"After neoconservatism"
Francis Fukuyama, in the Sunday NY Times, says says neoconservatism is dead.
Note: If you don't know Fukuyama, don't think "liberal" because the article appears in the NYT. This is a respected political scientist who believes in the historical inevitability of global liberal democracy - just not in the forced manner many of his contemporaries have supported. However, Fukuyama does announce in this article that he no longer claims affiliation to neoconservatism.
He describes the historical progression of neoconservatism, suggests its proponents became overly optimistic after the Soviet Union fell, and argues the philosophy experienced a fatal crescendo in Iraq. He is the latest to point out the many, many mistakes in U.S. Iraq policy, but he doesn't provide much in the way of suggestions for cleaning up the situation. (This is not the first time he has criticized how Iraq has been handled.)
I'm not sure neoconservatism is finished, or even greatly changed, but recent adventures in U.S. foreign policy have shown many neocon idealists that 1.) regime change is more messy than many of its supporters apparently realized, as democracy does not simply rise from the ashes; and 2.) even when democracy is in place, the people might choose Hamas. These let-downs are leading Americans to increasingly support isolationism.
The above points are Fukuyama's, but one other that he alludes to, yet I suggest should be amplified, is the consistency factor: When will regime change come to North Korea and Iran? While Iraq arguabley seemed to be the most dangerous of the so-called Axis of Evil, a sense of consistency would suggest the United States should be involved militarily in regime change in the remaining two Axis states.
We realize, of course, that would simply not be possible with the current U.S. military. Yet when democratic peace theory is combined with the "post-9/11" mindset - such as in the neocon justification for the war in Iraq - the possibilities for future military endeavors are truly limitless; we could fight forever.
Anyway, who the heck am I to critique Fukuyama? I recommend the article.
Note: If you don't know Fukuyama, don't think "liberal" because the article appears in the NYT. This is a respected political scientist who believes in the historical inevitability of global liberal democracy - just not in the forced manner many of his contemporaries have supported. However, Fukuyama does announce in this article that he no longer claims affiliation to neoconservatism.
He describes the historical progression of neoconservatism, suggests its proponents became overly optimistic after the Soviet Union fell, and argues the philosophy experienced a fatal crescendo in Iraq. He is the latest to point out the many, many mistakes in U.S. Iraq policy, but he doesn't provide much in the way of suggestions for cleaning up the situation. (This is not the first time he has criticized how Iraq has been handled.)
I'm not sure neoconservatism is finished, or even greatly changed, but recent adventures in U.S. foreign policy have shown many neocon idealists that 1.) regime change is more messy than many of its supporters apparently realized, as democracy does not simply rise from the ashes; and 2.) even when democracy is in place, the people might choose Hamas. These let-downs are leading Americans to increasingly support isolationism.
The above points are Fukuyama's, but one other that he alludes to, yet I suggest should be amplified, is the consistency factor: When will regime change come to North Korea and Iran? While Iraq arguabley seemed to be the most dangerous of the so-called Axis of Evil, a sense of consistency would suggest the United States should be involved militarily in regime change in the remaining two Axis states.
We realize, of course, that would simply not be possible with the current U.S. military. Yet when democratic peace theory is combined with the "post-9/11" mindset - such as in the neocon justification for the war in Iraq - the possibilities for future military endeavors are truly limitless; we could fight forever.
Anyway, who the heck am I to critique Fukuyama? I recommend the article.
posted by bp at
10:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home