A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 31, 2005Fukuyama on IraqIf you read one thing today, this should be it: Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and the Last Man (and, like me, something of a Straussian -- see here and here), writes on the Op-Ed page of today's Times that the Bush Administration "squandered the overwhelming public mandate it had received after Sept. 11" and "alienated most of its close allies, many of whom have since engaged in 'soft balancing' against American influence, and stirred up anti-Americanism in the Middle East". He's right on the mark, but I'd certainly like to know what you all think. Key passages below the fold... "So much attention has been paid to [various] false determinants of administration policy that a different political dynamic has been underappreciated. Within the Republican Party, the Bush administration got support for the Iraq war from the neoconservatives (who lack a political base of their own but who provide considerable intellectual firepower) and from what Walter Russell Mead calls "Jacksonian America" -- American nationalists whose instincts lead them toward a pugnacious isolationism. "Happenstance then magnified this unlikely alliance. Failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the inability to prove relevant connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda left the president, by the time of his second inaugural address, justifying the war exclusively in neoconservative terms: that is, as part of an idealistic policy of political transformation of the broader Middle East. The president's Jacksonian base, which provides the bulk of the troops serving and dying in Iraq, has no natural affinity for such a policy but would not abandon the commander in chief in the middle of a war, particularly if there is clear hope of success. "This war coalition is fragile, however, and vulnerable to mishap. If Jacksonians begin to perceive the war as unwinnable or a failure, there will be little future support for an expansive foreign policy that focuses on promoting democracy. That in turn could drive the 2008 Republican presidential primaries in ways likely to affect the future of American foreign policy as a whole... "With the failure to secure Sunni support for the constitution and splits within the Shiite community, it seems increasingly unlikely that a strong and cohesive Iraqi government will be in place anytime soon. Indeed, the problem now will be to prevent Iraq's constituent groups from looking to their own militias rather than to the government for protection. If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions -- Asia, for example -- for years to come. "We do not know what outcome we will face in Iraq. We do know that four years after 9/11, our whole foreign policy seems destined to rise or fall on the outcome of a war only marginally related to the source of what befell us on that day. There was nothing inevitable about this. There is everything to be regretted about it." Posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at August 31, 2005 05:42 PMComments
IMHO he's wrong, of course. He IS right that political capital could've spent elsewhere, to constructive purpose. But would these have been better choices? I think he's overly embarrassed about the WMD mistake in Iraq, and letting that cloud his judgement a bit. Three facts about Iraq at the time of decision remain true: 1) Saddam felt himself to be at war with the US. He was firing on Coalition troops and was violating every part of the cease-fire accords available to him to violate. 2) He felt nuclear weapon acquisition to be a vital goal. He was already pretty close even before Gulf War I. The deterrence value of nuclear weapons against meddling democracies was already well-established. 3) After the Gulf War, he was in the Islamofascist column. He was one of the enemy. Wasn't as hard as people keep saying: he was already a fascist, and IMHO he saw anti-US asymmetric warfare possibilities in the terrorists. He was a definite supporter. Did he support al Qaeda per se? Maybe not, but he was still a big terror supporter. Was one of his hopes to deliver a nuclear weapon without that annoyng ballistic trace? It remains true that action against Iraq created a probably major democracy where they're lacking, removed a future nuclear threat, a terror supporter, and a regime that was firing on us. And it put US troops right next to Syria, IMHO why they were on good behavior in Lebanon. I'm skeptical that European engagement would've yielded better value, especially since they've actually been quite anti-Islamofascist despite the public fuss. IMHO, Bush could've done that just by firing Bolton early. Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, it repeatedly used them, both on Iran and the Kurds within Iraq. With his Epic slaughters of Iranians, Iraqi Kurds and Shias, as well as terrorizing the general populace with one of the most totalitarian and oppressive governments in the world, Saddam himself could be described as a weapon of mass destruction. Saddam attacked most nearby nations -- Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iran, and should have been expected to repeat this behavior. Saddam was a strong and conspicuous state supporter of terrorism. Specifically, every time a suicide bomber mass murdered innocent people in Israel, Saddam consistently sent the family a check for $25,000. Aren't you glad this terrorist funding source has been stopped? Nor does the author acknowledge Saddam failing to live up to the terms of the treaty which ended the earlier war, including non-cooperation with and outright ejection of UN inspectors. Was this not an ominous sign of Saddam hiding something to scheme further grand attrocities? What are the implications of other rogue nations learning that ignoring such treaties to scheme further evil gets you what you want? Would Libya have abandoned its mass destruction programs without having witnessed the result in Iraq? Most egregiously, the author completely neglects to mention Saddam's ongoing horrific attrocities committed against his own people as justification for the war. Perhaps the author doesn't consider these mass slaughters important or worthy of action. I wonder if the author would show the same neglect of attrocities in assessing Clinton's justification for attack on Serbia, which had no U.N. sanction of any kind. The author describes seeking Democracy in Iraq as a purely neoconservative dream. Was the Marshall plan in Europe a purely neoconservative dream too? I thought Americans as a whole were in favor of promoting Democracy. In 1998, Clinton and a uninamous congress passed the "Iraq Liberation Act", which explicitly made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the USA, and sought to replace it with a Democratic government. Is Clinton and the entire national congress "neo-conservative" too? In fact, bringing democracy to Iraq was also stated as one of the reasons for going to war in the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq. "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.--Bill Clinton, 1998 The most unreasonable and unbalanced portion of the article is the author's concluding paragraph, which incredibly states that "there is everything to be regretted about {the Iraq war}". Does the author regret Abu Grahib no longer being a place where (real) torture, amputations, and executions regularly take place? Perhaps he thinks rogue prison guards making prisoners wear panties on their head is so much worse. Does he regret Saddam's extreme totalitarian government being overthrown, replaced with serious hopes for Democracy? Does he regret Saddam no longer writing checks to families of suicide bombers? Using chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians, repeatedly attacking neighboring countries and likely doing so again in the future? Posted by: Susan at August 31, 2005 10:19 PMGuys like this make me tired. The long-unanswered (really un-posed) question to all these critics is: In retrospect, knowing then all we know now, how would you classify the events of 9/11 in the context of the the first WTC bombing, the Cole, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Africa? Was it a crime? Committed by perpatrators who could be sought, captured, tried, and punished. Or was it an act of war? Conducted by an organization that has no national identity. Or was it something else? If so, please classify it. Bush took it to be an act of war. And since one can't conquer the nation that declared war on us, he took (what I believe to be) the only justifiable course of action - move to eliminate the havens of the terrorists. And before responders get their knickers in a twist about Iraq and terrorists - the Middle East is the home of the most backward autocracies in the world, taken as a whole region. To eliminate the havens of terrorists, fundamental change in the Middle East (first) is required. Democratization is that fundamental change. We were already at war with Iraq, so what better place to start? And all the jive about WMD, and relations with Al-Quaeda is just that - jive. Saddam was a demonstrated danger to Iraqis and to the region. If he were as smart as Qaddafi, he'd still be building palaces to himself today, and the US troops would be all over Syria, or Iran. Let me say this again - fundamental change in the Middle East is the essence of the GWOT. The world is now too small to tolerate the hijinks of these Dark Age potentates. If France and Germany and Spain and others decline to participate, they, like the United States, will be judged at the bar of history. At least Bush and the US have gambled everything on success. You have to admire that no matter who does the gambling. Which brings me back to Messrs. Fukuyama and his intellectual brethren. I repeat - what happened on 9/11, how do you classify it, and how do you do it better. At least gamble your intellectual bona fides on your answer. Otherwise, you sound like a spoiled child whose pancakes came this morning with cinnamon sugar instead of maple syrup. Posted by: Literally Retarded at August 31, 2005 11:27 PMI heard someone else call this guy a prominent neoconservative. is this true? If so, how am I to take such statements above crucifying him now? Is this guy getting discredited now because he feels in retrospect that Bush has done a poor job of of executing post 9/11 neo-con policies? It's a fun game to excoriate the author for all the things he fails to acknowledge, but that doesn't really blunt the part of his criticism where he points out the very real downsides to the policy tacks we have taken: squandered the overwhelming public mandate it had received after Sept. 11" and "alienated most of its close allies, many of whom have since engaged in 'soft balancing' against American influence, and stirred up anti-Americanism in the Middle East I'm not saying there is no upside or that it wasn't worth it, but these are the costs and they are real. As one who felt the best reason not to invade Iraq was that we might well fail in establishing a sustainable, stable civil democracy, I think it'll be worth it only if we succeed. And we may not. If we establish a sputtering semi-democracy, withdraw upon the request of Iraqis, and the nation descends into civil war, IMO it will NOT have been worth it. Let's face it, for the time being we're propping them up, and at some point the training wheels have to come off, and then we'll see. Posted by: bk at September 1, 2005 09:04 AMSusan, as usual, slanders anyone who criticizes Bush by calling them a liberal. Fukuyama is not a liberal, he is known as a neoconservative but he has been critical of Bush's foreign policy. Most liberals that I am aware of don't like him and thought his End-of-History thesis was ridiculous. In Susan's world, if you criticize Bush, you must be a Democrat. Which means that Chuck Hagel is a Democrat in disguise. Wow! What a scheme we have come up with. I don't know where to start in addressing the critiques of the article. I don't think there is much point. Those who think the war was the correct policy will be unmoved by my arguments just as I am unmoved by theirs. I have been reading the same arguments in support of the war for three years. Let me just say this; I don't think it was our place to decide we needed to install democracy at the point of a gun, the threat from Saddam was grossly overstated, Bush lied about the existence of WMD, and all we have succeeded in doing is creating a civil war. Marc, bravo, to most points but the last. Juries still out, IMHO, about civil war. Susan, I am a liberal, so i'll just say it- i'm in favor of democratically chosen governments. naturally I think our model works pretty well, and would like to see more governments chose it- but if the majority of the people prefer to live in different societies, then that is their choice- I was not in favor of our fighting communism in LA in the 80's- for better or worse, that was the style of government the majority favored and chose- and am not in favor of imposing our ideas on people now. Freedom fought for is more cherished. I'd have felt A LOT better about the Iraq war if the people had chosen to fight for it- we chose for them, and whether our choice will stick remains to be seen. I am hopeful- it was a hell of a gamble, and hope it pays off. I think we need to stay there until it does- and yes, I am aware this may take decades, it's one of the reasons I thought the war was a bad move in the first place. But, that said, now we need to stay and see it through- no matter how long it takes. Posted by: stephanie at September 1, 2005 10:11 AMI think Fukuyama makes a good point that there was a great opening for new ideas following Afghanistan. But some of the ideas he mentions hardly seem realistic. Given what we know about the corruption of oil-for-food, it's hard to envision a tightening of sanctions, except as a slapped-on veneer over the existing, eroding process. As for "creat[ing] a true alliance of democracies to fight the illiberal currents coming out of the Middle East" -- I haven't the slightest idea what this means; does Fukuyama envision a history in which Great Britian cracks down on its radical Imams sans the London Tube bombings? Or a European-wide ban on head scarves? This is the type of vague projection that can damn any specific course of action, no matter how justified. On the other hand, Fukuyama is quite right to mention the need to battle nuclear proliferation as an opportunity that was largely missed. Unfortunately, we only know the road we took and everything imaginary looks better if you like to indulge in should-haves and could-haves. And he also fails to answer the fundamental question. If the US cannot defeat the terrorist organizations without the involvement of the governments and intelligence services of some of the terrorist-sponsoring (or blind eye turning) states (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan), how do you influence those states to cooperate with you when the perception is that the US will not shed its own blood for those causes? (A perception that goes back to Presidential decisions made-- consistently-- over the last thirty years). It's not as easy as simply hand-shakes and agreements to "fight terror"-- those diplomats then turn around and turn a blind eye to the terrorist bases within their territory. And there's good reason for this: it's not in their own interest to rock the boat against the jihadists. So long as the jihadists focused their energy against the West, their regimes were secure. But, as Musharraf quickly learned, take action against them, and the terrorists will quickly become your sworn enemy-- now threatening your own regime. Given that decision-- to appease Americans who won't do anything anyway-- or to appease the terrorists-- who will do something, you have to make it in the regimes' own interests to do so. That can only be done by demonstrating your resolve-- show off the sheer power of the US military (i.e., we can topple any regime with "minimal" effort)-- perhaps in a manner that simultaneously allows you to deploy more than a hundred thousand Americans to the borders of those regimes (i.e., behave or you might be next...). Out of that comes the third factor-- that we can reshape a Middle Eastern nation into a democratic state and transform the character of the Middle East once and for all. Now I'm not going to say that everything has gone according to plan-- obviously, by failing to subdue the insurgency in Iraq, we've also demonstrated some of the weaknesses of American power, not to mention we've thus far been able to build this democratic state-- but that it was the plan is pretty much beyond question in my mind. Posted by: Bobby at September 1, 2005 04:42 PMSusan, as usual, slanders anyone who criticizes Bush by calling them a liberal. Fukuyama is not a liberal Ironically, Marc is the one slandering, since I never called Fukuyama a liberal. "In Susan's world, if you criticize Bush, you must be a Democrat. Nothing I wrote relates to or depends upon his political persuasion or party. How about a little integrity Marc? The author says there is "everything to regret about the war", and I give factual examples of things that might not be so regrettable about it. Is this really the equivalent of shouting "liberal"? Susan, Since Marc can't or won't be honest (he is still doing the ridiculous 'Bush Lied' meme) to him it is equivalent. Posted by: deb at September 7, 2005 02:04 PMRealy good site! Posted by: Gaby at September 16, 2005 05:23 AMYour site is realy very interesting! Posted by: Mond at September 16, 2005 05:25 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
