As he desperately pushes his new book and tries to distance himself and his crazy theories from the debacle in Iraq, Francis Fukuyama is warning Europeans not to enjoy the smug feeling of schadenfreude that is so hard to avoid for those of us who screamed “Are you insane?” when the US invaded Iraq and are currently trying to avoid either writing “Told you so!” in letters big enough to be seen across the Atlantic or falling into the depths of flabbergasted depression caused by the entirely rational fear that a replay is being enacted around Iran.
In the Guardian he writes:
While many might intellectually support the emergence of a stable, democratic, pro-western government in Baghdad, “success” in this matter would be seen as a vindication of all of the baggage that the Bush administration loaded on to this project, including its unilateralism, use of force and incompetent execution of the war’s aftermath. Many would therefore be happy seeing Washington suffer a setback, to deter such interventions in the future.
We might, were it not for the 100,000 or so dead men, women and children that would be required to teach the arrogant fools in Washington their lesson and if we felt that they were capable of learning anything useful. As it stands we’re horrified that the US system of checks and balances is incapable of restraining the executive.
Like it or not, American power and involvement are necessary to the proper functioning of world order, and the kind of role that a post-Iraq United States may play is very much up for grabs.
How much worse can it get? No, forget I asked that because I’m sure he has plan for making it much, much worse if only he could get proper help. America can play a constructive part in the world, which would be nice, as soon as it dumps the philosophy of might-makes-right pushed by Fukuyama and his fellow travellers.
By invading Iraq, the Bush administration allowed what should have been characterised as a fight with a narrow extremist ideology to escalate into something the Islamists could claim was a clash of civilisations. But that clash will play itself out in large measure in Europe, the breeding ground for Mohammed Atta, Mohammed Bouyeri and the July 7 bombers. The controversy over the cartoons underlines the fact that the US and Europe have more in common in the struggle with radical Islamism than either side would like to admit. Cooperation to prevent this escalating into a broader civilisational struggle, and to maintain a generally open, integrated international order, will require solidarity. Neither European indulgence in feelgood anti-Americanism nor a bipartisan rise in US nationalism and populism brought about by perceived failure in Iraq will help.
Ooops. We screwed up. You don’t mind paying the price do you? And since we’ve already brought a storm upon you with the help of our little poodles and stooges you better fight for us and not criticise too much or we won’t help fix the problem.
Well thanks, but we don’t need the sort of help you bring. A rational, sane US would be a help. You and your accomplices at PNAC are not.
And, lest we forget:
We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
Crossposted from European Tribune
