| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe |
| 2007-01-31 |
| Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran by Francis Fukuyama Not trying to wave a red cape here on page 4, but it's always good to understand the arguments on the other side. To me, the key paragraphs are these: None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran. All of this could well be correct. Ahmadinejad may be the new Hitler; the current negotiations could be our Munich accords; Iran could be in the grip of undeterrable religious fanatics; and the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger. I believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist. Iran is, after all, a state, with equities to defend - it should be deterrable by other states possessing nuclear weapons; it is a regional and not a global power; it has in the past announced extreme ideological goals but has seldom acted on them when important national interests were at stake; and its decision-making process appears neither unified nor under the control of the most radical forces. Fukuyama may believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist, but he also believed that we were at the "end of history" 15 years ago. Betting our future on his beliefs seems at least as risky as the dangers he points out. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #10 I, myself, prefer the term Jacobins (hat tip Jerry Pournelle). |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-31 20:41 |
| #9 Thank you for bringing that perspective, JosephM. I really am using some of your abbreviations when I make notes to myself these days! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-01-31 19:56 |
| #8 In response to 9-11 + 000's of dead Amers, post 9-11 NET > the USA can (1)costs-prohibitively invade any and all Rogues and induce local democratic regime change; (2) instead of invading everywhere, can destroy Radical Islam on limited, pre-selected battleground of Amer's choosing; (3) do nuthin as a nation, i.e. depend on the UNO and UN Sanctions, and only these; and (4) do (3) but increase Gubmint at home + martialize America. LEADERSHIP = picking one and being willing to accept the blame for it. PCORRECTNESS = POLITIX > DOING ONE = ALL WHILE BEING BLAMED FOR NONE. Iff Dubya's strategy is (2), US Netters including many US Milfors said yarns ago they HAVE NO PROB WITH IT AS LONG AS "THE ENEMY(S)", i.e. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9-11, ETC. IS DEALT WITH, i.e. KILLED, CAPTURED, ANDOR OTHERWISE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. Iff RADICAL IRAN > US- and WORLD ACKNOWLEDGED MAIN = PRIMARY = PRINCIPAL SPOONSOOR OF TERROR, WHATS THE PROBLEM??? By any historical or pragmatic/realist measure, the USA is winning in the ME and winning the WOT, militarily politically and cost-effectively, aka CHEAPLY. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-31 19:27 |
| #7 Wink, wink. |
| Posted by: Halliburton Seismic Division 2007-01-31 17:37 |
| #6 I just don't see a land invasion of Iran happening either. That's not seem the way to go--it would be extremely costly. Even the U.S. and Allies have limits to their resources. There are other ways to bring about change in Iran. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-01-31 15:13 |
| #5 An invasion of Iran would require massive preparations. That is not happening. Invasion is not the only means to effect regime change. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-01-31 15:06 |
| #4 As someone who fervently agreed with the President's ambition to remake the islamic world into a non-aggressive, democratic and representative shape I can only agree with Fukuyama; the results have so far been less then impressive. I probably reach different conclusions that he does, however. The problem was not with our aspiration but with the possibility the death cult could be refashioned into anything but the dark religion of conquest and child-rape it has proved itself to be. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-01-31 13:54 |
| #3 "the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger." -- just writing that puts Fukuyama out of touch with the current situation & into the class of those who are part of the danger. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-31 10:06 |
| #2 Neo-Libs |
| Posted by: Gloque Elmang4914 2007-01-31 10:01 |
| #1 And the Anti-Neocons have learned nothing from five thousand years of history, Francis. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-01-31 06:49 |