Francis Fukuyama distances [ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html (F6 note -- the post to which this post is a reply)] himself from the neocons yet again [ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_76/ai_n6127311 (F6 note -- my next post, a reply to this post], just in time to play guru to the next bunch of crusaders at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Now he's a "Wilsonian realist," whatever that is. It takes a Ph.D. to keep up with all the mutations of the War Party; luckily, we have one in Leon Hadar [ http://globalparadigms.blogspot.com/2006/02/francis-fukuyama-again-dont-shoot-im.html (F6 note -- my second following post, also a reply to this post)], who dissects Fukuyama's piece over on his blog. But at least Fukuyama's analysis of his exes is satisfying, as it confirms what Antiwar.com has been saying all along:
[T]he neoconservative position articulated by people like [Bill] Kristol and [Robert] Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.
Farce? If only. I'd say its return has been pretty tragic for a lot of people [ http://antiwar.com/casualties/ ], though not for people who matter in the Grand Scheme of Things. (Thank heavens!)
Posted by: Matthew Barganier on Feb 20, 06 | 12:33 pm
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
