This Sunday's NYT magazine featured an article by a "former neocon", Francis Fukuyama, and included his negative assessment of the neoconservative political theory that supposedly lead us into war with Iraq.
The first two pages of the article provided for a nice little summary of neoconservatism, its historical roots, and its most renowned thinkers. To me, this was the good part of the article. For the last few years, too many pundits, journalists, and ordinary people have come to associate the term "neocon" as a pejorative label for who they believe to be the most evil Republicans in the Bush administration. As Fukuyama makes clear, neoconservatism is actually derived from a leader on the other side of the political spectrum, Woodrow Wilson. To put it simply, neoconservatism is Wilsonianism with teeth. Neocons want to spread democracy and don't mind dropping bombs as a means to that end.
The problem with Fukuyama's article was the third and last page, on which he attempted to make his point. Fukuyama tries to explain that he now espouses a political ideology he calls "realistic Wilsonianism." But this is like saying politicians should be "Republican Democrats." Realism and Wilsonianism are polar opposites, they strive to accomplish completely different goals. Wilsonians want to spread peace and democracy throughout the world while realists care only about this nation's interest.
I think Fukuyama is trying to say that he still agrees with the basic ends of neoconservatism, but doesn't so much like the brutal means associated with the war and violence in Iraq. Anyways, this is all somewhat besides the point because I never really believed that neoconservatism lead us into the Iraq mess to begin with. Lest we forget, Bush sold the war on a threat of WMD (a very realist concern). The administration didn't start blabbing about spreading democracy through the Middle East until that WMD justification became painfully unsubstantiated.
I think it's hard to disagree with the basic goals of neoconservatism. To do so would be to sanction authoritarianism and ignore human rights abuses throughout the world. Clearly, as Fukuyama writes, the Bush administration was over-confident as it approached the Iraq invasion. But Fukuyama also worries that a resort to realism could stoke America's isolationist tendencies.
So what to do? Here's a suggestion: How about something like "multilateral neoconservatism?" In a way, that may be the goal of the United Nations. Unfortunately, it isn't working, and until the U.N. or a similar body proves itself at least minimally effective, nations like the United States will have to take the lead in building democratic societies, whether that unfortunately require militarism or not. One can only hope that the world can unite in spreading freedom and democracy, as cheesy as that may sound. I just worry that the U.S. can't deal with Iran and North Korea alone, especially with our continuing presence in Iraq.
"I never really believed that neoconservatism lead us into the Iraq mess to begin with. Lest we forget, Bush sold the war on a threat of WMD (a very realist concern)."
boooo zach. booo. you are so wrong about this; and i usually agree with you. look at the people who did in fact get us into the war: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle etc. they were all involved with the Project for the New American Century. and if you had done even a modicum of research on the escalation to war you would know that these folks wanted to finish the job from Gulf War I and chose the WMD justification as the best way to sell it to the public. very Machiavellian. and dishonest.
Posted by: Allen | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 03:17 PM
haha. A "modicum of research" eh? Sure, all those political theory professors and policy wonks like to equate the Iraq situation with neoconservatism, and I agree that it is an easy comparison to make. But it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Look, if we were really concerned with spreading freedom, there are far more obvious targets to hit first, such as Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. As much as I hate to fuel the liberal fire, we both know that oil played a huge part in the Iraq wars. Moreover, I think we can probably agree that Bush himself was never a neoconservative, and he personally made the decision to go to war on the basis of serious security/economic interests. The "new world order" idea failed under Clinton, and I don't think the U.S. would EVER sacrifice the money and time it has spent on Iraq simply to spread "democracy." I don't object to the idea that the Iraq conflict has come to be justified by neoconservative thinkers, I'm just saying that neoconservatism, on it's own, didn't take us into Iraq in the first place.
Posted by: otium cum dignitate | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 05:51 PM
"I don't object to the idea that the Iraq conflict has come to be justified by neoconservative thinkers, I'm just saying that neoconservatism, on it's own, didn't take us into Iraq in the first place."
touche. on those grounds we agree.
p.s. way to go with the blog.
Posted by: Allen | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 08:06 PM
If the democracy spreads throughout the middle east, which it most likely will, the war will be all worth it. The WMDs were used as an excuse to set up a democracy in that area of the world. If everyone catches on to this idea of a "free country" the war on terror will be won by the citizens of the nations who currently harbor terrorist. Check back in the next 15 years and then start to comment on it.
Posted by: A Nobody | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Zach, neoconservatism definitely got us into this war. WMD was cover, all the way. Americans are not interested in fighting in foreign lands for abstract causes. For example, during WWII, fighting facism in europe was too distant a cause until Pearl Harbor.
9/11 was this war's pearl harbor, and Iraq's WMD were Japan's aircaft carriers in the pacific, promising future attacks.
I think you know you're wrong on this one.
Posted by: Nicholas | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 08:55 AM