First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The "Happy Warrior" Is Weeping I...

First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council li...

(1) most famous for his wildly incorrect prediction that no ideology would ever again threaten Western democratic capitalism after the Cold War

It is clear that James either hasn't read Fukayama or doesn't understand the hegelian basis of his argument.

I am not necessarily a fan of Fukie, but he was making an argument based upon a particular philosophical tradition. In fact, one could argue that his embrace of Hegel's concept of the "struggle for recognition" is still extremely pertinent and can explain quite a bit about the rise of various fundamentalisms throughout the globe.

Fine, Jazz. We can leave Israel to take care of itself. And South Korea, and Japan. Doubtless I'm omitting a dozen or so countries.

Now, whether or not that's a good idea is one thing. It's just not politically acceptable. You might as well wargame whether the U.S. could've beaten Germany in 1940.

(1) most famous for his wildly incorrect prediction that no ideology would ever again threaten Western democratic capitalism after the Cold War

"Wildly incorrect"? How? Al-Qaeda and other terrorists are *material* threats, but they do not pose an ideology that's any serious competition with Western democratic capitalism. Incoherent rage is not an "ideology," and Islamists are not an existential threat to the West (as you concede later in your post, while ignoring its implication for Fukuyama's thesis).

(2) That, the spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria--and let's not forget Libya--and the increased credibility of U.S. invasion as serious policy option should indeed justify the costs.

"Increased credibility"??? Just the opposite. It is common knowledge that we aren't materially able to invade Syria or North Korea even if we wanted to---not without either abandoning Iraq or firing up the draft.

(3) It must be reiterated, since people continue to forget it, that the main missions--regime change and the enabling of an unfettered search for WMD--were wildly successful.

Wowzer. "An unfettered search for WMD" is a really nice way of putting it. Quit trying to rewrite history. We did not go over there to FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT Saddam had WMD. We were assured that he *did*. Turns out the "unfettered search" was accomplished by Hans Blix, who was treated by Cheney et al. as virtually a Saddam puppet. Oops!

(4) Realism has long been the natural voice of the foreign policy establishment. Neoconservatism was derided from the beginning. That said, the idea that we are better off supporting authoritarian thugs rather than risking the election of those whose goals are different than ours is short sighted.

FF is *not* advocating realism (as Orin Judd also fails to notice): "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world ...."

(6) More importantly, though, there's a reason the American electorate is not enamored with international institutions as the stronghold of our national security: History.

Oh please. NATO? Explain to me how NATO is not an "international institution." FF is quite candid that the UN is not a useful instrument. He also lists some "international institutions" that are more effective; more importantly, he's calling for MORE AND BETTER institutions in place of the failed ones.

I can only assume that FF's article stung pretty hard, if it's so necessary to misrepresent what he wrote and to fudge the facts.

I'll take isolationism any day, thank you very much. Whether various Islammic states have elections or not is of no concern to me. If they hate it there that much, they should move here, or to Europe or Canada.

Me? A cold hearted bastard? Fine. I'll wear that label.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

After Neoconservatism by By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA from New York Times Magazine is the must read piece of the day. It is very long so if it takes you until Friday to finish it thats ok just make sure you do.
Some of his points I agree with and some I do n...

Francis Fukuyama used to be one of the seminal neoconservative thinkers of our time.

Now he’s just a seminal thinker, having abandoned what he terms the “militaristic” excesses and unrealistic goals of the neocons in favor of a &#8...