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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Apr 07, 2006

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin.


And? I didn't deny past Arab and Muslim glory. I spoke about today.

"The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard."

And I thought I might have overused the word "currently". But apparently I haven't used it enough.

I find it ironic that I can present the claim that Muslim and Arab culture CURRENTLY are not contributing anything to humanity's achievements and instead of examples of Muslim and Arab contributions the two major counter-claims are essentially:

You are wrong because Iranians are not Arabs.

Islam was a great culture 600 years ago.

Both points are correct, but neither contradict my claim; and neither contradict anything I said.
on Apr 07, 2006

Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.


Please don't imply a quote when you are not quoting.

I said it is possible that he is a Muslim. I don't find that sad or self-defeating.
on Apr 07, 2006

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!


I see the col as a resident nutter. He is always wrong, I think; but I don't think he consistently denies Saddam's crimes to make his "point".



You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time.


That is nonsense. I don't think of myself as representing America or anything like that. What made ME sick was Bahu's repeated denials of Saddam's crimes to back up his claims. That has nothing to do with America as such.

If it makes you sick that I over-react to people doing that, I can understand. But please don't try to make excuses like the idea that you are reacting to the brainwashed.
on Apr 07, 2006
You seem to forget that the House of Commons passed the resolution authorising the British troops to invade Iraq with the support of the Conservatives.


In fact I forget nothing of the kind. I think you have completely misunderstood my argument. First of all, I am not a British Conservative, so I'm not in a position to defend their (shifting) position(s) on the Iraq war, nor would I ever want to. However, that part of your argument which pointed out that the so-called neo-conservative agenda currently being played out in the middle east is many ways a contradiction of traditional conservative values struck a chord with me and I was agreeing with you. That is all.

As for my overall view, as I told Leauki:
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.

Not a clear position, but an honest one.
on Apr 07, 2006
Whether the Iraq conflich was right or wrong is pretty much hypothetical, it has happened, was it right , in so far as getting rid of Saddam, and his cronies, of course, was it a good idea, probably not , why? mainly because the US, Uk and Australia will be stuck there for some time, during which time the US is going to take a lot of heat for being there. Do the people of Iraq think it was a good thing to get rid of Saddam and Sons, in the main yes, do they want a united country yes. Will it be easy no. Did Mr Bush and his Government go in with the right plan or the right advice probably not, would the war have happened if not for 9/11, I would say eventually, Saddam may not have been a threat,but he was becoming a thorn in the side of many nations, while many others profited from selling arms to him, however sooner or later there would have been a revolt or an attack, it was inevitable, the Guy was mad, and dangerous.
The reality is this debate has been going for some time now and one thing will not change, Saddam and Co were Muderous Grubs, they threatened all nations around them and this wuld eventually extend much further if left unchecked.
So at the end of the day most people would agree he had to go even countries like Iran and many others in th region.
Again I would state that Yes the way the Coalition went in, in regard to the planning for how they would manage after they had defeated Saddam, was poorly planned and short sighted, and yes the US will be singled out as the bad guy, because they are the only super power left and they are very much in the mind of all people in the world, given the wonders of modern technology. Do I agree with the way the coalition planned the whole evet, no, do I think Saddam and co were evil yes. And we can keep debating this subject till the cows come home, however the fact is that what's done is done, so we now need to come to the realisation that the reality is we are there for possibly the long hall, and no amount of moralising either way can change this reality, nor does the fact that Bashing the US administration or Bush and Co for that matter will really make any difference, all we are doing now is becoming apolicgists for a much wider problem, that is the fact that we still have global terrorism on a scale never seen before, and in countries which have never experienced this before, this is the problem, and tis is the one thing which will keep the war in Iraq going infinitum.

Bush/US bashing no matter how much fun it may be for some, and I have to admit I occasionally have indulged, will not make the real problem go away. This being the spread of extreme so called Islamic terrorists, in thed main these are more people who have a hatred of the US or the west as a hole, and are happy to us Islam, as this gives them some justification among these people, and a fertile ground for recruiting more terrorits.
So what we need to find is what solution/s are needed to
a) stop the belief, especially among the disposed and agrieved that this is an Islamic Crusade, and is really a war of hate.
how do we find a way to engage members and leaders of these countries and Islam,so that they see this as being as much a problem for them as it is for the rest of us.
c) sadly we will need to continue the fight against those that have already joined these groups, whether this is by gun or incarseration, this needs to be done and done soon, by slowing and stopping this cancer we can then stop the insurgency in Iraq, and bring peace to these people.
d) we do not need to become apoligists, nor should we cow tow to the likes of the uninformed people like Mr Belefonte, in the case of these people the press needs to stop being a voice for them, get out of the sensationalism, and take a more responsible attitude to a problem which will affect them as much as every one else.
Will this happen, probably not, people would much prefer the easy way out blame the US and its allies.
on Apr 07, 2006
If you would, please point out which Muslims Bahu has "stuck up for". If I recall the reason we are over there now is because WE are supposedly sticking up for the Muslims. I don't agree with 90% of what Bahu says, but I've seen him go after Clinton, and I've seen him express himself on many different issues in ways that weren't party line or religious dogma.


Leauki hit the nail "directly" on the head! Thanks Leauki I couldn't have said it better

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!



I see the col as a resident nutter. He is always wrong, I think; but I don't think he consistently denies Saddam's crimes to make his "point".


This is exactly what I was talking about! I just got in to big of a hurry. And just an fyi....Saddam "is" a muslim.
on Apr 07, 2006
You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time. You don't even know that Bahu doesn't live in America. For all you know he's living a mile from you. Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.


And "if" you think Bahu does not have an intense dislike if not an outright hatred of America Then I would suggest that you go here Link
and read some of his more recent posts. like: HAS THE USA REACHED IMPERIAL OVERSTRETCH or ABU GHARAIB II or USA ATTACKS PAKISTAN or even this one will do: WILL THE USA REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE IN IRAN.
on Apr 07, 2006
Bahu doesn't stick up for hussein, he just overlooks or omits a bit of reality when he makes his points... exactly the same way you guys tend to, and the way I tend to, and the way everyone tends to.

As for Leauki, he can't dance his way out of making such a nasty statement about someone. Iraq has nothing at all to do with 'Arab Nationalism"; most Arab states hated Hussein's regime and saw him for the nut he was. Bahu's never given any indication that he promotes Muslim culture or Arab nationalism, only that he despises the Bush administration, which is his right.

The Col has most certainly, time and again, stated that we've made things worse in Iraq, but no one has accused him of promoting muslim superiority. He does, though, get accused of hating America, yadda yadda. The far-right on this site isn't any better any more; as evidenced by the quality of comments. Frankly, Dr. Guy, it's hard to tell the difference between you and the Col anymore, you're just two sides of the same coin.

Go on and justify your silliness Leauki, whatever makes you feel better. There was no excuse for post #35, though. The fact you aren't blacklisted for it is a credit to Bahu.
on Apr 07, 2006
What made ME sick was Bahu's repeated denials of Saddam's crimes to back up his claims. That has nothing to do with America as such


In fact I have not even once written an apologist sort of writging for the criminal deeds of Saddam. Iam opposed to the American invasion which has no moral or legal sanction whatsoever and the people of Iraq are just terrified of the US troops and their Shiaa and Sunni militias.
on Apr 07, 2006
we are doing now is becoming apolicgists for a much wider problem, that is the fact that we still have global terrorism on a scale never seen before, and in countries which have never experienced this before, this is the problem, and tis is the one thing which will keep the war in Iraq going infinitum.


I think you have said things from an extremely knowledgeable and perhaps even an experential perspective. If global terrorism has not been defeated then it is possible that the Iraq war itslf is fueling the angst among Islamic societies and hence the folly of the invasion.
on Apr 09, 2006
Hello All,

This discussion is very interesting. Bakerstreet, you are an impressive person. It is so true to me that both sides of this "issue" lately have become the same, or at least quite similar. I am a liberal, as I have made clear, and a pacifist or sorts. I do not support armed conflict and aggression by anyone, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the United states. I do believe there are "lefties" as someone used the term who are anti-war and anti-Hussein, anti-Taliban, etc. I was one of them. This person asked why we 'lefties' were not out there protesting these terorists. I was.

Pointing out who dies, trying to put corpses on scales, does not cut it, ladies and gentlemen. It adds up to corpses no matter what and human life is precious regardless of faith or nationsality. Have we become so fearful that it seems so OK to kill, invade, attach pre-emptively in order to create a perception of safety? The truth is, and I really think we all know it, we re not one wit safer today than we were a few years ago. In fact, our fear drives us into rationalizing all sorts of things, usurpation of freedoms of travel we took for granted not that long ago, the right to privacy relative to the books we read, the communications we make, etc.

I pray for peace and the good sense we were born with to help us sort this mess out. Faulting is not a solution. Its a hindrance.

Be well.
on Apr 11, 2006

Iraq has nothing at all to do with 'Arab Nationalism"


That is wrong. Saddam's regime was an Arab nationalist regime. His party is an Arab nationalist party. The Ba'ath party has always tried to unite all Arab countries under one ruler, even after the split between Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists. How can you say that Iraq has nothing to do with 'Arab nationalism'?

What is Arab nationalism to you, Bakerstreet? When I use the term, you seem to believe that I include Iranians and Afghanis among Arabs (I have not) and that whatever Arab nationalism is, it has nothing to do with Iraq. Well, it does. And it is that Arab nationalism I am talking about. And it is that Arab nationalism which is usually meant when the term "Arab nationalism" is used.

It is Nasserites and Ba'athists, secular nationalist parties that attempt to unite all Arabs or most of them under one regime/government. What does "Arab nationalism" mean to you if not that?

Then you say this:


Bahu doesn't stick up for hussein, he just overlooks or omits a bit of reality when he makes his points... exactly the same way you guys tend to, and the way I tend to, and the way everyone tends to.


which I think doesn't fit this:


And yet you [Bahu] 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.


How is saying that there were no death squads under Saddam or that people were not being killed wholesale under Saddam "omitting a bit of reality"? And how am I doing exactly the same? When did I ever specifically deny anything evil commited by somebody and why are you now accusing me of having done so after telling me how bad it is to say the same thing about somebody else?

You are inconsistent, Bakerstreet.

If you now believe that Bahu never denied any of Saddam's evils but merely omitted a bit of reality, I propose you take back what you said to him:


That [statement about death squads] can be nothing but a lie, bahu. [...] Again, it doesn't serve your argument to become an opportunistic revisionist.



In fact, your first criticism of my evil reply was about my definition of "Arab", which you for some reason believed obviously included Iranians (why???) and that Christianity also doesn't have much of an impact on today's world (a statement I have never opposed). Then what I said suddenly turned from "not fair at all" to the apparently most evil lie you seem to read it as now.

Could you address the point that I didn't actually say what you criticised first?



on Apr 11, 2006

This person asked why we 'lefties' were not out there protesting these terorists. I was.


Where?

And what is the practical difference between being anti-war and anti-Saddam and being anti-war and pro-Saddam? What do you or did you do that hurt Saddam or at least did not help him?

And why is "anti-war" the opposite of "anti-Saddam"? Saddam stood for war, more so than any American president. The invasion ended a war, namely Saddam's war against the Iraqi people. Why is that not perceived as something good by those against war?
on Apr 11, 2006

In fact I have not even once written an apologist sort of writging for the criminal deeds of Saddam.



There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security.


And while we are at it, can you answer my question:

Which newspaper says that the number of violent deaths or deaths otherwise caused by Saddam or the occupation has increased?



It is so true to me that both sides of this "issue" lately have become the same, or at least quite similar.


They are not. I do not deny that the invasion has caused death and insecurity. And if I see anybody making that claim, I would, I hope, set him straight.

How is that the same as saying that under Saddam "there were no governement sponsored deathsquads" and that there was "peace and security"?

What standard are we held to? If denying Saddam's crimes is the same as not denying the deaths caused by the invasion, what does "quite similar" mean? What would be the opposite?
on Apr 11, 2006
"That is wrong. Saddam's regime was an Arab nationalist regime. His party is an Arab nationalist party. The Ba'ath party has always tried to unite all Arab countries under one ruler, even after the split between Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists. How can you say that Iraq has nothing to do with 'Arab nationalism'?"


Saddam also considered himself a religious person, what's your point? In the eyes of the rest of Islam he was a kook, just as he was a kook in the eyes of Arabs. IN reality Arabs were the target of his hatefulness just as often as non-Arabs. He didn't invade Israel, he headed south when he wanted to seize land and abuse its occupants.

If you can prove to me that there was ever an effort to work for real Arab nationalism by Hussein, fine, but I think you're silly to take his word for it. Saddaam was as much an "Arab Nationalist" as Hitler was a socialist and Lil' Kim is a "Beloved Leader". That Ba'athists in Iraq had nothing in common with arab nationalist efforts elsewhere. They had more in common with the Mafia that arab nationalism.

...but, if you want to believe what they say about themselves instead of what the reality was, fine. Don't expect me too, though. If I believed Hussein just wanted to unite Kuwait under a pan-Arab banner I would be ignoring every fact I've ever read about the man.

"How is saying that there were no death squads under Saddam or that people were not being killed wholesale under Saddam "omitting a bit of reality"? And how am I doing exactly the same? When did I ever specifically deny anything evil commited by somebody and why are you now accusing me of having done so after telling me how bad it is to say the same thing about somebody else?"



...how is omitting a fact... omitting a fact? Well, when one omits a fact, they are, in fact, ommitting a fact. You never specifically deny anything, you just tell your side of the story as it best serves your argument. I find it difficult to believe you can sit there and claim to always put in every detail an opponent would use against you. If that were so, I doubt we'd be sitting here wasting time.

It's true that Bahu denied the existance of death squads in Iraq, and you can see I took issue with that. You and others would gladly overlook their existance there now if people like Bahu didn't wave them in your face. He obviously sees a difference between Hussein's thugs and "death squads". I was merely pointing out that in reality there isn't much difference.

"In fact, your first criticism of my evil reply was about my definition of "Arab", which you for some reason believed obviously included Iranians (why???) and that Christianity also doesn't have much of an impact on today's world (a statement I have never opposed). Then what I said suddenly turned from "not fair at all" to the apparently most evil lie you seem to read it as now."


No, in fact my criticism was toward your ignorant attitude in basically accusing Bahu of being a muslim lover... as others would use with the 'n' word. You're deftly trying to divert the subject to whether Saddaam was an arab nationalist, etc., but in fact this began when you tried to dismiss Bahu's opinions as just a bunch of pro-Arab, pro-Muslim sentiment.

I can understand why you would be ashamed, but diverting from that doesn't clean it up. You accused Bahu of "supporting" Arab or Muslim causes, when in reality he's just opposing the stance of the current American government. It's that ignorance that annoyed me, because lots of people on this board say the same thing he does, and yet you don't "accuse" them of being Muslim, or supporting arab nationalism.

But you saw the name Bahu writes under and made a little ugly assumption. Like I said, I don't blame you for being defensive. Anyone in your place would be.
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5