Fukuyama: Bush Doctrine in Shambles

[Mickey]

Francis Fukuyama, one of the founders of the neo-con movement, wrote this essay for the NYT which was adapted from his new book, America at the Crossroads, which is coming out soon. I heard him on the radio this morning so I looked up the essay which can be read here: After Neconservatism

 

A sample:

 

"Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

 

Whoa.

 

I am still thinking about the issues he raises. I don't know enough about him to tell whether he is just blaming Bush and making excuses for why his neo-conservatism is failing. He seems to be saying that the same restraint neo-cons had for grandiose social engineering should have restrained them from grandiose nation building and democracy creating. Kind of an accusation that Bush didn't follow true neo-con principles with regard to Iraq. He also doesn't have as much to say about what we do now as he does about the mistakes that were made that got us here.

 

I thought this was well put:

 

"The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform. While they now assert that they knew all along that the democratic transformation of Iraq would be long and hard, they were clearly taken by surprise. According to George Packer's recent book on Iraq, "The Assassins' Gate," the Pentagon planned a drawdown of American forces to some 25,000 troops by the end of the summer following the invasion."

 

I also think this was well stated:

 

"The belief in the potential moral uses of American power, on the other hand, implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics. "

 

I think that raises a major question, one, I think, bib and others were trying to get at, the idea of being proactive. Maybe that is really the overarching question, is the belief that American activism can reshape the structure of golbal politics a sound one? What philosophy justifes that kind of global social engineering but condemns social engineering and "great society" type adventures on the domestic side?

 

I'm still thinking this out, its a long essay.

[erynthered]

Fukuyama has in the past been considered neoconservative. He was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and signed the organization's letter recommending that President Bill Clinton overthrow the then-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. [1] He also joined in its similar letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, a letter that called for removing Saddam Hussein from power "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack".

 

Thereafter, however, he did not approve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as it was executed, and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense [3]. He also said that he would vote against Bush in the 2004 election. [4] In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion [5], he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that the neoconservatives

 

believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

 

He also announced the end of the "neoconservative moment" and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism:

 

"[W]ar" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.

 

 

 

Sorry, I think this guy's all over the place. Maybe he'll change his mind again next year when he wants to write, and release another book.

 

I also see he's on the steering committee for the Libby Defence fund. Interesting.

[ASCI]

Oh yeah, Fukuyama to you too!

[Taro T]

Francis Fukuyama, one of the founders of the neo-con movement, wrote this essay for the NYT which was adapted from his new book, America at the Crossroads, which is coming out soon.  I heard him on the radio this morning so I looked up the essay which can be read here:

 

...

 

615221[/snapback]

Mickey, isn't Fukuyama the same guy that claimed in the early '90's that we had reached the "end of history"?

 

Considering how brilliant he was then, I'm not real concerned about his current thoughts.

[X. Benedict]

Mickey, isn't Fukuyama the same guy that claimed in the early '90's that we had reached the "end of history"? 

 

Considering how brilliant he was then, I'm not real concerned about his current thoughts.

615323[/snapback]

 

By "End Of History" I believe Fukuyama was referring not to a status quo, or an end to the confluence of world events, but to a post-cold war where traditional histories, like Collingwood or Hegel's were no longer able to offer satisfactory explanations for how complex and interdepedent the world would was becoming. It has been a long time since I have looked at it, though.

[Taro T]

By "End Of History" I believe Fukuyama was referring not to a status quo, or an end to the confluence of world events, but to a post-cold war where traditional histories, like Collingwood or Hegel's were no longer able to offer satisfactory explanations for how complex and interdepedent the world would was becoming. It has been a long time since I have looked at it, though.

615333[/snapback]

I thought that Fukuyama's thesis was that Western-style democracy had shown itself to be the triumphant or "optimal" form of government, which seemed to be a premature claim even at the end of the cold war.

[Scraps]

I thought that Fukuyama's thesis was that Western-style democracy had shown itself to be the triumphant or "optimal" form of government, which seemed to be a premature claim even at the end of the cold war.

615342[/snapback]

 

Guess you didn't bother to read the article.

[Scraps]

Sorry, I think this guy's all over the place. Maybe he'll change his mind again next year when he wants to write, and release another book.

615271[/snapback]

 

Maybe he learns from his mistakes? What is wrong with changing your mind?

[Taro T]

Guess you didn't bother to read the article.

615350[/snapback]

I was referring back to X. Benedict's comment about his book "End of History", not the article that Mickey quoted.

[X. Benedict]

I thought that Fukuyama's thesis was that Western-style democracy had shown itself to be the triumphant or "optimal" form of government, which seemed to be a premature claim even at the end of the cold war.

615342[/snapback]

That was part of it, his argument was that Western-style democracy was emergent, and all societies would be judged by this standard so there was no longer a need for historical dialectic, like Marxism for example. But it has been a long time for me.

[Scraps]

That was part of it, his argument was that Western-style democracy was emergent, and all societies would be judged by this standard so there was no longer a need  for  historical dialectic, like Marxism for example. But it has been a long time for me.

615357[/snapback]

 

In his own words

 

Many people have also interpreted my book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992) as a neoconservative tract, one that argued in favor of the view that there is a universal hunger for liberty in all people that will inevitably lead them to liberal democracy, and that we are living in the midst of an accelerating, transnational movement in favor of that liberal democracy. This is a misreading of the argument. "The End of History" is in the end an argument about modernization. What is initially universal is not the desire for liberal democracy but rather the desire to live in a modern — that is, technologically advanced and prosperous — society, which, if satisfied, tends to drive demands for political participation. Liberal democracy is one of the byproducts of this modernization process, something that becomes a universal aspiration only in the course of historical time.

[erynthered]

Maybe he learns from his mistakes?  What is wrong with changing your mind?

615352[/snapback]

 

 

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Nothing wrong with changing your mind. Lots of people change there minds, especially when they have a book coming out.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Francis Fukuyama, one of the founders of the neo-con movement, wrote this essay for the NYT which was adapted from his new book, America at the Crossroads, which is coming out soon.  I heard him on the radio this morning so I looked up the essay which can be read here: After Neconservatism

 

A sample:

 

"Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

 

Whoa.

 

I am still thinking about the issues he raises.  I don't know enough about him to tell whether he is just blaming Bush and making excuses for why his neo-conservatism is failing.  He seems to be saying that the same restraint neo-cons had for grandiose social engineering should have restrained them from grandiose nation building and democracy creating.  Kind of an accusation that Bush didn't follow true neo-con principles with regard to Iraq.  He also doesn't have as much to say about what we do now as he does about the mistakes that were made that got us here.

 

I thought this was well put:

 

"The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred, rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform. While they now assert that they knew all along that the democratic transformation of Iraq would be long and hard, they were clearly taken by surprise. According to George Packer's recent book on Iraq, "The Assassins' Gate," the Pentagon planned a drawdown of American forces to some 25,000 troops by the end of the summer following the invasion."

 

I also think this was well stated:

 

"The belief in the potential moral uses of American power, on the other hand, implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics. "

 

I think that raises a major question, one, I think, bib and others were trying to get at, the idea of being proactive.  Maybe that is really the overarching question, is the belief that American activism can reshape the structure of golbal politics a sound one?  What philosophy justifes that kind of global social engineering but condemns social engineering and "great society"  type adventures on the domestic side?

 

I'm still thinking this out, its a long essay.

615221[/snapback]

 

Interesting essay. I'll withhold comment (save to observe that more than a few people are going to take some of his statements as linking neo-conservatism with Zionism ) until I digest it more thoroughly.

[Ghost of BiB]

Interesting essay.  I'll withhold comment (save to observe that more than a few people are going to take some of his statements as linking neo-conservatism with Zionism  ) until I digest it more thoroughly.

615365[/snapback]

 

Same here. I detect a drift towards post-modernism, and am thinking about that angle.

[Scraps]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Nothing wrong with changing your mind. Lots of people change there minds, especially when they have a book coming out.

615364[/snapback]

 

Did you read the article or just come up with a cynical rational to ignore it?

[X. Benedict]

Did you read the article or just come up with a cynical rational to ignore it?

615427[/snapback]

I read it. It is an interesting piece, but doesn't it seem a little self-serving in a perspective of hindsight? It seems to subtly say, listen up folks, my name was misappropriated. Fukuyama as a theorist seems to be so elastic that he is unilluminating. On the positive side, his reflections that the Bush doctrine was over-

reaching seem accurate to me.

 

Good article, Mickey.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Francis Fukuyama, one of the founders of the neo-con movement, wrote this essay for the NYT which was adapted from his new book, America at the Crossroads, which is coming out soon.  I heard him on the radio this morning so I looked up the essay which can be read here: After Neconservatism

 

 

615221[/snapback]

Great article Mickey:

 

Here are my thoughts, it is interesting how he frames the neo-con movement out Wilsonian demcracy, never quite understood it that way.

 

I guess that I am confused about the neo-con retreat from militarization and the moral compass issue. If what I understood him to say is that democratic expansion for neo-cons is a moral outgrowth of their view of the World. Then the lesson from Iraq "failure" is that militarism should be applied opportunistically, he opens himself up to the attack that neo-cons have become moral relativists.

 

While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and he appears to be one,

I don't think his analysis of the role of the Muslim faith as a reason for Bush doctrine underestimating the difficulty of handling Iraq, but rather Bush underestimated the timetable by which American citizens will tolerate military intervention.

 

I agree with his conclusion that in the long run modernity will lead to forms of democracy... just not necessarily friendly to the U.S. and that is the failure of Bush doctrine. Principles of capitalism and democracy will create competition and thus potential conflict with other Democracies and that is a tough pill to swallow. Don't think any of us quite have a handle on that one yet.

 

Great article!

[Mickey]

Great article Mickey:

 

Here are my thoughts, it is interesting how he frames the neo-con movement out Wilsonian demcracy, never quite understood it that way. 

 

I guess that I am confused about the neo-con retreat from militarization and the moral compass issue.  If what I understood him to say is that democratic expansion for neo-cons is a moral outgrowth of their view of the World.  Then the lesson from Iraq "failure" is that militarism should be applied opportunistically, he opens himself up to the attack that neo-cons have become moral relativists. 

 

While it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and he appears to be one,

I don't think his analysis of the role of the Muslim faith as a reason for Bush doctrine underestimating the difficulty of handling Iraq, but rather Bush underestimated the timetable by which American citizens will tolerate military intervention.

 

I agree with his conclusion that in the long run modernity will lead to forms of democracy... just not necessarily friendly to the U.S. and that is the failure of Bush doctrine.  Principles of capitalism and democracy will create competition and thus potential conflict with other Democracies and that is a tough pill to swallow.  Don't think any of us quite have a handle on that one yet.

 

Great article!

615926[/snapback]

 

It seemed to me that he was trying to build some separation between his theories and what others, Bush, did with them. He might be right but it might just be a clever way to shift blame. I don't know enough about his original philosophy to be able to judge whether the Bush administration misapplied them.

 

One point I thought made sense was that democracy is not so easily imposed or delivered by military force. It needs to follow a more natural course with democratic institutions, customs and practices evolving over time. The idea that you can just send troops somewhere, plant some seeds and watch a democracy spring full blown does seem pretty optimistic. Then again, it worked in Japan. It seems to be doing fairly well in Afghanistan or at least better than in Iraq. Were those societies somehow more ready for democracy than Iraq?

 

I do note that he has little to say about Iraq now. His point appears to be that it was a botched job from beginning to end but we have to stay based on his version of the Powell Pottery Barn Rule. In a certainly unscientific but well informed opinion, John Pace the UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq up until he quit last month says that torture and killings in Iraq now are worse than under Saddam due to the lawless chaos there. His interestingly direct way to gauge the violence was to regularly visit hospital morgues Pace. I wish Mr. Fukuyama had some thoughts on how to fix this though I guess this might help the next time around.

[Mickey]

I read it. It is an interesting piece, but doesn't it seem a little self-serving in a perspective of hindsight? It seems to  subtly say, listen up folks, my name was misappropriated. Fukuyama as a theorist seems to be so elastic that he is unilluminating. On the positive side, his reflections that the Bush doctrine was over-

reaching seem accurate to me.

 

Good article, Mickey.

615660[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I had the same sense that he was distancing himself from what others have done with his philosophy. What I don't know is whether he is justified in doing so or not. Is there a difference between his philosophy and the Bush Doctrine or is he just looking long enough to find one to distance himself from the Iraq debacle (so far anyway)? Crap, I might have to actually read his book.

[Scraps]

I was referring back to X. Benedict's comment about his book "End of History", not the article that Mickey quoted.

615354[/snapback]

 

Yeah but I asked the question because he discussed the book in the article.