Jewish World Review March 28, 2006 / 28 Adar, 5766

Let's get it right about what has gone wrong

By Niall Ferguson

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | As the song says, sorry always seems to be the hardest word. It takes courage to admit you got it wrong. So it's tempting to applaud Francis Fukuyama for the bout of self-criticism he is currently engaged in. In his new book, "America at the Crossroads," Fukuyama, who had become famous for declaring the "end of history," has repudiated his support for the invasion of Iraq.

Though scarcely the man who ordered the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Fukuyama made it plain long before 2003 that he favored such action. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Fukuyama had begun to argue that the American model of democracy was poised to become a kind of global standard.

Dictators who clung to authoritarian rule were therefore standing in the way of the progressive march of history. The United States, enjoying as it did after 1989 a position of unrivaled military power, was well placed to give history a helping hand. Three years on, Fukuyama is a chastened man. With the benefit of hindsight, he now sees that he and other neoconservative proponents of regime change in Iraq were naive. If that country today is an ungovernable mess, then their naivete is in large measure to blame.

What did the neoconservatives get wrong? First, says Fukuyama, they succumbed to the illusion that America's "benign hegemony" would be welcomed as such abroad. Second, they were too confident about what could be achieved by unilateral action. Third, they embraced a doctrine of preemption that depended on greater knowledge of the future than was possible. Above all, they underestimated the risks of democracy in the Middle East — namely, that Iraq would fragment or that radical Islamists would win elections.

Fukuyama is not the first proponent of the war to repent. The liberal interventionists, who justified deposing Hussein on humanitarian grounds, long ago ate crow. Yet Fukuyama's is the better-timed U-turn. It coincides with a discernible sea change in the public mood.

	BUY THE BOOK
	Click HERE to purchase it at a discount. (Sales help fund JWR.).

Those who from the outset opposed the war in Iraq now appear vindicated, no matter how dubious their arguments. We are rapidly reverting to the default setting of the Democratic left — that it is preferable to leave tyrants in power than to sully the republic with the taint of imperialism. Better a multitude of Attilas abroad than Rome at home.

I agree that the neocons got it wrong, but my reasons are different from Fukuyama's, and they do not lead me to conclude that the left was correct all along.

The first big neocon error was their abandonment of realism. In particular, there was a failure to grasp the implications of toppling Hussein for the Middle Eastern balance of power. Henry Kissinger was right when he said of the Iran-Iraq war: "A pity they both can't lose." By getting rid of Hussein, the United States unwittingly handed Iran a belated victory.

Second, there was a woeful lack of historical knowledge. Too many people in Washington bought the idea that the postwar reconstruction of Iraq would be akin to the post-communist reconstruction of Poland.

But the third and perhaps worst sin of omission was a lack of self-knowledge. In assuming that the United States enjoyed "full-spectrum dominance" and was therefore in a position to do as it pleased in Iraq, the neocons failed to appreciate four deep-seated American weaknesses.

First, the U.S. has a chronic financial deficit, which is making it increasingly dependent on foreign capital and strapped for resources when it comes to nation building. Second, the U.S. has a chronic manpower deficit, which means it cannot deploy enough soldiers to maintain law and order in conquered territory. Third, the U.S. has a chronic attention deficit because after two years of even quite low casualties, American voters lose their enthusiasm for small wars in faraway places. Fourth is the chronic legitimacy deficit from which the United States now suffers. The most recent findings of the Pew Global Attitudes Survey — a compendium of international opinion polls — reveal just how precipitously the standing of the United States has fallen in the eyes of foreigners in the last six years.

And yet the logical conclusion to be drawn from all this is not that the United States should pack up and go home. For what, precisely, is the alternative to American hegemony, benign or blundering?

When people in other countries are asked, "Would the world be safer if another country were as powerful as the United States?" they generally say no. Only the French say yes. Admittedly, the Brits and the Turks are evenly split, but a majority of Russians, Germans and even Jordanians, Moroccans and Pakistanis think the world would be less safe with a second superpower. Hmm. I wonder what other country it is that they're worried about. Could its name perhaps begin with "C"?

What all this tells us is not that American hegemony is finished and should be wound up. It tells us that there is no better alternative available. The United States does not need to say "sorry" for getting rid of Hussein. What it needs to do is to be more realistic, better historically informed and less fiscally profligate; and to get more boots on the ground.

I'm all for admitting to error. But let's get it right about what has gone wrong.