Fukuyama Recants

Fukuyama interview: "we have unleashed the maelstrom"

He and I parted ways intellectually with Iraq, likely because I know more about warfare than he does. Nice to see him come back into the real world.

Of course, I might have been blinded by the rhetoric, Kunstler hits it between the eyes: At the highest level of public discourse, the cluelessness is shocking. The New York Times Sunday Book Review ran a front-page piece yesterday on Francis Fukuyama's latest salvo, America at the Crossroads, which is largely about our Middle East war policy, without once using the word "oil." The reviewer, Paul Berman, is not a dummy, but he has evidently flown up the national rectum with the rest of the people who are paid to think in our society. To these guys, the whole issue is an effete argument over strategic fashions such as "realistic Wilsonianism."

Comments

[Jason J. Thomas]

Did you see the article that was posted here: http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2405?

I was admittedly never a large fan of Francis when I was an undergrad at BU and read his "End of History." It is nice to see that he has made a rather interesting realization concerning neocons, though. I need to find some time to listen to the interview, but if it is like the piece above, thankfully someone has come to his senses.

[phil jones]

Still thinks that the US has the obligation to "stay the course" because that's going to "help" though.

[tim fong]

Phil,
Sometimes realization is a slow proces. Instant enlightenment, these days, is rather rare.

[John Robb]

I liked Trust and much of earlier work.

[Eric]

John, can you give a sense of what an "all oil" American military strategy in the Middle East might look like (eg 30K troops on Iraq's Saudi border, Gulf naval force for staging)?

[John Robb]

Leave There isn't a any way to ensure production given the power of systems disruption.

[phil jones]

I'm still convinced that the best way the US could ensure a stable oil supply from Iraq would be to just give the Shi'ite part of the country to Iran.

[Eric]

Thanks, gentlemen.

diabolical, phil

I'm trying to ask a slightly different question. Not what should the American government do, but rather given the current set of strategerists what will it do if oil security emerges as the principle objective coequal with "containing" Iran?

Best wishes for your stay in the rainy Bay Area, John.

[phil jones]

Depends how smart they are, no?

If you just looked at what the US wanted (ie. not to be attacked by Al-Qaeda) and assumed that they'd do something rational about it, you wouldn't predict an invasion of Iraq.

Equally, just because they *want* stable access to energy, doesn't mean you can predict they'll do the sensible thing.

What the US will probably do is hang on in Iraq until they're pushed out, harrass Iran until it gives preferential access of oil to China. And try to pressurize Saudi Arabia into over-producing its oil fields and clamping down on terrorists until the whole thing breaks.