This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
THE NEOCON LEGACY
Published on April 2, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
A powerful neoconservative voice has risen against the prophet of neoconservatism--George Bush. Francis Fukuyama, known all over the world for his provocative and yes, celebratory thesis about the end of history, has written a withering attack on Bush and the betrayal of the neoconservative agenda. The carapace of ideas such as preventive war,benevolent hegemony, war against terror are analysed and critiqued in great detail in thois booik. When the Iraq Qar was attacked on humanitarian and strategic grounds the neoconmen retaliated with sarcasm and felt that humilisating the messenger was enough to discredit the powerful arguments against the direction USA was tsaking as a consequence of neocon ideas of unilateralism and shock and awe.We may recall that Francis Fukuyama was an ardent supporter of the Iraq war and when he starts lamenting the horrendous cost of the wat even neocons must take note.

Traditionally conservatives trace their intellectual legacy to Edmund Burke and have always opposed overseas expansion and entangling commitments, a phrase we even find in the speech of George Washinton. Preemtive war and war to build democracy argues Francis Fukuyama render American foreign policy hostage to extra political interests. History cannot be accelerated through American agency, he writes. Like the Communists of old, the neoconmen too believed that they were on the right side of history and the chosen instruments of American destiny in the poist USSR world.

The major contribution of Francis Fukuyama lies in his treatment of the decision to wage war in Iraq without the approval of the UN. The main justification for the war the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam has turned out to be a mere will-o-the whisp. Indeed the standing o9f the only superpower has taken a huge blow due to the false case made out by the neoconmen to justify the war. The foreign policy establisment seems to have been side lined and neocon thik tanks and ideologues like Paul Wolfowitz created the blue print for the war without a broadbased national debate over crucial issues. As Fukuyama maintains the US armay was woefully ill prepared for the war and did not expect the resistance. Those of us who have been following the war from a different perspective knew that the real challenge lay after the fall of Bagdad,

This book must be read by everone interested in Iraq.

Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Apr 02, 2006
Thanks. I will read it.

The were two basic choices about the Iraq War both of which were incorrect. The first was the idea we could alter the political reality in Iraq to make us more secure. The second was the lack of man power to prevent the rise of secular discord among the factions in Iraq.

Bush was warned by his father not to invade Iraq and Bush was told by the generals what resources were needed to establish AND MAINTAIN CONNTROL IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM FELL. BUSH DID NOT LSITEN TO EITHER HIS FATHER OR THE KNOWLEDGEBLE MILITARY LEADERS.
on Apr 02, 2006
What's done is done; what's undone in the future is paramount.
on Apr 02, 2006

Indeed the standing of the only superpower has taken a huge blow due to the false case made out by the neoconmen to justify the war.


I's even worse! What with hundreds of thousands of lives saved because Saddam cannot kill as many people any more as in his better times, and with the refusal of the US to finance Hamas' war against the Jews, I am surprised that so many people still like the US.

Usually world opinion is sympathetic only to mass murderers, to Jew-haters, and to fascists. It helps if they are communists as well.
on Apr 02, 2006
The death rate in Iraq so far and the future deaths from the sectarian violence that will most likely continue will replace one type of killing for another.
on Apr 02, 2006
I find it very sad, bahu, that your differences with the Bush administration have blinded you to how corrupt and evil the UN's support of the Hussein regime was. I remember you talking about how Iraqis were starving under those sanctions. We find out that not only were they a sham, but that the main anti-war nations were both profiting illegally from them, and were poised with deals already inked to harden his regime the moment the sanctions were lifted.

You don't have to agree with Bush, but you do your argument a disservice to pretend that the UN would have ever gone to war, no matter how just the cause, with its major players so steeped in corrupt alliance with Hussein. Frankly, if I have to choose an illegal war to remove him, or illegal acts that make him more powerful, I have to look at the man for what he was and choose the former.
on Apr 02, 2006
The issue for me is not is the Iraq was legal or not. The issue is that we had no business attacking them. They did NOT posse any danger to the U S. Today Gen Zinni was on Meet The Press. He confirmed that the Intel did not support Saddam as a danger. He was contained by the no fly zone. He had no effective military after the last Gulf Way and he did not pose A DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES. Thus we have placed our military in danger and may spend up to a Trillion dollars for WHAT? Bush had no justification for this was and we then did not provide the force level which Gen Zinni clearly stated today was called for by the Iraq war Plan and which has created the mess that we have today in Iraq. I suggest you read his book, The battle For Peace. You will see just how wrong Bush was for attacking Iraq.
on Apr 02, 2006

The issue for me is not is the Iraq was legal or not. The issue is that we had no business attacking them. They did NOT posse any danger to the U S. Today Gen Zinni was on Meet The Press. He confirmed that the Intel did not support Saddam as a danger. He was contained by the no fly zone. He had no effective military after the last Gulf Way and he did not pose A DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES. Thus we have placed our military in danger and may spend up to a Trillion dollars for WHAT? Bush had no justification for this was and we then did not provide the force level which Gen Zinni clearly stated today was called for by the Iraq war Plan and which has created the mess that we have today in Iraq. I suggest you read his book, The battle For Peace. You will see just how wrong Bush was for attacking Iraq.


So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
on Apr 02, 2006

So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.
on Apr 03, 2006
The fiber optics and GPS jamming equipment they illegally procured were aimed at making their pea shooters better and better, and the moment sanctions were lifted there would have been a lot newer pea shooters. Corrupt "anti-war" governments were bent on solidifying their business relationship, and providing him with means to defend his position were in their interest.

For the welfare of the Iraqi people the sanctions had to go, and the sanctions couldn't be lifted with Hussein in power. He'd offered plenty of excuses to fix the situation in the only way possible.
on Apr 03, 2006
I find it very sad, bahu, that your differences with the Bush administration have blinded you to how corrupt and evil the UN's support of the Hussein regime was. I remember you talking about how Iraqis were starving under those sanctions. We find out that not only were they a sham, but that the main anti-war nations were both profiting illegally from them, and were poised with deals already inked to harden his regime the moment the sanctions were lifted.

The fact of the matter is that while we do critisize the Bush and the Bushmen for their terrible policy in Iraq, it does not at all mean that we are with Saddam. There is no question that Saddam and his regime were bad, but the situation now in Iraq is far worse. There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security. Now it is just mayhem. Now the IUS marines have behaved as we have been saying in a deplorable manner. In a village near Bagdad they just shot up a whole family and only a nine year old girl survuived the massacre. No the family had no terrorist links. Just a quiet family in the wrong place at the wrong time,
on Apr 03, 2006
"There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security."


That can be nothing but a lie, bahu. You are too well read and too intelligent to believe that. Those mass graves didn't make themselves. I've personally seen film of them, as have you, I am sure. There are whole charities at work now supplying prosthetics to the Iraqis who had their right hands amputated by Husseins thugs.

I can't remember for sure if you were one of the voices, but there were many voices claiming that tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying every year because of the sanctions. It is estimated that after the first gulf war over 100,000 shia Iraqis were killed. Saddam was quoted at one meeting that addressed the state of the Iraqi people as saying he didn't see why the Iraqi population ever really needed to exceed 20 million.

Again, it doesn't serve your argument to become an opportunistic revisionist. Hussein was an evil man, and would have remained an evil man, and would have continued starving his people gaining power during, and after, the sanctions. Better to have him gone before his cronies in Europe and Asia rearmed him.
on Apr 03, 2006

That can be nothing but a lie, bahu. You are too well read and too intelligent to believe that.


My sentiments exactly, and I have told him before.

Although the "intelligent" I cannot really believe any more. He must surely realise that nobody believes his lies any more.

Except, of course, those people who have believed them before.
on Apr 03, 2006
So I guess then that you see nothing wrong with firing at our militaries aircraft?
Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.


I would not consider a missle being shot at an aircraft, a peashooter. And if you consider it such I would have to wonder at your perspective.
on Apr 03, 2006
There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day


Sorry but this is just plain bullsh*t!!!! There "were" then, but there ain't now!
on Apr 03, 2006
The one thing I find interesting about all these debates on Iraq is that it seems that the only corrupt country involved is the US. It seems that everyone else was playing by the rules except for the US. Why does everyone chose to ignore what was going on there before? Why does everyone act as if what was happening behind closed doors is not as importand as what the US did?

Col, your idea of an expert is someone who thinks Bush is stupid and/or wrong. You will read anything and believe anything that says Bush was wrong. Your opinion is onesided, even Bahu Virupaksha wouldn't relate himself to you in any way.
5 Pages1 2 3  Last