In doing my research for What the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know, I came across a former Neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama, who has turned his back on his Neocon colleagues and is now speaking out about where they went wrong. In his latest book called, America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy, Fukuyama outlines his thinking. It is a fascinating look into what has happened to the Republican party that has turned so many people against them, even their own members including me.

In order to understand Fukuyama’s political background, it is important to know his contributions to the Neocon movement. He was active in the Project for the New American Century a Neocon think tank starting in 1997, and signed the organization’s letter recommending that President Bill Clinton overthrow Saddam Hussein. He also signed another subsequent letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that called for removing Saddam Hussein from power “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack.”

However, after witnessing the outcome of the disastrous Iraq War and foreign policy debacle, Fukuyama began to question the wisdom of the party. Most importantly, he felt they had become overly militaristic embracing a muscular, unilateral armed intervention to further democratization within authoritarian regimes, particularly in the Middle East. He did not approve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as it was executed, and called for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as Secretary of Defense. This was definitely a man who could be objective about his own party and assess the results of failed foreign policy.

In a revealing interview with Spiegel Online, Fukuyama outlines where he thinks the Neocons failed in their basic principles of democratization and benevolent hegemony. He said Bush made three major mistakes. They are:

1. The threat of radical Islam to the US was overestimated.

2. The Bush administration didn’t foresee the fierce negative reaction to its benevolent hegemony. From the very beginning it showed a negative attitude towards the United Nations and other international organizations and didn’t see that this would increase anti-Americanism in other countries.

3. The Bush administration misjudged what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and was overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of Western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Fukuyama was very clear about the fact that the Bush administration lacked critical knowledge about the commitment that was vital to successfully install a democracy in Iraq. He emphasized that America was certainly not prepared for a five to ten year commitment which is what was really needed for their democratization plan. He further stated that Rumsfeld thought that we could get in and out in less than a year and could “do it on the cheap”…huge mistake.

Fukuyama said that what brought them to these erroneous conclusions was that after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, they looked at totalitarian regimes as hollow at the core and would collapse with a little push. With what they thought would be a cakewalk, their mission of spreading democracy seemed to be an easy sell. However, knowing that most Americans would not buy spending billions of dollars to install a democracy in Iraq, they went with a fear tactic of weapons of mass destruction and a terrorist link, and of course, the rest is history.

Fukuyama has been very vocal about his defection from the Neocon agenda with his books reflecting harsh criticisms of the political elite who were pulling the strings of power bent on military supremacy and world domination, but Fukuyama is not alone. There is another man known for his Neocon leanings before 9/11 who has also been critical of the Neocon agenda. This is Zbigniew Brzezinksi who was former President Carter’s National Security Adviser. Brzezinski also became a leading critic of the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Some painted him as a former neoconservative because of his links to Paul Wolfowitz and his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. He wrote The Choice in 2004 which expanded upon The Grand Chessboard but sharply criticized the Bush administration’s foreign policy.




He has also defended the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in which it is asserted that the Israel lobby or AIPAC exercised excessive leverage over the Executive branch, as well as the ability to make sure that the “Lobby’s perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media.” The position of the paper claims that AIPAC in particular has a “stranglehold on the U.S. Congress,” due to its “ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it.” He has also been outspoken in his criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent conduct of the war.

Brzezinski has also written a book called Second Chance which offers a revealing critique of three Presidents and their historical performances as world leaders — Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and Bush Junior. In his book, Brzezinski assesses these three critical post cold-war global leaders based on three central missions:

1. To manage, steer, and shape central power relationships in a world of shifting geopolitical balances, and intensifying national aspirations so that a more cooperative global system can emerge.

2. To contain or terminate conflicts, prevent terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and promote collective peacekeeping in regions torn by civil strife, so that global violence recedes rather than spreads.

3. To address more effectively the increasingly intolerable inequalities in the human condition, in keeping with the novel reality of an emerging “global conscience”, and to prompt a common response to the new environmental and ecological threats to global well-being.

These three measures served as a litmus test of America’s ability to lead. Brzezinski also takes into account the personal leadership styles of each. The results for this presidential report card are as follows (if you would like to see the full report card for each president see here):

Bush Senior = Solid B Tactical skill but missed strategic opportunities
Bill Clinton = Uneven C Major gap between potential and performance
Bush Junior = Failed F A simplistic dogmatic world view prompted self-destructive unilateralism

Brzezinski titles each president’s chapter of the book with a befitting description. For Bush Senior it is “The Original Sin” for not capitalizing on the global emergence of the U.S. after the Cold War as a potent superpower to solve the Middle East issue; for Bill Clinton it is “”The Impotence of Good Intentions” in which his foreign policy was distracted by domestic issues; and finally Bush Junior it is “Catastrophic Leadership” for his naive and ultimately disastrous foreign policy initiatives.

What strikes me as most disappointing in our leadership is the unbelievable missed opportunities we had following the Cold War. We were an international dominance in the world with prestige and respect, unchallenged and sought after for moral guidance and leadership. However, what happened in the following fifteen years unraveled this glorious position. Brzezinski goes on to say that we have squandered a great deal of America’s power and prestige and it will take another generation to undo what has been done by these leaders and especially Bush Junior.

There is hope with the next American president as long as we don’t continue along this same path of self-destruction. It won’t be easy. Brzezenski says:

“It will take a monumental effort to restore America’s legitimacy as the major guarantor of global security and re-identify America with a common response to intensifying social dilemmas in a world that is now politically awakened and not susceptible to imperial domination. The saving grace for America is that unlike emperors, U.S. presidents, including catastrophic ones, are limited to eight years in office.”

All I can say to that is, “Thank God for giving us the eternal intelligence of our fore fathers.”