Invasion of the Isolationists

NY Times ^ | August 31, 2005 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

[neverdem]

AS we mark four years since Sept. 11, 2001, one way to organize a review of what has happened in American foreign policy since that terrible day is with a question: To what extent has that policy flowed from the wellspring of American politics and culture, and to what extent has it flowed from the particularities of this president and this administration?

It is tempting to see continuity with the American character and foreign policy tradition in the Bush administration's response to 9/11, and many have done so. We have tended toward the forcefully unilateral when we have felt ourselves under duress; and we have spoken in highly idealistic cadences in such times, as well. Nevertheless, neither American political culture nor any underlying domestic pressures or constraints have determined the key decisions in American foreign policy since Sept. 11.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have allowed President Bush to lead them in any of several directions, and the nation was prepared to accept substantial risks and sacrifices. The Bush administration asked for no sacrifices from the average American, but after the quick fall of the Taliban it rolled the dice in a big way by moving to solve a longstanding problem only tangentially related to the threat from Al Qaeda - Iraq. In the process, it squandered the overwhelming public mandate it had received after Sept. 11. At the same time, it alienated most of its close allies, many of whom have since engaged in "soft balancing" against American influence...

[neverdem]

If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions - Asia, for example - for years to come.

I can agree with that part of his analysis, from the author who wrote The End of History.

[DoughtyOne]

Well I can agree with that too, even though it's simply unacceptable that the Times chooses to attempt to say that Bush has squandered his mandate by going after a man that paid between $25 and $40 thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

If he didn't have terrorist ties, how did he facilitate that? If he did have terrorist ties, then it's preposterous to say that we shouldn't have gone in to end the terrorist connections in Iraq.

Beyond this, how can a leftist look themselves in the face realizing what Hussein was doing to the women and children in his nation, and the mass killings that were taking place?

I thought the left were always trying to sell themselves as the compassionate set. Well, now we know.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Fukuyama presents an intellectually honest, nuanced case. Fine. If "President Al Gore" after 9/11 had followed a Fukuyaman, don't upset the applecart, program, we would be presenting our solid case why internationalism was a ridiculous response to the War on Terror.

[wildcatf4f3]

Hey, I thought history was over===what has he got a new book, "History Starts Up Again".

[vbmoneyspender]

but after the quick fall of the Taliban it rolled the dice in a big way by moving to solve a longstanding problem only tangentially related to the threat from Al Qaeda - Iraq.

If Iraq was only tagentially related to Al Qaeda, why did Al Qaeda's number 3 badboy (i.e. Zarqawi) slither over to Iraq for R & R after the Taliban fell.

[gr8eman]

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
I thought he was from the new Austin Powers movie!

[neverdem]

An Iraqi Army unit ready to control its turf (Now this is real war reporting) This article sounds more optimistic. From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[wildcatf4f3]

No, that goes name ends in, Yomama

[Recovering_Democrat]

Remember, you can't spell "FRANCIS FUKUYAMA" without "FUKU".

[MNJohnnie]

only tangentially related to the threat from Al Qaeda - Iraq.

Absolutely completely WRONG. Guess the NY Lies is sticking to their Nazi style propaganda. Keep screaming the lie over and over until the truth is murdered. Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror. What the Hysteric Leftist that run the NY Lies do not realize is there was NO other possible strategic alternative to Iraq. EVEN if Al Gore had won in 2000, we STILL would be doing what we are doing in Iraq.

[Lejes Rimul]

Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror.

Only because we made it that way. Iraq had little to nothing to do with international Sunni extremism before the war.

[Lejes Rimul]

So in your opinion, acting like leftists and intervening "compassionately" all over the world is a good thing for American conservatives? One begs to differ.

[thoughtomator]

Except for the billions in terror funding, the assistance of the Iraqi Mubakarahat, the open $25k reward for Palestinian suicide bombers' families, the airplane-hijacking training camp at Salman Pak, support for Hezbollah, the international WMD trade, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry if poking holes in your paper raft of denial is inconvenient for that theory.

[jveritas]

Really?!

First; the most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq and the most active in AL Qaeda for the last two years, Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi, has been in Iraq long before the war started. In fact he was treated in a Baghdad hospital after he was injured in Afghanistan. Second Saddam Hussein was paying $ 20,000 for the family each Hamas suicide bomber who kills innocent Jews in Israel. Is Hamas a Sunni terrorist organization? Yes they are. Are all the terrorists groups the same? Yes they are. Should we fight any regime that supports terrorism? Yes we should.

[Sam the Sham]

If Iraq was only tagentially related to Al Qaeda, why did Al Qaeda's number 3 badboy (i.e. Zarqawi) slither over to Iraq for R & R after the Taliban fell.

Because we are there.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[vbmoneyspender]

Zarqawi was there well before we invaded. Here's the timeline. The Taliban falls at the end of 2001. Zarqawi flees to Iraq directly after that. A year and a half later, we then invade Iraq in 2003.

[Lejes Rimul]

Al Zarqawi only became a big fish by organizing resistance to American activities in Iraq after the invasion. He wasn't even a member of al Qaeda in the beginning, he organized his own group, Monotheism and Holy War. As for the money to families of suicide bombers, that's Saddam's Arab nationalism, not Sunni extremism - get it straight. Any other talking points you'd like me to refute?

[Lejes Rimul]

What billions in terror funding? Please, don't just spout off numbers and statistics like a liberal and expect me to believe them. Secondly, Iraqi secret police complicity and this alleged "airplane-hijacking training camp" are all just fabrications Chalabi and his Iranian-backed cronies fed us to fuel the invasion plans. Show me some solid proof of either, not just NewsMax or FrontPageMag conspiracy theories. As for support for Hizbullah, yeah right - that's IraN, not Iraq.

Sorry if refuting your talking points might have to make you think independently, like true American conservatives should.

[MNJohnnie]

If Iraq was only tagentially related to Al Qaeda, why did Al Qaeda's number 3 badboy (i.e. Zarqawi) slither over to Iraq for R & R after the Taliban fell.
Because we are there.


WRONG. He was there before we got their. Read "Masters of Chaos" and what the SF found outside Mosul.