Francis Fukuyama increasingly sounds more like his teacher Samuel Huntington and less like himself. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites, Fukuyama famously (and incorrectly) proclaimed the end of history: the triumph of free-markets and democracy. The world, inevitably, moves in that direction--at least Fukuyama thought so until the Iraq debacle. Since Iraq went sour, Fukuyama has announced voting against George W. Bush, has quarreled with neoconservatives he formerly elicited praise from, has criticized an Iraq war he had called for, and has seemingly abandoned (or at least put on hold) his once-vogue idea of a reverse Trotskyism: history travelling teleologically toward democratic capitalism.

"What the administration sees as one problem ought to be seen as two," Fukuyama writes with Adam Garfinkle in the Wall Street Journal. "Radical Islamism needs to be dealt with separately from democracy promotion." The piece presents evidence rebutting a central tenet of the Bush Doctrine: the notion that America's freedom depends on establishing democracy beyond America's borders.

Exhibit A: "Muslims in democratic Europe are as much a part of this problem [terrorism] as those in the Middle East. This is not a trivial point; it is a central one that directly challenges a key tenet of the administration's view."

Exhibit B: "But recent elections in Iran, Egypt, Palestine, and Iraq have either brought to power or increased the prestige of profoundly illiberal groups like Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; even our putative friends in the Shiite alliance that did well in last December's Iraqi elections have been busy institutionalizing an intolerant Islamist order in the parts of Iraq they control."

Exhibit C: "In many Arab countries this means that premature democratic elections will most definitely and predictably bring the mosque into the public square while driving out all other forms of expression. The tolerant are making democratic way for the intolerant, who in turn are very likely to block the possibility of any reverse flow of authority. How such dynamics promote liberal democracy in the longer run is hard to see. More likely, U.S. policies that foster pro-Islamist outcomes will delay political liberalization, help the wrong parties in the great debates ongoing in Muslim societies and, quite possibly therefore, make our terrorist problem worse."

Exhibit D: "Just as it proved possible to stigmatize and eventually eliminate slavery from mainstream global norms without having first to wait for the mass advent of liberal democracy, it should be possible to effectively stigmatize jihadi terrorism without having first to midwife democracies from Morocco to Bangladesh."

The world hasn't embraced free markets and free votes despite Francis Fukuyama once saying that it would. Reality tends to have that affect upon untested theories. Not all theorists are realistic enough to alter the theory when events move in unexpected directions. It is to Fukuyama's credit that he has done so. It is to the discredit of others that they have not.

At least this little good can come from the Iraq misadventure, that some are changed and others are chastened.

But I don't think for a moment that the Left has learned any lessons. They see Iraq as simply a mistake from the Right, rather than a mistake that started with Bush I, was continued by Clinton, and will hopefully end with Bush II. It was not the only foreign policy mistake, although it may drown out others. Somalia? Haiti? Yugoslavia? And even many before that, but we are too proud to admit such.

For the Right, I hope that we can see how easily the American public is led astray, and take some lesson about human nature from it. We should perhaps wave fewer flags, invoke fewer calls to patriotism; use our military sparingly, swiftly, justly, and decidedly. And when it so happens that we have conquered some country that seeks us ill, hand power over to the people and then leave (and if the people are not ready for what we brought them then we were not right to bring it).

Dan,

Have you heard about the book "Sadaam's Secrets"? It was written by the #2 man in the Iraq airforce, and details Sadaam's extensive array of WMD's and how he got them out of Iraq and into Syria before the UN and US invaded Iraq?

Get it here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/ref=sr_11_1/104-2846141-1552708?%5Fencoding=UTF8

That Saddam was actively training international terrorists is a matter of record:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp?pg=2

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10230/iraqi_perspectives_project.html

Anyways, moving past that, I half-agree with Fukuyama.

Democracy and free markets can be exported, however, liberalism cannot. And a democracy that is not liberal isn't much of a democracy at all.

However, speaking about or national interest, the New Iraq requires three things to have been a worthwile campaign:

-Enough tanks to make Iran think twice

-Enough oil to make Saudi Arabia think twice

-American military bases

None of those has anything to do with high-fallutin' rhetoric or human nature.

"But I don't think for a moment that the Left has learned any lessons. They see Iraq as simply a mistake from the Right, rather than a mistake that started with Bush I, was continued by Clinton, and will hopefully end with Bush II. It was not the only foreign policy mistake, although it may drown out others. Somalia? Haiti? Yugoslavia? And even many before that, but we are too proud to admit such."-obi juan

We don't have and never have had any strategic interest in Haiti and Somalia, and as such, both were mistakes.

The same cannot be said for Yugoslavia and Iraq.

In Yugoslavia, we sent a clear message to the Russians: Back off

We also got a sprawling military installation in the heart of the Balkans.

If we win in Iraq, we will have established an American ally as a major regional power in the Middle East, with a military strong enough to offset the other, far less friendly military power, Iran, and an oil based economy strong enough to keep our ever wayward ally, Saudi Arabia, in check.

We will have also established the United States as the major military power in the region, and have high levels of influence over other players in the neighborhood. Examples of this can be seen in Saudi Arabia's newfound desire to risk massive political capital by carrying out what is essentially a civil war against Al Qaeda and it's sympathizers in their country, Syria's response to Lebanon declaring independence, which was anything but the mailed fist that Syria's regime is known for, and Libya giving up its WMD program.

Thirdly, we made an example out of Saddam Hussein to the rest of the region: This is what happens to those who cross the United States.

And fourthly, the Army and Marine corps are gaining invaluable experiance in fighting a protracted, counter-insurgency campaign.

In return for this, what are the costs?

The casualties we have suffered are obviously extremely regrettable, but operationally speaking, they are a flea on the back of a dog. We haven't suffered nearly enough to threaten our operations in the country.

The Iraqis dead is again obviously terrible, but the vast majority of Iraqis are quite happy to see Saddam gone, and don't want the US to go anywhere anytime soon. In the bloody calculus of the region, Iraqis come out better off now than they did under Saddam.

As for the costs, Iraq is relatively cheap. It costs 2% of our annual GDP, whereas Vietnam cost 12% and World War II cost 40%

Ben T: Just becuase the Weekly Standard says something doesn't make it part of the "public record." HI-larious.

Also: "And a democracy that is not liberal isn't much of a democracy at all." And why not?

Great article by Krauthammer on Fukuyama's conversion (free registration required):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701298.html

"Ben T: Just becuase the Weekly Standard says something doesn't make it part of the "public record." HI-larious.

Also: "And a democracy that is not liberal isn't much of a democracy at all." And why not?" -Skeptic

I assume you mean "Just because a study issued by Joint Forces Command says something is so, doesn't make it part of the public record" ? Because I linked to the Iraqi Perspective Project, which Hayes is quoting from in the article.

Because in democracies where there is no liberal society to take root in, it is extremely rare that said democracy stays democratic for long. Usually an election is held, and then the government elected stays in power until a coup kicks it out, and so on.

Thanks Ralph for refering us to Krauthammer's article. Here is the key passage which contains the assertion that I have yet to see decently addressed by any opponent of U.S. actions:

"My argument then, as now, was the necessity of this undertaking, never its ensured success. And it was necessary because, as I said, there is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the root causes of Sept. 11: 'The cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world -- oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism.'"

I would add that if the battle in Iraq only buys the West more time to get its act together and to understand the immense challenge it faces, it will have been a success.

DocMcG: I am reminded of what a professor once said to the class when I asked whether the great society poverty programs worked, and suggested that such programs may have made the cycle of poverty worse in some communities: "Well, even if they didn't work at least LBJ didn't sit with his thumb up his a$$ like the conservatives would have it." MY POINT: doing nothing is sometimes better than doing the wrong thing. Krauthammer's argument in that paragraph comes down to: we should try to do the impossible (even though there is a good chance of making the problem worse) because he can't think of a better way to "attack the root causes" of terrorism. Liberalspeak. Give me a break.

I agree with skeptic that there are times when doing nothing is better than trying to do something and failing.

However, there are also perfectly good, realpolitik reasons we should be in Iraq, which I addressed earlier in the thread. And if in so doing, Iraq becomes a democracy, that's all the better.

I read Fukie's piece, Krauthammer's (KH) and skimmed Berman's review. I have a few reactions.

1) Fukie describing KH's talk as claiming the Iraq war is "a virtually unqualified success" doesn't tell us much about why Fukie took that as the moral of KH's lecture. KH's defense by linking to a transcript of the speech isn't all that helpful as it doesn't give us any indication of any extemporaneous remarks KH made or what may have been said in a question/answer period, if there was one. So their argument with each other is neither here nor there for me.

2) KH surely has a point about Fukie conveniently changing his stance and abjuring the neocons which he did so much to enable over the years. Maybe this is behavior Fukie learned from his teacher, the communist spy Alexandre Kojeve.

3) Fukie's essay still suffers from numerous liberal political principals which I find detrimental to pursuing a reasonable foreign policy in America's interest. He still seems to see American interests in idealist and hegemonic terms.

4) The key phrase in the excerpt DocMcG quotes from KH is that the root cause of terror, Arab regime's oppression of their own peoples is "transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism." But I have to suggest to KH and Doc that the key issue is how are these regimes able to deflect the anger of their people's onto us? Because of our unfortunate policies. We will get nowhere and make no progress in defusing radical Islamic sentiment and groups if we continue to follow the likes of neocons like KH and (what is he now a neoliberal?) like Fukie. The U.S. has to let the imperial pretensions go and get rid of the military bases in Muslim countries and be an honest broker vis-a-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict. In a word, stop meddling. No meddling = no scapegoating of the U.S. for tyrannical Arab regimes.

I'm holding an ideological wake for Fukuyama at my website if anyone is interested.

http://www.jim-rose.com/

"The U.S. has to let the imperial pretensions go and get rid of the military bases in Muslim countries and be an honest broker vis-a-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict. In a word, stop meddling. No meddling = no scapegoating of the U.S. for tyrannical Arab regimes." -Brian

The Islamic world and western civilization have been at war since the 7th century without any "meddling" on the west's part as a prerequisite. Charles Martel had never meddled in Islamic affairs when the Moors invaded Southern France, The Austro-Hungarian Empire hadn't been meddling with the Ottoman Turks when they laid siege to Vienna, and the Jefferson administration hadn't been meddling in the affairs of the Islamic pirate states when they demanded the United States pay them tribute.

Ben T: You pick the most inconsequential war in U.S. history and pretend like its an instance of 13 centuries of continuous unprovoked attacks of Muslims on the West. This isn't so much false (though it is partially false), as it completely lacks any sense of perspective.

I didn't reference the Iraq War in my post at all. I was referring to Brian's proposed foreign policy of removing all our bases in the region, ending our support of Israel entirely, and taking a policy stance of total noninterventionism towards the Mideast.

Please read the posts first, and THEN comment on them.

The Barbary Pirates were not terribly ideological or religious fanatics, but more like an early mafia state that took money. So barring that, the last coordinated Islamic attack on the West ended at the Siege of Vienna.

Maybe there is something intrinsicall bad about Islam that will always make it a problem. But, we have to ask why we didn't have any real problems with Muslim states since at the latest 1815 or I'd argue 1688.

If Islam is at war with the "West" then why is it that Israel and US were the only target for years, and the only other targets have been our European allies.

Also, I agree with Brian that Fukayama does not deserve our accolades.

Here's a good review of his change of heart by Leon Hadar

http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2006/02/francis-fukuyama-again-dont-shoot-im.html

Ben T: The Iraq War is hardly what I meant by the most inconsequential war in US history. It seems very consequential to me. Mentioning the Barbary Pirates War in this context, on the other hand, just seems foolish: it doesn't belong next to the Siege of Vienna.

Ben-T,

You criticize others for not reading posts before commenting but make the same error in your own post. Or at least, I will extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was hastiness and not deceit that made you transform what I wrote, "be an honest broker vis-a-vis the Israel/Palestine conflict" into, "ending our support of Israel entirely." C'mon, man, don't be so tedious.

Marcus,

Thanks for the Hadar link, that was spot on. It seems to me that what we are seeing as a shake-up in "conservatism" w/ George Will, Fukie, Buckley and others coming out critical of the Iraq War is really a splintering or realigning, of sorts, of neocon and neoliberal elements of the established political elite. All of whom are more interested in one-world Boboism than the good of Americans.

Traison des clercs, I say.

My mistake.

Its patently false that the Barbary Wars were inconsequential, so I assumed that wasn't what was being referred to.

The US victory in the Barbary Wars soldified the United States as a major western power and ended the Ottoman Empire's military domination of the Mediterranean basin. Both were major developments.

P.S: The idea that we would have no problems with the Islamic world if we just "left them alone" is just plain old silly.

What would be the possible benefit of leaving them alone? What would happen if the US pulled up roots and left the region? Russia and China would move in.

Great plan! Give Russia and China domination of the most strategically important region in the world!

"If Islam is at war with the "West" then why is it that Israel and US were the only target for years, and the only other targets have been our European allies." -Marcus

sorry to make a triple post but this is another statement that is just completely silly.

There is warfare in any place in the world where you find a fault line betwee Muslim and non-Muslims communities, be that Europe, Indonesia, Sudan, Chechnya,India, China, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. To suggest that the US and her allies have been the only subject of Islamic terrori is just patently untrue.

Ben: I didn't call the Barbary Pirates War inconsequential, I called it "the most inconsequential war in U.S. history." To disprove this statement, you should name a war in U.S. history that is less consequential. I actually think that, like the War of 1812, the Barbary Pirates War is more important than most people recognize. Besides, the point is (1) that it shows your lack of perspective to list it next to the Siege of Vienna (a VERY consequential event in Western history), (2) that it really is not an instance of aggressive Islamic war against the West, as Marcus pointed out.

If the Muslim world is inherently hostile to all other religious faiths then Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party was a godsend for those of other faiths. In Saddam's Iraq Christians were allowed places of worship, were able to publicly proclaim their faith and even work in Iraq's Ba'ath government. Now with Saddam gone, and the emergence of Shi'a influence in Iraq, Christians are really on the ropes, as they are constantly harassed and targeted for their religious faith.

It's false to say the Muslim world has been at war with the for hundreds of years. For the most part the Muslim world is incapable of waging any kind of war with the west because the Muslim world is so impoverished. All their military armaments, technology, and wealth stem from western influence. Secondly, there was no overt Muslim hostility to the United States during the first half of the 20th century. In fact, after WWII the United States was popular in the Muslim world. So the Muslim hatred for the United States derives from our policies in the region -- support for Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, invasion of Iraq etc.

Leave it to Eric to wax nostalgic for the Saddam-days.

I fail to see what Saddam allowing Christians places of worship or Muslims being angry with us for having bases in Saudi Arabia has to do with the strategic importance of the Middle East, and the vitality of ensuring that we have dominance in the region, so that Russia and China do not.

(hit the post button by accident)

The people of the Middle East loving us will be worth exactly jack shit if Russia and China control the region.

As for Eric' assertion that for most of it's history the Middle East has been impovershed and incapable of waging war against the west, "Since World War I" is not most of the history of the Middle East.

Eric,

"For the most part the Muslim world is incapable of waging any kind of war with the west because the Muslim world is so impoverished."

Impoverished? Which Muslim world are you referring to? The one with all of the oil (which is over $60 a barrel)? 'Cause, they ain't exactly short of cash...

While development of military technology in those countries is certainly ages behind the more powerful nations of the world, they have tremendous buying power if they wish to arm themselves. One would hope no one would actually sell them anything, but this is a possibility.

Still, I have to kind of agree with you. The muslim world is not, as a whole, engaged in a perpetual war with us. However, Islam demands that they do so, and this hangs over their heads, doesn't it?

Of course, I have to strongly disagree that the muslim world hates us because of our support for Israel, presence in Saudi, etc. I have always maintained that the muslims hate our culture, and rightly so.

In the West, our values have been slowly eroded over time (like the frog in the pot that slowly boils to death), that we had years and years to become use to it, and accept the loose morals and relativism that characterize our times. However, the muslim world has the advantage of having the entire culture thrust at them at once, and therefore can see it for what it is.

I'd fight it too...

Don't like nudie mags?

Ram planes into skyscrapers!

I'm not defending the response, just the reaction.

I don't want to be too tedious about the importance of the Barbary Wars, but I don't think anyone saw them as either important or even a victory. In fact they were called "america's forgotten war" until Max Boot's "Savage Wars of Peace" and other neoconservative tracks tried to create some historical continuity for their unAmerican wars.

So now a very brief reality check. Far from being unqualified victories that solidified our position of strength in the World, the First Barbary war was fought on the premise that we would not give tribute, and was resolved after we agreed to pay Ransom for American prisoners. I really don't see the victory. If it really established us as a major power, then the British and the French would not had bullied us and the war of 1812 would not have happened.

The second Barbary War also ended with a treaty that involved the US agreeing to pay ransom for prisoners. (If we are to call the Barbary States terrorists as the neocons are fond of, then we certainly negotiated with them) And the war really only ended because the French, Dutch, and British wiped out the North African powers.

All things considered, the wars were pretty inconsequential, and certainly not unqualified successes that should set an example for future US Imperialism.

We agreed to pay some ransom as part of a treaty which was drawn up basically out of fear that we were going to capture Tripoli.

The Barbary Wars smashed Ottoman military dominance in the Meditteranean, there isn't any question about that.