http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006

Quote :

"Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down' NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects. Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies. In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes". In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. "The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues. "Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally." Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly". Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who "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 practised by the United States". Although Mr Fukuyama still supports the idea of democratic reform - complete with establishing the institutions of liberal modernity - in the Middle East, he warns that this process alone will not immediately reduce the threats and dangers the US faces. "Radical Islamism is a by-product of modernisation itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and - yes, unfortunately - terrorism," he says. "By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective.""

Someone should tell this guy that FREEDOM IS NEVER AN IMPOSITION.

2/22/2006 2:58:05 PM

real life case study in "ends and means"

2/22/2006 3:00:34 PM

heh

fukyomama

2/22/2006 3:24:10 PM

^^ Please elaborate. I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/22/2006 3:24:49 PM

Wow. That really is a pwnt.

2/22/2006 3:26:04 PM

I liked the last part. It's becoming more and more clear that while free elections are a prerequisite to democracy, they do not create democracy by themselves. Free elections just create more dictatorships if political and economic conditions aren't ripe; i.e., there aren't institutionalized protections in gov't and society to protect and give voice to the minority. These institutions can't be created overnight, or by a foriegn power.

Quote :

"it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly"

no kidding


I'd be interested in how he defines neo-conservatism.

2/22/2006 3:26:21 PM

Quote :

"He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies. "

what is it with ideology, anyway? they ALL end up being wrong, because they're based on IDEAS. thought processes should be based on fact and scientific theory.

2/22/2006 3:35:18 PM

Quote :

"thought processes should be based on fact and scientific theory."

BUT IT'S JUST A THEORY!!!111

Btw, that type of shit can only get you so far. Science can't tell you what you should want.

2/22/2006 3:43:16 PM

Quote :

"I'd be interested in how he defines neo-conservatism."

From:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Quote :

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

And if you think that list of signatories to the letter to Clinton on Iraq was impressive (or foreboding), the signatories to the SOP are moreso. In addiction to Kristol, Kagan, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Rumsfeld are such notables as Dick Cheney, Bill Bennett, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush, "Scooter" Libby, Dan Quayle, and Zalmay Khalilzad. There are others.

2/22/2006 3:44:48 PM

Quote :

"Btw, that type of shit can only get you so far. Science can't tell you what you should want."

no, but it can tell you what's true. ideologies tell you what you want to be true rather than what is.

2/22/2006 3:47:02 PM

Dude, I directed a few friends to the New American Century site before the war, and they all thought I was being a conspiracy nut.

Neener-neener-neener

2/22/2006 3:49:42 PM

Quote :

"no, but it can tell you what's true."

Wrong. It can tell you what isn't false.

2/22/2006 3:50:21 PM

^^ hahaha

2/22/2006 4:45:36 PM

Quote :

"what is it with ideology, anyway? they ALL end up being wrong, because they're based on IDEAS. "

i'm not really contesting your statement

but it strikes me as odd, b/c i view you as an ideologue

2/22/2006 4:52:57 PM

I like this argument, one purported neocon says something bad about neo-conservatism and suddenly the whole philosophy is pwnt.

I really really really like this argument. gg Gamecat

2/22/2006 8:26:22 PM

Quote :

"neo-conservatism is going down!!!!!"

2/22/2006 8:32:10 PM

Almost as much of a pwnt as when Jane Roe came out against the abortion movement.

Or when that really famous athiest said she believes in god.


n/m he's not renouncing neoconservitism, he's just saying that they've taken it too far.

2/22/2006 8:38:44 PM

^ 100% Incorrect. What part of "NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects" isn't a renunciation of neoconservatism?

Quote :

"TGD: I like this argument, one purportedfounder of the neoconservative movement says something bad about the neo-conservatisme movement is dead/has failed and suddenly the whole philosophy is pwnt."

That spinning machine must've had a wrench in it. Can't say I'm surprised. Your response wouldn't have been any different had Bill Kristol written the same article and posted it at the Weekly Standard.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:33 PM. Reason : http://www.english-at-home.com]

2/22/2006 10:23:29 PM

oh no, the spinning machine works just fine. I like this argument too:

Quote :

"Gamecat: one founder of the neoconservative movement says the neo-conservative movement is dead/has failed and suddenly the whole philosophy is pwnt."

but Prawn Star pretty much already made the point

(and howtf is this guy a "founder of neoconservatism", when the "founders of neoconservatism" are all dead? it's cute how you people think this is some kind of [new] philosophy...)

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ---]

2/22/2006 10:40:55 PM

Would "founder of the modern neoconservative movement" unwad your panties?

2/22/2006 10:42:18 PM

oh I don't give a shit, like I said Prawn Star made the point better than I could have anyway. you can call him whatever the fuck you like

2/22/2006 10:43:03 PM

Out of curiosity, were any of the other people involved in Jane Roe's case under indictment for five felonies?

And since you agree, I'll pose the question to you...

Quote :

"What part of "NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects" isn't a renunciation of neoconservatism?"

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ...]

2/22/2006 10:46:31 PM

the founder of the "modern neoconservative movement" has no bearing on the master plan of the illuminati

2/22/2006 10:46:41 PM

Quote :

" i'm not really contesting your statement but it strikes me as odd, b/c i view you as an ideologue"

i know you do, but you're wrong. I"ll never state something about my beliefs without giving a backup fact or something close to fact as a reason.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2006 10:48:33 PM

^

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: ...or something close to fact..."

haha wtf?

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Out of curiosity, were any of the other people involved in Jane Roe's case under indictment for five felonies?"

And that's relevant...how, exactly? oh right, "It's not, I was just practicing my fallacies." gg to you.

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: And since you agree, I'll pose the question to you..."

I should have clarified, I agreed with his first two sentences. I'll happily concede this is a categorical renunciation of neoconservatism, that'll just make using your argument that much more entertaining in the future.


[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ---]

2/22/2006 10:54:41 PM

A future rich with neoconservative victories abroad, right. Prepare for a very sad 8-12 years.

Quote :

"TGD: And that's relevant...how, exactly?"

This isn't the first blow the modern neo-conservative movement has faced within the last year. Its founders are having trouble staying in line or remaining true believers, surely that undermines the ability of the movement to fulfill its stated goals.

Quote :

"TGD: that'll just make using your argument that much more entertaining in the future."

Quote :

"Someone should tell this guy that FREEDOM IS NEVER AN IMPOSITION."

2/22/2006 11:06:23 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: ...or something close to fact..." haha wtf? "

in other words, something based on the interpretation of facts, for instance, human responsibility for global warming. we know that temperatures and ppm of carbon in the atmosphere have shot up since the industrial revolution, but we can't prove outright that one caused the other. it makes sense, though, so I believe it to the point that I can without outright proof.

2/23/2006 9:38:05 AM

So let me get this straight

This strategy, which failed miserably in Latin America

Was reapplied to Iraq

Failed again

And this dude is all like "durkka durrr didnt know that would happen!"

2/23/2006 10:19:28 AM

^ What do you expect, this dude's claim to fame was a book titled The End of History in which he postulated that, in western social democracy, civilization had reached its highest pinaccle and had no other way in which to develop.

In other words he's an idiot.

In fact, the 21st century is going to be quite eventful, and not necessarily in a good way. We're going to see the emergence of China, as well as potentially several other countries, as a full-fledged super power. There's a high likelyhood that western Europe, or large parts of it at least, will be predominantly islamic by the end of the century. The US military will be beaten overseas, we will suffer an economic meltdown and, if something doesn't change soon, backslide from social democracy to full blown social nationalism (national socialism) at home. Where we go from there is anyone's guess.

2/23/2006 2:19:20 PM

omf we're all gonna die aaaiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!1

2/23/2006 2:29:59 PM

Wow, thats about 8 different doomsday scenarios all rolled into one.


Bird flu is gonna kill us all too, right?

2/23/2006 2:38:57 PM

Actually, that's 3 doomsday scenarios.

1) Western Europe is overrun by islamic fundamentalists.

This one is actually pretty simple. Europe's falling birth rates have necessitated the importation of muslim labor to keep their bloated cradle-to-grave welfare systems running. In addition to continued immigration, muslims have a tendancy to breed. Euopeans don't. Makes for a pretty predicatable outcome. In fact, following the demographic trends, many european countries will be majority muslim within 50 years. At that point, they'll either have to get used to the burquas, or give up on democracy and make with the ethnic cleansing. Either way, it's not going to be pretty.

2) Economic meltdown

This one is not too much of a stretch. Many countries in the past have been bankrupted by long, unwinnable wars, exactly the situation we're in right now. Of course, countries can't go bankrupt in the way that individuals do, but if faith in their continued economic viability is lost, things can get pretty bad. China isn't going to subsidize hundreds of billions of dollars of US deficit spending forever. When they realize they're pouring money down a black hole, the shit is going to really hit the fan.

3) Domestic fascism.

I'm not talking about the ancilliary characteristics of facism, like giant jew-baking ovens. I'm talking about the fundamentals. Things like authoritarianism, repression, secret police, rule by fear, neighbors spying on neighbors, kids spying on parents, fuhrer worship, an unholy anllience between government and big business. That's the direction in which this country is moving, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone willing to admit it.

The other things, like the rise of China, and the inevitable defeat of the US military overseas, are basically neutral occurences which aren't necessarily bad or good in and of themselves.

2/23/2006 2:55:22 PM

Quote :

"Many countries in the past have been bankrupted by long, unwinnable wars, exactly the situation we're in right now."

True, but so far we are spending a paltry 4% of our GDP on defense. Our financial troubles have nothing to do with the military and everything to do with tax-cuts and domestic spending, only one of which was worth it.

Quote :

"China isn't going to subsidize hundreds of billions of dollars of US deficit spending forever."

This is the statement that doesn't make any sense coming from you. You are smart enough to realize this isn't a problem. We could stop borrowing money tomorrow: just raise taxes to pre-Bush levels, or eliminate social security payments, etc. Do both and we could pay off our debt in a decade or so. I'm not saying it could never be a problem, but we're talking decades more of borrowing before we might start having trouble and a lot could happen between now and then (a plague that kills everyone over the age of 65, cheap fusion power, etc)

2/23/2006 3:10:00 PM

Quote :

"so far we are spending a paltry 4% of our GDP on defense."

And you don't think that this is going to keep going up as the neo-cons start to target Syria and Iran and who knows where else?

Quote :

"but we're talking decades more of borrowing before we might start having trouble"

And I'm talking about the entire 21st century, 95 years of which still lie ahead.

2/23/2006 3:23:47 PM

the both of you are so cute, and yet so wrong at the same time. it's like a paradox or something

2/23/2006 3:45:51 PM

How long have neocons been into gerontology? They seem to have TGD convinced that we're somehow not going to die.

2/23/2006 7:52:28 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fatalism

2/23/2006 9:14:56 PM

Quote :

"TGD: omf we're all gonna die aaaiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!1"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

=> "How long have neocons been into gerontology? They seem to have TGD convinced that we're somehow not going to die."

[Edited on February 24, 2006 at 12:40 AM. Reason : ...]

2/24/2006 12:40:07 AM

if you're talking about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, that was a government inside job. That is a 100% proven fact.

2/24/2006 8:16:33 PM

2/25/2006 6:52:36 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/909rqgza.asp

Quote :

"The Long War The radical Islamists are on the offensive. Will we defeat them? by William Kristol 03/06/2006, Volume 011, Issue 24 DEMAGOGUES TO THE RIGHT OF THEM, appeasers to the left of them, media in front of them, volleying and thundering. Can the Bush administration continue to charge ahead? Does it have the will--and the competence--to lead the nation for the next three years toward victory in the long war against radical Islamism? From Copenhagen to Samara, the radical Islamists are on the offensive. From Tehran to Damascus, the dictators are trying to regain the upper hand in the Middle East. From Moscow to Beijing, the enemies of liberal democracy are working to weaken the United States. Across the world, the forces of terror and tyranny are fighting back. Are we up to the challenge? It's not clear that we are. Many liberals, here and in Europe, long ago lost the nerve to wage war--or even to defend themselves--against illiberalism. Parts of the conservative movement now seem to be losing their nerve as well. In response to an apparent clash of civilizations, they would retrench, hunker down, and let large parts of the world go to hell in a hand basket, hoping that the hand basket won't blow up in our faces. Remember: The United States of America and its allies--regimes that seek to embody, or at least to move towards, the principles of decent, civilized, liberal democracy--did not seek this war. But we are at war, and we could lose it. Victory is not inevitable. Does that make Bush-supporting, liberal-democracy-promoting, Iraq-war-defending neoconservative "Leninists," as Francis Fukuyama has recently charged? No. Does it mean we believe--as Fukuyama defines Leninism--that "history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will"? Does it mean that history does not automatically move in the right direction, that justice does not necessarily or easily prevail? Yes. It would be nice to believe, as Fukuyama does, that "a long-term process of social evolution" is under way that will inevitably produce liberal democracy. It would be nice to enjoy the comfortable complacency of a historical determinism that suggests--as Fukuyama has it--that what we most need to do is to embrace a "good governance agenda" on behalf of a long-term process of "democracy promotion" that "has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective." Indeed, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we didn't have to take the enemies of liberal democracy seriously--a world without jihadists who want to kill and clerics who want to intimidate and tyrants who want to terrorize. It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. To govern is to choose, and to accept responsibility for one's choices. To govern is not wishfully to await the end of history. To govern is not fatalistically to watch a clash of civilizations from the sidelines. As Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council observed last week, "We are in the midst of a jihadist offensive. The bombing of [Iraq's] Askariya Shiite Shrine is another indication of the world-wide jihadist offensive against the West. From the cartoon jihad to the Hamas victory to the Iranian effort to obtain nuclear weapons to the attempt by al Qaeda to foment an Iraqi civil war--our enemy is taking the initiative. And the West is on its heels." The Bush administration leads the West. If the West seems to be on its heels, it is because the administration seems to be on its heels. The fact that the left is utterly irresponsible, and some of the right is silly, is no excuse. Wittmann continued, "Many mistakes have been made since 9/11. But at the end of the day, we should recognize that we are all Americans and part of the West that is under assault by a truly evil foe. Our bravest are on the front lines in this war. The least we can do at home is to demonstrate some moral seriousness that the moment demands." Moral seriousness in this case means political seriousness. Insist on going ahead with the ports deal so that Arab governments who have stood with us in the war on terror are not told to get lost when one of their companies acquires port management contracts in the United States. Make a real effort to destabilize Ahmadinejad in Iran. Do what it takes to defeat Zarqawi and secure Iraq. Stand with Denmark, and moderate Muslims, against the radical mob. This is no time for dishonorable retreat. It is time for resolve--and competence. After all, it would be most unfortunate if the administration summoned its nerve and charged ahead--only to meet the fate of Tennyson's Light Brigade! --William Kristol © Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved."

2/27/2006 6:35:03 PM

heh

fukyamama

2/27/2006 6:37:35 PM

Quote :

"It would be nice to enjoy the comfortable complacency of a historical determinism that suggests--as Fukuyama has it--that what we most need to do is to embrace a "good governance agenda" on behalf of a long-term process of "democracy promotion" that "has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective." [...] It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in."

Except he doesn't actually address why that is. He just dismisses Fukuyama's piece by saying OMG TIMES LIKE THESE CALL FOR ACTION!1, while ignoring how miserably and consistently his type of action has failed.

Both mindsets make assumptions about what the best strategies for democratizing countries are; the difference between them is that one has absolutely no connection with reality what-so-ever and appeals only to people's emotions, while the other one accepts the lessons learned from U.S. foriegn policy and internalizes them.

2/27/2006 8:37:54 PM

If it weren't for the Fukuyama bit later, I would have stopped reading here:

Quote :

"The United States of America and its allies--regimes that seek to embody, or at least to move towards, the principles of decent, civilized, liberal democracy--did not seek this war."

This is a lesson in "proof by repeated assertion" brought to you by the good folks at the Weekly Standard. Unfortunately for them, repeating the same lie a million times doesn't make it true. William Kristol has personally sought this war since 1998. So has Donald Rumsfeld. So has Paul Wolfowitz. In their letter to Clinton they described the gathering threat of Saddam Hussein, no lie, to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. A wholly laughable assertion given what we know now about his activities prior to '03, most of which simply echoes precisely what the U.N. and I.A.E.A. were telling us all along. For the letter:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Unfortunately, I had to actually continue reading the article to get to the Fukuyama bit, which meant wading through more of Kristol's persistent scaremongering and eloquently-worded bullshit.

What you never hear from Kristol is why involvement in the affairs of these regimes automatically reduces to overt military action/invasion/world policing. Instead he takes the Soap Box tack: he has a field day with the philosophy of isolationism which neither Fukuyama nor any of Bush's political opponents support, in other words arguing with the strawman.

My opinion is that he must've been shaken by Fukuyama's speech. If he weren't, why wouldn't he address it without misrepresenting it?

He even had the arrogance and incompetence to agree with Whittmann's attribution of the attack on the shrine in Samarra to the war with the West. Myopic, self-centered, "everything is about America" nonsense.

Oh, I bet you didn't know I wasn't a fan of the DLC. Now you do.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ...]

2/28/2006 12:33:48 AM

The first application of neo-conservatism has failed. So has democracy lots of places. That doesn't mean that either is such an awful idea.

I'm not down with the whole thing, and even the parts I like could use some serious reworking, but I'm not ready to abandon it as lost yet.

2/28/2006 12:38:19 AM

It also doesn't mean that they're alike.

2/28/2006 12:51:00 AM

Quote :

"It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up."

What a freakish view this guy has of other countries and the world at large. It's like he's trying to play a game of Risk.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 2:42 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 2:41:57 AM

^^Of course it doesn't.

I merely said that initial setbacks don't make an obvious, permanent failure.

Regardless of whether you expressed any opinion to the contrary, you and/or a great many other people on here have that opinion, at least with regards to neoconservatism.

2/28/2006 3:37:52 AM