It's Fukuyama vs. Krauthammer going at it (somewhere around about the third round)! Krauthammer calls a Fukuyama National Interest piece "breathtakingly incoherent." Fukuyama, in turn, described a Krauthammer speech (presumably this one) as "strangely disconnected from reality." We will have more on the Fukuyama-Krauthammer spat once Krauthammer pens his response (forthcoming in the pages of the National Interest).
Until then, a word of praise for Jeanne Kirkpatrick who has injected a little common-sensical wisdom into all of this:
Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former United Nations ambassador and another founder of the neoconservative movement, said she, too, had doubts about the invasion. But she didn't think the debate over the Iraq war was about neoconservatism."I think there's almost an epidemic of the use of the term," she said.
Amen, to that!
For one, of course, what Kirkpatrick means is that we didn't go to war in Iraq simply because Perle whispered so to Wolfy who whispered so to Rummy who did to Cheney who then got the Kid on board. There was the little matter of 9/11--a changed global security environment--and many people (including the author of this blog) believed that a prudential, realist analysis of the threat posed by Iraq (assuming chemical and bio capability as so many of us did) merited action on more traditional security grounds in the face of Saddam's refusal to abide by 1441 and his past trouble-making behavior (see people like Kissinger, James Baker and, er, John Kerry too).
But, all this aside, Kirkpatrick's little quip rang true for me on another level too.
These days, it too often appears, simply if you have the misfortune of believing that the robust projection of American power overseas constitutes, in the main, a beneficial force for stability in the international system--well, you come under suspicion of being a dreaded neo-con.
You're not a paleo, Scowcroftian Bush 41'er, Kissingerian realist or Kerryesque McGovernite?
Must be a (gasp) neo-con, then.
As we are all so well aware, the neo-cons are often described as a nefarious high-preisthood of like-minded souls busily going about doing Arik Sharon's bidding on the back of cretin Georgie (and all us hapless folks imbimbing all the jingo-talk on Fox). They are often the object of humorously over-heated speculation (Wurmser, Perle etc. wanting to restore the Hashimite monarchy back to Baghdad!ed. note: Informed Comment needs to get its story straight, as before said blog was screaming it was Chalabi they wished to install...) And, of course, we are told that they control the entire Bush war cabinet save Colin Powell and Dick Armitage.
For sure, post 9/11, there was doubtless a period of hawkish ascendancy in Washington. And, to be sure, people like Wolfowitz had more of an audience with tough-minded American nationalists like Cheney and Rummy than they might have had otherwise. But other voices, throughout, remained influential. Powell won quite a few quiet victories, for instance. Has his Department not outflanked the Pentagon, all told, on both Iran and NoKo policy (the issue of policy drift without adequate brokering from the NSC aside)?
The reality, of course, is much more complex. Well before this little Fukuyama-Krauthammer discord--neo-cons have shown they are not afflicted by boorish, Pavlovian group-think. Bill Kristol was a McCain guy; Perle more of a Bushie. Michael Leeden has different views on Iran policy than Rob Kagan. And so on.
So Kirkpatrick is right...too much talk about all these neo-cons! They don't control all of Washington. They argue among themselves. They have different opinions. They don't wish to restore the Hashimites to power in Baghdad.
Yes, they tend to be quite pro-Israel. Yes, they badly botched the post-war planning on Iraq because of "cakewalk" assumptions. Yes, they were not knowledgeable enough about the region and they disdained expert input from State to all of our detriment.
So, no, I'm not a water-carrier from them. But their views are important and often compelling. They are smart and dedicated individuals. You can bitch on and on about them if you like--but neo-cons have (on, say, Bosnia policy) taken quite noble stances in the past. And they're not simply going to disappear.
But if you insist on going on about them-better to analyze them after debunking some of the myths surrounding them and generally taking the temperature down a few degrees.
Or, even better, per Jeanne Kirkpatrick, we might even start talking about them a tad less!
NB: More, from a quite old B.D. piece, here (mostly addressing some gripes against the neos emitting from the paleo-con crowd...).
OK, Fukuyama and Krauthammer to follow...
Posted by Gregory Djerejian at August 25, 2004 08:15 PM