You can read Krauthammer's response to Fukuzama at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/fukuyamas_fantasy.html

I don't know which of them has the better policy ideas, but Krauthammer is persuasive in arguing that Fukuyama misrepresented what Krauthammer said in his 2004 speech.

Posted by: David at March 28, 2006 06:45 AM | Permalink to this comment

Mr Fukuyama reminds me of Arfur-Mo Kippur, the Oriental Futurist of old Oldham town. He used rake it in during Wakes week at Southport with his entrail soothsaying and universal remedies.

Posted by: The Blind-Winger Jones at March 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Permalink to this comment

By the way, an interview with Fukuyama on the BBC is coming up. They played an extract earlier, but the whole thing is due to be broadcast next weekend, so check out the link then.

Posted by: DavidP at March 28, 2006 01:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Krauthammer has called out your mini love fest subject as a fabricator:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701298.html

Posted by: Kevin P. at March 28, 2006 01:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

Is somebody actually still paying attention to Krauthammer?

Why would they do that?

Posted by: J Thomas at March 28, 2006 01:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

Love-fest???? I don't think I've seen such a string of straw men and vacuous platitudes Mr. Fukuyama put together in this op-ed in a long time. Yes, Rummy should have been sacked for abu Ghraib. Yes, bad guys will come out on top in the first few elections. Yes, we should pursue terrorists by law enforcement AND unconventional warfare means. Duh. Where is his brilliant insight that leaves the fuddy duddy neocons in the dust? I just don't see it.

Posted by: wks at March 28, 2006 03:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

wks: i'd politely suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. fukuyama's WSJ op-ed merits better treatment than what you're offering up here. as for Kevin P, I like it how we so very quickly turn on our no longer ideological bed fellows with such alacrity. Rank fabricators and liars, huh? I haven't read Fukuyama's book yet, and so haven't seen the passage where he describes Krauthammer's speech. But even if Krauthammer is right (I would suspect Fukuyama will respond soon), I'd be surprised if something hasn't got lost in translation here. Regardless, it's one issue to create a whole hullabaloo about whether Krauthammer did or didn't portray Iraq as an "unqualified success" at one AEI speech, and quite another (and much more important) to ponder/decide what foreign policy adjustments are required at this hour.

On this latter, I am with Fukuyama. We can disagree, and I'd look forward and welcome Krauthammer advocates challenging my dreary Foggy Bottom meekness and pin-stripe, cocktail-swilling shortness of vision in these comment pages, but let's at least have the real debate, rather than scream Fabricator! Liar! Asshole! at our first opportunity, re: all those horrific turncoats. Unlike some, I'm simply not ready to call in air strikes in Syria, or to stoke a counter-revolution in Iran without being able to protect our nominal allies there (both examples, btw, of countries where very few of our current policymakers appear to understand the dynamics with any true depth, something Zal Khalilzad has indirectly stated to the New Yorker).

shorter Djerejian: Fukuyama, and his arguments, deserve much better treatment than Kevin P has tabled per his drive by character assassination, or WKS's rather breezy "synopsis" of his op-ed (if we can call it that). As for Krauthammer, suffice it to say that his piece was not convincing substantive rebuttal to Fukuyama's recent ouevre. Not by a long shot.

Posted by: greg at March 28, 2006 09:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

J. Thomas: The person still paying attention to Krauthammer is Fukuyama himself. He has written that his change in viewpoint was spurred by his strong reaction to comments included in a speech Krauthammer made. However, Krauthammer's speech didn't include the items that allegedly affected Fukuyama so strongly. Fukuyama's mistake can be verified, since the speech is on the web.

Presumably Fukuyama's memory failed him. It would have foolish to intentionally misrepresent something that could be easily checked. However, so major an error, even though inadvertant, reduces Fukuyama's credibility somewhat.

Posted by: David at March 29, 2006 02:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

I respect your analysis so I went back and reread the piece. I retract the straw man comment, on rereading I see he did nod to administration arguments. Other than that, I still don't see much there, there. What makes this guy preferable to Krauthammer, for example. Fukuyama now says he thought the war was a mistake, Krauthammer says it was still the least bad option. Which side do you come down on? I had an extensive back and forth on that issue with Eric Martin in your comments section several days ago, and I'm sure your readers would like to see you blog on the topic if you've changed your views. If my synopsis is shallow minded, I'm eager to see a better elaboration of what his argument is. All I get out of it is Bush bad, Bush inarticulate, Bush fumbling, all of which I heartily concede, I was a McCain man from the beginning.

Off topic. Did you read the very interesting entry at Real Clear Politics about Hugo Chavez' voting machines? Every time I see Zbig Bresinski bad-mouthing the current war effort I wonder why he doesn't direct some of his bile at Saint Jiminy who certified Hugo as the winner against substancial evidence of fraud.

Posted by: wks at March 29, 2006 02:20 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Beautiful and capacious religious civilization," eh? I'm just cynical enough to allow for a certain amount of flattery and humbug in the conduct of foreign policy, but my cynicism goes only so far.

Honestly, as the Arab League is holding its annual conference in Khartoum of all places, our tolerance for this fatuous idea that the noble temple of Islam is under siege from a relative handful of zealots and extremists ought to be pretty thin. I don't really think even Fukuyama believes what he is saying on this subject. Zealots and extremists there are, but they are not few in number, and they and their sympathizers are fine not only with terrorism but also with genocide.

If moderate or traditionalist Muslims can change this, well, good for them. It's not something we ought to count on, though. The farther away non-Muslim Americans and other Westerners can get from debates about what distinguishes a true and faithful Muslim, the better. To fight religious extremism and the terrorism it is based on, use the tools we know how to use. The most proven one is nationalism. Westerners can speak to Indonesians about why terrorism on behalf of Arab causes is false to Islam or why it is bad for Indonesia -- it shouldn't be difficult to figure out which argument will get us more of a hearing in the world's largest Muslim country. A similar tack can be taken in West African countries with Muslim majorities (actually, this is being done by the United States in some of them), and even within the Arab world exploiting old national rivalries is the simplest means of disrupting transnational Islamist movements.

Personally, no, I don't believe "Islam is peace," as President Bush famously said in the weeks after 9/11. It doesn't have to be. Foreign policy is not about creating the kingdom of heaven on earth, but about maintaining an international environment stable enough that our interests and those of other countries not in conflict with us can be profitably and peaceably pursued. The construction of such an environment has about as much to do with the theories of popular philosophers like Fukuyama as the Atlanta Braves' success on the field this year will have to do with the guy in Seat 46C behind the visitor's dugout.

Posted by: Zathras at March 29, 2006 04:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

greg wrote:

Kevin P has tabled per his drive by character assassination...

Oh, please. You are a person who has been attacking, continuously, and often unfairly, all manner of administration figures. Apparently, "drive by character assassinations" are performed by only the people you disagree with. If people agree with you, then it is apparently OK for them to smear and run down people you dislike, like Donald Rumsfeld. While I am no fan of him, you have unfairly accused him of many things. None of these count as lies or fabrications, apparently.

Liar! Asshole! You were the first person to use these words. NOT ONE OF YOUR COMMENTERS USED THESE WORDS. I used the word fabricator because that is exactly what Krauthammer used. If you are going to make up stuff about your commenters, please do a word search on your comment thread first.

Posted by: Kevin P. at March 29, 2006 02:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Incidentally, my intention in posting my two line comment with link to Krauthammer's piece was NOT to indulge in any character assassinations. I have nothing against Fukuyama.

However, I do take intellectual misrepresentation seriously and Krauthammer seemed to demonstrate that Fukuyama had significantly misrepresented him. Towards the end of my lunch break, I dropped in my hasty comment to warn you of this cloud on the horizon, so that you did not end up lionizing someone who later became discredited.

Apparently, my concern was misplaced and my intention misunderstood. It is in fact easier to quickly turn on your commenters with alacrity when they bring bad tidings.

If I wanted this kind of drama and angst, I would hang out at Andrew Sullivan's and read his bipolar postings.

Posted by: Kevin P. at March 29, 2006 02:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

OK, I ask the following questions, without any snark, sarcasm and irony….really.

Can anyone direct me to articles and/or books, from the NeoCon set that speaks to spreading democracy militarily, before 9-11?

Every thing I’ve dug up only speaks of American hegemony and/or American exceptionalism; however I do not anything arguing for spreading liberal democratic values at the point of the gun.

I know “9-11 changed everything” but I doubt 9-11 changed the laws of logic. OK, there goes some snark.

Posted by: NeoDude at March 29, 2006 04:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Unlike some, I'm simply not ready to call in air strikes in Syria, or to stoke a counter-revolution in Iran without being able to protect our nominal allies"

Syria:
Do you think we should encourage the Lebanese to sack Lahoud? Do you think we should encourage the continuation of the Hariri investigation? If Syria stonewalls the Haririi investigation, should there be consequences? If so what should they be? If it looks like Bashirs position is becoming untenable, should we talk to the opposition - the Kurds and "democrats" AND the Muslim Brotherhood, or should we try to get a friendly a Baathist to pull a coup?

Iran: Should we continue to pursue the path at the UNSC toward sanctions? IF we cant get them through the UNSC what should we do? If we DO get them through, and the Iranian govt doesnt cave, but resiststs, and the ferment appears on the streets of Iran, what should we do? Would it not be good in that position to have established communication with the people of Iran? To at least be able to explain to them that the reasons for sanctions are not the pursuit by their govt of nuclear power (as their govt routinely tells them) but of nuclear bombs?

I presume you want to talk to Iran. Very well. The Europeans have been talking to them for a couple of years, expressing the wests willingness NOT to pursue sanctions in exchange for Iran not pursuing a bomb. That range of subjects doesnt seem satisfactory to the govt of Iran. Rather they want to discuss security guarantees. Should we offer them security guarantees in exchange for them stopping enrichment, even if they refuse to stop their support of Lebanese Hezbollah, of Islamic Jihad, and their opposition to peace between Israel and the Palestinians? If we do offer guarantees under those circumstances, what will be the consequences for the peace process? If the peace process does not get back on track, what are the consequences to our soft power in the muslim world?

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 29, 2006 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Conservative" efforts to fight radical islamic fundamentalism through the promotion of "Democracy" are doomed to failure for one simple reason--- the most effective "democratic" alternative that can be offered in most Islamic states is one that is centered socialist politics and economics -- and that is unacceptable to conservatives.

Dictatorships in which Islamic law is paramount (regardless of whether we are talking monarchal or theocratic "dictatorships) are able to succeed by redistributing the wealth of the nation based on Islamic concepts like Zakat and the rules and traditions attendant upon Zakat. Zakat (which is intended to discourage "hoarding") and "free trade" are generally at odds. Promotion of socialism in conjunction with democracy is far more compatible with the current social/economic organization of islamic states.

The fact is that conservatives (including neo-cons) don't care about democracy -- for them "democracy" is really just a front for the promotion of "capitalism" and "free trade" and "economic imperialism." (The same goes for "human rights" -- the right doesn't give a flying fig about "human rights" as long as the nation in question is friendly to "capitalist" investment.)

(THere also appears to be a strong racial component here -- conservatives find "socialist democracies" among white western european nations far more acceptable than when Latin Americans or Arabs or Asians choose socialism through democratic means.)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 29, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Earlier Kraut wrote this, which doesnt ignore the problems in Iraq either:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/of_course_its_a_civil_war.html

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 29, 2006 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

For the record, Fukuyama always thought the Iraq war was a mistake. He was commissioned by the Pentagon to conduct a focus group studying the strategic and logistic wisdom of such a move, and after studying the entire of history of American interventions in other countires, advised against taking action against Iraq.

Let me also interject that Fukuyama's argument against the war was not just geo-political game theory; it was predicated on fundamental truths about America at home. Fact is, we as a country have shown little patience in our history for protracted, bloody nation-building exercises. Germany and Japan were not bloody. Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, the Phillipines- eventually we get frustrated and leave. For better or worse (worse, as Niall Ferguson and Robert Kaplan would appear to argue), we have neither the institutional capacity nor the long-term committment to simultaneously nation-build and put down an insurgency.

Bottom line, you go to war with the country you have, not the country you want, and it would be helpful if the hawks stopped formulating our foreign policy options as though we were Britain at the heigh to its empire fervor. What Fukuyama is saying at heart is that we need to realign our goals with the reality of what we can accomplish, and we need to recognize our limitations both on the battlefield and in the arena of world opinion. America does not have the military might nor the moral and political capital to successfully implement the Bush Doctrine appraoch to terrorism and liberal democracy promotion. We need a reality-based foreign policy, and soon.

Posted by: Nate at March 29, 2006 05:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

J. Thomas: The person still paying attention to Krauthammer is Fukuyama himself. He has written that his change in viewpoint was spurred by his strong reaction to comments included in a speech Krauthammer made. However, Krauthammer's speech didn't include the items that allegedly affected Fukuyama so strongly. Fukuyama's mistake can be verified, since the speech is on the web.

OK, I won't ask whyh Fukuyama does anything. My remaining question is why would anybody else pay attention to Krauthammer at this point?

This speech thing is ridiculous, and surely it wouldn't be an issue among serious scholars. Fukuyama would say which speech it was he was responding to, and it would go on from there.

It only turns into an issue if Fukuyama was misrepresenting Krauthammer's views. It wouldn't matter which speech he was quoting.

Posted by: J Thomas at March 29, 2006 07:23 PM | Permalink to this comment