E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Discord in neocon ranks emerges over Iraq War
Some cut and paste from a long article. Warning: those who'd like to remain chirpy and happy neocon cheerleaders should not read this article.
In the 18 months since President Bush declared war on Iraq, the close-knit community of hawkish intellectuals who built the case for the invasion have largely stood their ground. Lately, however, there has been emerging discord within their ranks over the lessons from the war. Earlier this month, Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History" and one of the most influential thinkers associated with the movement, surprised many by delivering a lengthy attack on the neoconservatives' longstanding arguments in support of the war in Iraq, including their confidence in building a democracy there and their assessment of the threat from Islamic radicalism.
I think it's becoming obvious that a part of Iraq doesn't do well with the concept of democracy. Kurdistan seems to be doing it well, but the Arab portion of the country, with its propensity for turbans, either doesn't seem to get the idea or views it as a religious abomination.
In the clubby world of neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom are longtime friends and allies, Mr. Fukuyama's repudiation of the case for war, which appeared in The National Interest, was all the more startling because he presented it as an attack on a recent speech by his friend, the columnist Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Krauthammer says he is publishing a rebuttal in the next issue of The National Interest portraying Mr. Fukuyama's critique as "breathtakingly incoherent."

Others are redoubling their arguments for the invasion of Iraq, contending it should be the first step in a campaign to transform the region. In the next issue of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz, who helped found the neoconservative movement in the 1970's, has written a 37- page defense of the Bush administration's foreign policy.In "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win," he argues that the United States should now help seek the liberation of other Middle Eastern countries to help drain the swamp where Islamic radicalism breeds, just as the cold war helped liberate the Soviet Union.
Iraq provides the foothold in the region. It removed support for terror organizations, but it needs to be pacified to provide the base for operations against Iran and Syria and possibly Soddy Arabia, whether they're military or diplomatic. Because it's part of a long-term strategy, it's not easy to explain to the public and you don't want to do too much explanation to avoid giving away too much to the enemy.
Although few in the movement have criticized the neoconservative argument for the war as comprehensively as Mr. Fukuyama did, several others said his argument with Mr. Krauthammer had captured widespread attention as a new stage in the debate over the lessons of Iraq. "These are two of the intellectual heavyweights among neoconservatives, and their dispute is real," said Gary Rosen, managing editor of Commentary. "People are looking for guidance on this, and these are two strong proponents of opposing views within the movement."

In an interview last week, Mr. Fukuyama said that he had harbored private doubts about the war at the time, although he kept quiet about them then. "I figured it was going to happen anyway, and there wasn't anything I could do about it," he said. "I believed it was a big roll of the dice, and I didn't believe it was a wise bet. But on the other hand, it was a roll of the dice, and for all I knew, it might have worked." He added, "It turned out to be even worse than I anticipated."

But as he was listening to his friend Mr. Krauthammer deliver a recent speech on the theme of the United States as a unipolar power, Mr. Fukuyama said, he grew increasingly agitated. Mr. Krauthammer's speech "is strangely disconnected from reality," Mr. Fukuyama said in his article. "One gets the impression that the Iraq war has been an unqualified success, with all of the assumptions and expectations on which the war had been based vindicated." Like many other critics of the war, he argued that Mr. Krauthammer and other neoconservatives were overconfident about turning Iraq into a democracy, too quick to dismiss arguments of longtime allies, and too willing to give up the practical advantages of partnership with other nations. Most of all, though, he argued that Mr. Krauthammer and other supporters of the war mischaracterized Iraq and Islamic radicals as an immediate threat to the existence of the United States, a claim that justified immediate intervention.
Terrorism represents a generic threat to the existence of the United States. All the groups — including the non-Islamic groups like the IRA, FARC and the ETA — have been seen cooperating with each other. We're fighting against an informal alliance, and if we take out weak parts of it like the PLA or MKO, it's still taking the movement apart piece by piece. Al-Qaeda is the main target, but not the only target. When we're down to fighting the Learned Elders of Islam that'll be even harder to explain to John Q. Public.
The Soviet Union arguably threatened the existence of the United States, Mr. Fukuyama argues, but Iraq never did.
But the turbans do. That's where we differ.
But, Mr. Fukuyama said, he retained his neoconservative principles - a belief in the universal aspiration for democracy and the use of American power to spread democracy in the world. He said he was acknowledging the mistakes to preserve the credibility of the neoconservative movement...
Finally, someone in the neocon ranks has the courage to stand up and challenge these empty suit intellectuals on the practicality of their grandiose plans.

Here's the link to excerpts from Dr. Fukuyama's article in the National Interest entitled "The Neoconservative Moment" 6/30/04. You need to scroll down about 2/3 down the page.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/default.asp
Posted by: rex 2004-08-22
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=41285