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 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Apr 11, 2006
"How is that the same as saying that under Saddam "there were no governement sponsored deathsquads" and that there was "peace and security"?"


Bahu is obviously referring to outright war between factions within Iraq, and a constant flow of insugents from outside Iraq. Neither is beneficial to the people of Iraq, but in terms of national stability Bahu is technically right, if not morally. There was little hope of civil war with Hussein in power, and still less hope of terrorists gaining control of large sections of the country. We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.

"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?"


The standard isn't about Iraq, the standard is how you treat someone you are dealing with here. If Bahu resorted to calling you an American imperialist who promotes Christian supremacy, I could see the situation as equitable. I would have been just as outraged if you had Bahu had accused you of being "Christian"...
on Apr 12, 2006
We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.


The regime of Saddam was in many ways an unpretty one. However, compared to what is happening now in Iraq, Saddam's regime comes off looking and smelling like roses. In fact the other day the Interior Minister of Iraq admitted on BBC that there are death squads in Iraq today and he was at pains to distance his Governemnt forom their activities. Either the Government contro;s little beyand the Green Mile or the Govevt is turning a blind eye to their activities. Either way the people are suffering.
on Apr 12, 2006
We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.


The regime of Saddam was in many ways an unpretty one. However, compared to what is happening now in Iraq, Saddam's regime comes off looking and smelling like roses. In fact the other day the Interior Minister of Iraq admitted on BBC that there are death squads in Iraq today and he was at pains to distance his Governemnt forom their activities. Either the Government contro;s little beyand the Green Mile or the Govevt is turning a blind eye to their activities. Either way the people are suffering.
on Apr 13, 2006

...how is omitting a fact... omitting a fact?


That is ridiculous. He specifically said there had been no death squads in Iraq under Saddam. He was not "omitting a fact", he was LYING. You said so yourself.

His lie only became "omitting a fact" with you when you attacked me. Before that you were just as much accusing him of lying as I.



You're deftly trying to divert the subject to whether Saddam was an arab nationalist,


I am not "trying to divert the subject" at all. The fact that Saddam is an Arab nationalist is quite central to what I said about the culture Bahu is defending.



No, in fact my criticism was toward your ignorant attitude in basically accusing Bahu of being a muslim lover


I don't know what a "Muslim lover" is but I stand by my comment that Bahu is a Muslim or soomebody sympathetic to Muslims.



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.


That is because they don't deny Saddam's crimes. Can you not see the difference between denying that there were death squads under Saddam and merely opposing the stance of the current American government?



I would have been just as outraged if you had Bahu had accused you of being "Christian"...


Well, I AM sympathetic to Christians and I wouldn't have felt hurt if somebody had concluded that I was a Christian or sympathetic to them. Perhaps my entire opinion is based on a belief that Christianity must be defended? Perhaps that is what you were referred to when you brought up the subject of Christianity?

I compared Muslim and Arab culture to western culture. You first brought up Christianity.

I can believe that you would have been "outraged". You seem to be outraged by random events.

I still want you to answer my questions though.

Why did you pretend that by "Arab" I meant to include "Iranians"? Why do you suddenly claim that it is diverting the subject if I continue to talk about that?

And how became what you used to call a lie, Bahu's statement that there were no death squads in Saddam's Iraq, "omitting a fact"?


No, Baker, the truth is that I attacked Bahu for the same reason as you did. But suddenly these reasons became a non-issue for you when you decided to attack me.

I stand by my words. I still believe that Bahu is trying to defend the disease that Islam has become and that Arab nationalism always was. And I don't believe that specifically denying one of Saddam's crimes is "omitting a fact".

Would it be "omitting a fact" about this discussion if I told somebody that I _didn't_ say that I think that Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to Muslims? Or would it be a lie?
on Apr 13, 2006
Here is what I said, again, in case anyone forgot:


I tell you what I think:

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.


That is the statement you, Bakerstreet, found most offensive. You compared it to somebody calling me a Christian.

Well, the comparison is all right, I guess. I just don't see why it is offensive.


He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.


I still believe it is possible that he thinks that, although what he said later does make it less likely.



By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture.


I concluded that because he denies Saddam's crimes. He didn't ommit them, he actually listed specific crimes and said they didn't happen (death squads).



He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others.


This is because he argued that the current sad situation in Iraq is something the US are to blame for, even though the situation was not really better under Saddam; and even though the current sad situation is certainly caused by Sunni and Shi'ite Arab extremists, NOT the US.



The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam.


That was pure speculation, I'm afraid. But if he continues to blame the American invasion for Sunni attacks on Shi'ite mosques, it does seem like he really believes that the Americans are to blame for the attacks committed by Sunni extremists.


That's what I think he believes.

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 that is the part that made you say something about Christians and conclude that I include Iranians among the Arab nation (which I never did).
on Apr 13, 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. Did you know that both Paris and Oxford Universities had chairs for Arabic Language studiers in the 14th century.


What did I say in the second statement that in any way contradicts what you wrote in the quoted text above?

Please tell me.
on Apr 14, 2006
The fact that six months after the electiobn no government has been formed is prooif.
---Bahu

We declared our independence from Britain in 1776. The US Constitution wasn't completely ratified until 1787. Granted, things moved slower then, but the same types of problems faced in Iraq today were faced by the American Founders, and were overcome. Rome wasn't built in a day.


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.
---Bahu

The classic philospohy of liberalism, conversely, was intervention and activity on an international level. Witness the Foreign Policy actions taken by Wilson and Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
The only truly successful actions were those taken by Roosevelt. Wilson brought us another, bigger and bloodier war. Truman kept the borders of Berlin and S. Korea safe, but we're still paying the price in Korea to this day.
Kennedy and Johnson, well, 'nuff said. Carter smugly thought he'd brought peace to the Mideast, but that fell apart in no time. Clinton,among other fiascos, gave us a N. Korea that pushed us around, a Kosovo that still causes us problems, and an Iraq that needed a Republican president to finally take some decisive action.

As Leauki said, things have changed. The well-meaning, starry-eyed liberals have proven their ineptitude time and again. Democracy and peace in Iraq will come, Bahu, but only if naysayers like you shut up and let it.
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5