Mr. Fukuyama may not be the best or most objective of observers. Today's column by Charles Krauthammer is worth a read in this regard.

Link

Requires registration, but is free. Or you could read it in this morning's paper.

Yeah, a pea-shooter at King Kong.

---steved

Ah yes, siding with the Noble Savage. How liberal of you, steve.

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,

Is it still a massacre, I wonder when such things are done by terrorists to, say a mosque full of worshippers?

One thing that interests me about the Iraq War debate in America is how it is usually presented as a straight-forward left/right thing with 'liberals' "against" and 'conservatives' "for". The situation in the homeland of the major US ally is very different...

In the UK you can hear all the usual far left suspects decrying the war using the usual rhetoric of stopping 'American Imperialism'. Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument - there are those on the far left who were Hussein-supporters. For those who believe that the US is currently fulfilling its Manifest Destiny to bring western civilisation to the more benighted parts of the globe, such ultra-leftists are a gift, allowing the whole anti-war movement to be characterised as

sympathetic to mass murderers, to Jew-haters, and to fascists

In reality the anti-war movement in the UK has many sane voices and - this is the thing that will surprise most Americans - they are mostly coming from the ranks of Britain's conservatives. Although the British Conservative Party backed Tony Blair over Iraq, they did so with insufficient enthusiasm - to the degree that, while Blair is welcome to share Colgate with George W. at any time, the then-leader of the British Tories Michael Howard was informed that he was persona non grata at the Bush White House.

The Conservative Party leadership candidate Ken Clarke was another vocal critic of the war - not because of any love for Hussein, or any anti-American animus (on the contrary these anti-war tories are all committed atlanticists with decades of track record as friends of America), but because of a belief that the U.S's stated goal is unachievable.

Max Hastings, the conservative editor and columnist is another voice saying the same thing. He has this to say about the events unfolding in Iraq: "Most of my US military acquaintances opposed the invasion. They did not doubt the coalition's ability to defeat Saddam's army swiftly and topple his regime. It was uncertainty about what would follow that rang warning bells. They identified from the outset precisely the difficulties that Messrs Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz contemptuously dismissed".

This should not come as such a surprise. A key component of conservative ideology is a pessimistic scepticism about the benefits of political adventurism, no matter how desirable the potential outcome ('trying to make things better, you will only make them worse'). And just as Americans misuse the fine word 'liberal' to make it a synonym for radicals, socialists and ultra-leftists, it is arguable that they are equally confused by the word 'conservative' - an ideology that is in fact largely alien to its post-revolutionary war settlement - which they seem to use as a synonym for right-wing radical.

This should not come as such a surprise. A key component of conservative ideology is a pessimistic scepticism about the benefits of political adventurism, no matter how desirable the potential outcome ('trying to make things better, you will only make them worse').

Yes, well...

To whom then do we entrust the job of "making things better"? Hussein? Hamas? Al Qaeda? Putin? Chirac?

This idea has a familiar, also British, ring to it - didn't pan out too well then, either.

To whom then do we entrust the job of "making things better"? Hussein? Hamas? Al Qaeda? Putin? Chirac?

This is the thing: those who oppose the war are sure that the post-war programme to bring democracy to Iraq will fail; the pro-war crowd are equally sure that it will succeed, that it is in fact already succeeding. And this belief in the mission's eventual success is very likely a fiercely necessary psychological need - otherwise so many lives would seem to have been lost in vain.

In reality, we don't really know what the outcome will be. I would hope that all those of goodwill, regardless of their original stance on the war, will be wishing for Iraq to become prosperous, democratic, free and at peace. However, just as we don't really know what the eventual outcome will be, we only have the vaguest outcome of what is really happening over there (though there are plenty of news sources available to feed our prospective biases).

The hostility of many (not all) British conservatives is based on a belief that the US either doesn't have a strategy for what it is trying to accomplish in Iraq, or that it has a bad strategy. The importance of this critique is that it is not coming from the traditional anti-american left, but from friends of America with decades of track record of looking to 'American leadership of the free world'. That is why it is worth taking seriously.

This idea has a familiar, also British, ring to it - didn't pan out too well then, either.

I have no idea what this means.

I have no idea what this means.

---chakgoka

Perhaps Chamberlain allowing Hitler all the slack he wanted, to make things better and ensure "Peace in Our Time"? After all, Hitler the sociopath was about as trustworthy as a people whose faith considers lying to infidels a virtue.

My two cents.

Now, while I agree that it is deeply unfair to say that all those who oppose(d) the war, were supporters of Saddam Hussein - a cheap rhetorical blow probably flowing from a bad conscience and a weak argument

No. A cheap rhetorical blow is to insist that support for Saddam Hussein has to be active. It is not true. If anything, history has taught us that support for evil does not have to be active. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is one side of the coin, the other is that opposing the enemies of evil is even more helpful.

If the anti-war left want to oppose war but NOT support Saddam, I am sure there are enough wars to choose from that involve neither Saddam nor the US.

But that is not what is happening. The anti-war left ONLY and CONSISTENTLY oppose wars fought by the US against fascists or by Israel to survive. The anti-war left did not loudly oppose Saddam's war against the Kurds or Iraqi Shi'ites. But the anti-war left did oppose western attempts to stop Saddam. The anti-war left did not loudly oppose Saddam's attack on Kuwait. But the anti-war left did oppose the UN's liberating Kuwait.

I know, I was then, when in high school, a lefty, and I have been on the streets screaming "no blood for oil", although less loudly than others. I am now sorry for what I did; now that I know what Saddam did to the Kuwaitis.

The anti-war left do not speak up against Arab nationalists slaughtering hundred of thousands of Sudanese (black) Christians. But the anti-war left do speak up against an American president who forcefully removed another Arab nationalist, guilty of the same crimes, from power.

The anti-war left do not speak up against Arab attacks on Israel or against terrorists who only target civilians (and especially defenceless children). But the anti-war left do speak up against Israel erecting a border fence to keep these terrorists out of the country and against Israel defending herself against Arab armies.


Left-wingers who oppose Arab nationalism first and "American imperialism" second are rare. Show me such a lefty and I show you a proto-neo-conservative.

I am not an expert on the current anti-war left, so I shall defer to your experience, but I have to say that your portrayal of a radical left only protesting against American military action does not ring true. Whether it be 'neither Washington nor Moscow' or some other maximalist slogan, the utopian left has always seemed to me to be tilting at every windmill going, like a bunch of Don Quixotes on speed. Still, this is not a world I am part of so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter.

Show me such a lefty and I show you a proto-neo-conservative.

Yes indeed! That is why so many former trotskyists and communists (Irving Kristol, David Horowitz etc) found themselves embracing neo-conservatism, which, of course, is no kind of conservatism at all. In many ways I can see the attraction of applying trotskyist 'permanent revolution' to spreading liberal democracy rather than communism, but that is a kind of radicalism, albeit benign in intention, that sits uneasily with the traditional definition of 'conservatism'.

I'm afraid on the matter under discussion (whether America's intervention in Iraq is justified and will eventually bear fruit in increased freedom, prosperity and stability in the middle east) you will find me a bewildered agnostic, so no kind of opponent at all. However, that part of Bahu's argument that true conservatives are actually sceptical of the whole enterprise rings true to me, and that is what I wanted to comment further on.

The debate today is not whether Saddam was a bad ruler or a mass murderer. He could be both for all we care. The only point is the US intervention no invasion has not made thing better for the average Iraqi living outside the Green Zone. I do not y who have responded are aware of the terrible situation in Iraq. Shiaa death squads are a reality in Iraq today. The fact that six months after the electiobn no government has been formed is prooif.

" The debate today is not whether Saddam was a bad ruler or a mass murderer."

And yet you salt your arguments with statements that there were no death squads in Iraq and now there are; that people are being killed wholesale now and they weren't under Hussein. Your stance seems to rely on what you claim is unimportant.

We can't impose government on Iraq and not draw the ire of folks like you. Conversely, if they can't agree on one, we'll be blamed for not forcing them to. If they don't fine, we need to leave after hope is lost and let them succumb to the chaos they choose.

Not everyone has lost hope, though. What you don't seem to understand is that these people are being killed to promote the ideology of people like you. When they blow up a mosque, they are doing it specifically to give you and others like you ammunition to throw at the US. These murders are perpetrated to cause folks like you and me, inside and outside of Iraq, to lose hope.

How does that make you feel? Shouldn't we blame the rapist for the rape? The US isn't killing dozens of Iraqis every day, the anti-US interests and hateful Iraqis are. Do you think you do anything to discourage their acts by providing the effect they wish to cause with their killing?

neo-conservatism, which, of course, is no kind of conservatism at all.

In today's world, words have changed.

A "liberal" is someone who wants more government control. A "conservative" is someone who wants change. And a "progressive" is someone who values stability over change.

I don't like it either.

I have to say that your portrayal of a radical left only protesting against American military action does not ring true.

I would love to be proven wrong. But yet I have not seen the protests against the Sudanese government now or Saddam in the 90s.

There are no anti-war lefties on the street handing out leaflets that inform about Palestinian terrorism.

There are no anti-war lefties blaming terrorists for terrorism.

If the left are against war, they sure chose odd allies and strange targets.

When a leftie refers to supporters of Israel as "David Dukes", does he ever realise that David Duke is on HIS site, not on Israel's?

When a leftie calls a Muslim Arab-Canadian a "fucking pig" because he happens not to support Hamas, I begin to wonder whether the anti-war left really have such a high respect for Islam or whether it is really just about support for anti-Israeli terror.

http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/2006/03/foreign-policy-with-spine-part-2.html

(Check the comments.)

The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social hammony. Now does Bush represent any of these principles. You decide. As far as Iraq is conserned to say that there is mayhem there is a gross understatement.

The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social harmony. Now does Bush represent any of these principles. You decide.

There is no "classic philosophy of conservatism". How could there be? That would as ridiculous as a "classic philosophy of progressivism".

What you describe is a political position that does (unfortunately) exist. It's a system that watches the world disintegrate. It's a system that caused hardship and death by neglect.

If you think that you can somehow "prove" that Bush's policies are wrong by showing how they are not the same policies as those of a philosophy you simply call "conservatism", you are really not as smart as I thought you might be.

First of all you would have to show that the policies you describe are "right", or at least working (define "working" too). Then you would have to show that no other policies could possibly work as well, better, or slightly worse.

Then you would have to be honest enough to find a real name for your position. Just calling it the "classic philosophy of conservatism" doesn't cut it, as there is no such thing as a "classic philosophy of conservatism". (The term "conservative" describes a relationship to other philosophies, it does not define a philosophy.)

Conservatives want the preserve what they consider the good elements of the current system or an older system that was already abandoned. That system CAN be the policies you describe.

But it can also be the exact opposite or something completely different. It depends on which country you live in or what components of the existing system (or the earlier system) you want to preserve.

I certainly don't want to preserve American isolationism. It was never a good system.

It's a system that watches the world disintegrate. It's a system that caused hardship and death by

you think that you can somehow "prove" that Bush's policies are wrong by showing how they are not the same policies as those of a philosophy you simply call "conservatism

Political Philosophy is not a discipline that submits itslf to easy polemic. What I describe as Conservative would be the general principles of philosophers such as McPherson, Popper and von Hayek. To me Conservative is a politically alive person who engages with tradition in a creative, non destructive way. Therefore Bush and the Bush policies are not conservative in any given sense of the word and that is what Fukuyama is saying. You may disagree but that is a different matter.

As for Iraq: What political or strategic objectives were achieved by the 3 years of war, killing, and destruction. If the WMD had exixted atleast the strategic objectives would have been accomplished. Was anything gained by that needless brutal war.