Top

So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.
Reply #9 Top
The fiber optics and GPS jamming equipment they illegally procured were aimed at making their pea shooters better and better, and the moment sanctions were lifted there would have been a lot newer pea shooters. Corrupt "anti-war" governments were bent on solidifying their business relationship, and providing him with means to defend his position were in their interest.

For the welfare of the Iraqi people the sanctions had to go, and the sanctions couldn't be lifted with Hussein in power. He'd offered plenty of excuses to fix the situation in the only way possible.
Reply #10 Top
I find it very sad, bahu, that your differences with the Bush administration have blinded you to how corrupt and evil the UN's support of the Hussein regime was. I remember you talking about how Iraqis were starving under those sanctions. We find out that not only were they a sham, but that the main anti-war nations were both profiting illegally from them, and were poised with deals already inked to harden his regime the moment the sanctions were lifted.

The fact of the matter is that while we do critisize the Bush and the Bushmen for their terrible policy in Iraq, it does not at all mean that we are with Saddam. There is no question that Saddam and his regime were bad, but the situation now in Iraq is far worse. There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security. Now it is just mayhem. Now the IUS marines have behaved as we have been saying in a deplorable manner. In a village near Bagdad they just shot up a whole family and only a nine year old girl survuived the massacre. No the family had no terrorist links. Just a quiet family in the wrong place at the wrong time,
Reply #11 Top
"There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security."


That can be nothing but a lie, bahu. You are too well read and too intelligent to believe that. Those mass graves didn't make themselves. I've personally seen film of them, as have you, I am sure. There are whole charities at work now supplying prosthetics to the Iraqis who had their right hands amputated by Husseins thugs.

I can't remember for sure if you were one of the voices, but there were many voices claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying every year because of the sanctions. It is estimated that after the first gulf war over 100,000 shia Iraqis were killed. Saddam was quoted at one meeting that addressed the state of the Iraqi people as saying he didn't see why the Iraqi population ever really needed to exceed 20 million.

Again, it doesn't serve your argument to become an opportunistic revisionist. Hussein was an evil man, and would have remained an evil man, and would have continued starving his people gaining power during, and after, the sanctions. Better to have him gone before his cronies in Europe and Asia rearmed him.
Reply #12 Top

That can be nothing but a lie, bahu. You are too well read and too intelligent to believe that.


My sentiments exactly, and I have told him before.

Although the "intelligent" I cannot really believe any more. He must surely realise that nobody believes his lies any more.

Except, of course, those people who have believed them before.
Reply #13 Top
So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.


I would not consider a missle being shot at an aircraft, a peashooter. And if you consider it such I would have to wonder at your perspective.
Reply #14 Top
There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day


Sorry but this is just plain bullsh*t!!!! There "were" then, but there ain't now!
Reply #15 Top
The one thing I find interesting about all these debates on Iraq is that it seems that the only corrupt country involved is the US. It seems that everyone else was playing by the rules except for the US. Why does everyone chose to ignore what was going on there before? Why does everyone act as if what was happening behind closed doors is not as importand as what the US did?

Col, your idea of an expert is someone who thinks Bush is stupid and/or wrong. You will read anything and believe anything that says Bush was wrong. Your opinion is onesided, even Bahu Virupaksha wouldn't relate himself to you in any way.
Reply #16 Top
Mr. Fukuyama may not be the best or most objective of observers. Today's column by Charles Krauthammer is worth a read in this regard.

Link

Requires registration, but is free. Or you could read it in this morning's paper.
Reply #17 Top
Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.
---steved

Ah yes, siding with the Noble Savage. How liberal of you, steve.



In a village near Bagdad they just shot up a whole family and only a nine year old girl survuived the massacre. No the family had no terrorist links. Just a quiet family in the wrong place at the wrong time,


Is it still a massacre, I wonder when such things are done by terrorists to, say a mosque full of worshippers?
Reply #18 Top
One thing that interests me about the Iraq War debate in America is how it is usually presented as a straight-forward left/right thing with 'liberals' "against" and 'conservatives' "for". The situation in the homeland of the major US ally is very different...

In the UK you can hear all the usual far left suspects decrying the war using the usual rhetoric of stopping 'American Imperialism'. Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument - there are those on the far left who were Hussein-supporters. For those who believe that the US is currently fulfilling its Manifest Destiny to bring western civilisation to the more benighted parts of the globe, such ultra-leftists are a gift, allowing the whole anti-war movement to be characterised as
sympathetic to mass murderers, to Jew-haters, and to fascists


In reality the anti-war movement in the UK has many sane voices and - this is the thing that will surprise most Americans - they are mostly coming from the ranks of Britain's conservatives. Although the British Conservative Party backed Tony Blair over Iraq, they did so with insufficient enthusiasm - to the degree that, while Blair is welcome to share Colgate with George W. at any time, the then-leader of the British Tories Michael Howard was informed that he was persona non grata at the Bush White House.

The Conservative Party leadership candidate Ken Clarke was another vocal critic of the war - not because of any love for Hussein, or any anti-American animus (on the contrary these anti-war tories are all committed atlanticists with decades of track record as friends of America), but because of a belief that the U.S's stated goal is unachievable.

Max Hastings, the conservative editor and columnist is another voice saying the same thing. He has this to say about the events unfolding in Iraq: "Most of my US military acquaintances opposed the invasion. They did not doubt the coalition's ability to defeat Saddam's army swiftly and topple his regime. It was uncertainty about what would follow that rang warning bells. They identified from the outset precisely the difficulties that Messrs Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz contemptuously dismissed".

This should not come as such a surprise. A key component of conservative ideology is a pessimistic scepticism about the benefits of political adventurism, no matter how desirable the potential outcome ('trying to make things better, you will only make them worse'). And just as Americans misuse the fine word 'liberal' to make it a synonym for radicals, socialists and ultra-leftists, it is arguable that they are equally confused by the word 'conservative' - an ideology that is in fact largely alien to its post-revolutionary war settlement - which they seem to use as a synonym for right-wing radical.
Reply #19 Top
This should not come as such a surprise. A key component of conservative ideology is a pessimistic scepticism about the benefits of political adventurism, no matter how desirable the potential outcome ('trying to make things better, you will only make them worse').


Yes, well...

To whom then do we entrust the job of "making things better"? Hussein? Hamas? Al Qaeda? Putin? Chirac?

This idea has a familiar, also British, ring to it - didn't pan out too well then, either.
Reply #20 Top
To whom then do we entrust the job of "making things better"? Hussein? Hamas? Al Qaeda? Putin? Chirac?

This is the thing: those who oppose the war are sure that the post-war programme to bring democracy to Iraq will fail; the pro-war crowd are equally sure that it will succeed, that it is in fact already succeeding. And this belief in the mission's eventual success is very likely a fiercely necessary psychological need - otherwise so many lives would seem to have been lost in vain.

In reality, we don't really know what the outcome will be. I would hope that all those of goodwill, regardless of their original stance on the war, will be wishing for Iraq to become prosperous, democratic, free and at peace. However, just as we don't really know what the eventual outcome will be, we only have the vaguest outcome of what is really happening over there (though there are plenty of news sources available to feed our prospective biases).

The hostility of many (not all) British conservatives is based on a belief that the US either doesn't have a strategy for what it is trying to accomplish in Iraq, or that it has a bad strategy. The importance of this critique is that it is not coming from the traditional anti-american left, but from friends of America with decades of track record of looking to 'American leadership of the free world'. That is why it is worth taking seriously.

This idea has a familiar, also British, ring to it - didn't pan out too well then, either.

I have no idea what this means.
Reply #21 Top
I have no idea what this means.
---chakgoka

Perhaps Chamberlain allowing Hitler all the slack he wanted, to make things better and ensure "Peace in Our Time"? After all, Hitler the sociopath was about as trustworthy as a people whose faith considers lying to infidels a virtue.

My two cents.
Reply #22 Top

Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument


No. A cheap rhetorical blow is to insist that support for Saddam Hussein has to be active. It is not true. If anything, history has taught us that support for evil does not have to be active. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is one side of the coin, the other is that opposing the enemies of evil is even more helpful.

If the anti-war left want to oppose war but NOT support Saddam, I am sure there are enough wars to choose from that involve neither Saddam nor the US.

But that is not what is happening. The anti-war left ONLY and CONSISTENTLY oppose wars fought by the US against fascists or by Israel to survive. The anti-war left did not loudly oppose Saddam's war against the Kurds or Iraqi Shi'ites. But the anti-war left did oppose western attempts to stop Saddam. The anti-war left did not loudly oppose Saddam's attack on Kuwait. But the anti-war left did oppose the UN's liberating Kuwait.

I know, I was then, when in high school, a lefty, and I have been on the streets screaming "no blood for oil", although less loudly than others. I am now sorry for what I did; now that I know what Saddam did to the Kuwaitis.

The anti-war left do not speak up against Arab nationalists slaughtering hundred of thousands of Sudanese (black) Christians. But the anti-war left do speak up against an American president who forcefully removed another Arab nationalist, guilty of the same crimes, from power.

The anti-war left do not speak up against Arab attacks on Israel or against terrorists who only target civilians (and especially defenceless children). But the anti-war left do speak up against Israel erecting a border fence to keep these terrorists out of the country and against Israel defending herself against Arab armies.


Left-wingers who oppose Arab nationalism first and "American imperialism" second are rare. Show me such a lefty and I show you a proto-neo-conservative.


Reply #23 Top
I am not an expert on the current anti-war left, so I shall defer to your experience, but I have to say that your portrayal of a radical left only protesting against American military action does not ring true. Whether it be 'neither Washington nor Moscow' or some other maximalist slogan, the utopian left has always seemed to me to be tilting at every windmill going, like a bunch of Don Quixotes on speed. Still, this is not a world I am part of so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter.

Show me such a lefty and I show you a proto-neo-conservative.

Yes indeed! That is why so many former trotskyists and communists (Irving Kristol, David Horowitz etc) found themselves embracing neo-conservatism, which, of course, is no kind of conservatism at all. In many ways I can see the attraction of applying trotskyist 'permanent revolution' to spreading liberal democracy rather than communism, but that is a kind of radicalism, albeit benign in intention, that sits uneasily with the traditional definition of 'conservatism'.

I'm afraid on the matter under discussion (whether America's intervention in Iraq is justified and will eventually bear fruit in increased freedom, prosperity and stability in the middle east) you will find me a bewildered agnostic, so no kind of opponent at all. However, that part of Bahu's argument that true conservatives are actually sceptical of the whole enterprise rings true to me, and that is what I wanted to comment further on.
Reply #24 Top
The debate today is not whether Saddam was a bad ruler or a mass murderer. He could be both for all we care. The only point is the US intervention no invasion has not made thing better for the average Iraqi living outside the Green Zone. I do not y who have responded are aware of the terrible situation in Iraq. Shiaa death squads are a reality in Iraq today. The fact that six months after the electiobn no government has been formed is prooif.
Reply #25 Top
" The debate today is not whether Saddam was a bad ruler or a mass murderer."


And yet you salt your arguments with statements that there were no death squads in Iraq and now there are; that people are being killed wholesale now and they weren't under Hussein. Your stance seems to rely on what you claim is unimportant.

We can't impose government on Iraq and not draw the ire of folks like you. Conversely, if they can't agree on one, we'll be blamed for not forcing them to. If they don't fine, we need to leave after hope is lost and let them succumb to the chaos they choose.

Not everyone has lost hope, though. What you don't seem to understand is that these people are being killed to promote the ideology of people like you. When they blow up a mosque, they are doing it specifically to give you and others like you ammunition to throw at the US. These murders are perpetrated to cause folks like you and me, inside and outside of Iraq, to lose hope.

How does that make you feel? Shouldn't we blame the rapist for the rape? The US isn't killing dozens of Iraqis every day, the anti-US interests and hateful Iraqis are. Do you think you do anything to discourage their acts by providing the effect they wish to cause with their killing?