Krauthammer Versus Fukuyama

In a column titled "Fukuyama's Fantasy", Charles Krauthammer accuses Francis Fukuyama of a "fabrication" in describing a Krauthammer speech to the AEI in Feb 2004:

It was, as the hero tells it, his Road to Damascus moment. There he is, in a hall of 1,500 people he has long considered to be his allies, hearing the speaker treat the Iraq war, nearing the end of its first year, as "a virtually unqualified success." He gasps as the audience enthusiastically applauds. Aghast to discover himself in a sea of comrades so deluded by ideology as to have lost touch with reality, he decides he can no longer be one of them.

...A very nice story. It appears in the preface to Fukuyama's post-neocon coming out, "America at the Crossroads." On Sunday it was repeated on the front page of the New York Times Book Review in Paul Berman's review.

I happen to know something about this story, as I was the speaker whose 2004 Irving Kristol lecture to the American Enterprise Institute Fukuyama has now brought to prominence. I can therefore testify that Fukuyama's claim that I attributed "virtually unqualified success" to the war is a fabrication.

Just for completeness, let's cut to the lead of Times article cited above:

In February 2004, Francis Fukuyama attended a neoconservative think-tank dinner in Washington and listened aghast as the featured speaker, the columnist Charles Krauthammer, attributed "a virtually unqualified success" to America's efforts in Iraq, and the audience enthusiastically applauded.

And here is an excerpt from the Fukuyama book:

The speech, given almost a year after the US invasion of Iraq, treated the war as a virtually unqualified success.

Mr. Fukuyama goes on to explain how he "could not understand" the enthusiastic response of the audience even though we had found no WMDs in Iraq, were "bogged down in a vicious insurgency", and were "totally isolated" from the world as a consequence of following the unipolar strategy articulated by Mr. Krauthammer.

Well.  Mr. Krauthammer is quite right that it is scarcely possible to read his speech and take from it the notion that he explicitly considered the war in Iraq to be an unqualified success.

But neither does one form the impression of a chastened Mr. Krauthammer questioning the wisdom of his "Democratic globalism" outlook.

Perhaps Mr. Fukuyama's outrage has grown in the re-telling.  The New Yorker provides an overview of his intellectual journey, and he was certainly sufficiently put-out by the Krauthammer speech to pen a response, published in Aug 2004:

...And in February 2004, [Charles Krauthammer] gave a speech at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in which he took his earlier themes [of a unipolar world] and developed the ideas further, in the aftermath of the Iraq War. He defined four different schools of thought on foreign policy: isolationism, liberal internationalism, realism and his own position that he defines as "democratic globalism", a kind of muscular Wilsonianism-minus international institutions-that seeks to use U.S. military supremacy to support U.S. security interests and democracy simultaneously.

...The 2004 speech is strangely disconnected from reality. Reading Krauthammer, one gets the impression that the Iraq War-the archetypical application of American unipolarity-had been an unqualified success, with all of the assumptions and expectations on which the war had been based fully vindicated. There is not the slightest nod towards the new empirical facts that have emerged in the last year or so: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America's fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post.

In Fukuyama's behalf, I will say that the Krauthammer speech has a certain timeless quality - the same speech could have been delivered a week after the invasion of Iraq without changing a word; with minor changes, it could have been delivered in 2002.

Now, does that mean it is "disconnected from reality", or simply focusing on broader themes?  You make the call!

But as to the notion that the war was treated as a "virtually unqualified success", this passage (excerpted by Krauthammer in his column,) stands in rebuttal:

Establishing civilized, decent, nonbelligerent, pro-Western polities in Afghanistan and Iraq and ultimately their key neighbors would, like the flipping of Germany and Japan in the 1940s, change the strategic balance in the fight against Arab-Islamic radicalism.

Yes, it may be a bridge too far. Realists have been warning against the hubris of thinking we can transform an alien culture because of some postulated natural and universal human will to freedom. And they may yet be right. But how do they know in advance? Half a century ago, we heard the same confident warnings about the imperviousness to democracy of Confucian culture. That proved stunningly wrong. Where is it written that Arabs are incapable of democracy?

Yes, as in Germany and Japan, the undertaking is enormous, ambitious and arrogant. It may yet fail. But we cannot afford not to try. There is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the monster behind 9/11. It’s not Osama bin Laden; it is the cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world--oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism. It’s not one man; it is a condition. It will be nice to find that man and hang him, but that’s the cops-and-robbers law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism that we tried for twenty years and that gave us 9/11. This is war, and in war arresting murderers is nice. But you win by taking territory—and leaving something behind.

My final scoreboard:

(a) The Times goes too far in its passage telling us that Charles Krauthammer "attributed "a virtually unqualified success" to America's efforts in Iraq"; "attributed" is an overstatement, since Fukuyama's view is more consistent with "implied" (Fukuyama used the word "treated" in 2006).

(b) as to Mr. Fukuyama, his Aug 2004 introduction explains a reasonable alternative view decrying an insufficiently chastened and humbled Democratic Globablist.

(c) the brief passage in the 2006 book is a misleading oversimplification of Fukuyama's 2004 position. 

Comments

[kim]

I give him the benefit of the doubt. 'Road to Damascus' moments are disorienting.
===========================

[Other Tom]

What was Fukuyama thinking? In this age of blogs, did he think no one would call him on this? Did he imagine that no one would investigate the contents of the speech that supposedly gave rise to his epiphany? This guy has exposed himself as a fraud--now, if not quite some time ago.

[kim]

I believe Saul was ambushed, robbed, beaten senseless, and left for dead. If he had been sexually assaulted, it would explain a few things. Something emotionally similar might have happened to our franciscan.
======================================

[Barney Frank]

Kim,

I assume you're joshin'.

If not, Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. He was knocked over and blinded by the glory of the Lord. He was most definitely not robbed or beaten.
It was in fact Saul who was bent on murder and mayhem and was turned from such conduct by his Damascus moment.

[Daddy]

Golly, Sounds to me like Francis needs to take a year off in Texas covering Five-car Pile-ups with Molly. That'll get his cred back. Personally I'm waiting for Fukuyama's response, so Krauthammer can use Bill Murray's line from Stripes; "Lighten up Francis"

[kim]

Thanks, B.F. Theology has always been a weakness of mine.
======================================

[clarice]

Krauthammer is the only columnist in the WaPo I ever read on a regular basis. The rest of that page is a waste of good trees.

Yes, I thought Fukuyama thought he could get away with it, and he is probably right in the general sense. Like Wilson he can tour the country garnering large fees to people who will never hear of Krauthammer's smack down.

[Andrew Samwick]

I was at the Krauthammer speech in question. It is Fukuyama who attributed (in 2004) those words to Krauthammer. He now seems to believe that Krauthammer said them.

That speech made an impression. In October 2004, in a post on my blog about the first Presidential debate, I described it as:

May I suggest a re-reading of Charles Krauthammer's Irving Kristol lecture, "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World," which is the clearest rationale for the war in Iraq and the choice to "go it alone" that I have heard to date. (It was written before the insurgency gained as much traction as it currently has, and so it does not deal with problems in the conduct of the Iraq war.)

Discussion continued in this post.

I do, however, take Fukuyama at his word that Krauthammer's speech, and the subsequent affirmation by the audience, was his epiphany. It was a clear and forceful statement.

[Jim E.]

TM refers to a New York Times article -- and mildly criticizes it in a hair-splitting fashion -- without pointing out that it was a review of Fukuyama's book, and not some independent piece of reporting. Paul Berman's version of Fukuyama's intellectual journey is based almost entirely on Fukuyama's 2006 book, which is standard for a book review.

I wonder if C. Kraut. still considers Fukuyama to be "scandelously brilliant."

[Barney Frank]

Jim,

I consider Fukuyama brilliant myself.
Unfortunately he is usually brilliantly wrong.

[flenser]

"..muscular Wilsonianism-minus international institutions-that seeks to use U.S. military supremacy to support U.S. security interests and democracy simultaneously."

Maybe I've been deluded all along, but I was under the impression that this was pretty much US foreign policy for the past half century, at least.

And is "Wilsonianism-minus international institutions" really Wilsonianism? It sounds a bit like Catholicism minus the Pope and the Vatican.

[kim]

Hey, we're all a big corporation and the CEO is appreciating stakeholder value steadily. The blessings of Bush benefit the babes and the bodacious.
====================================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Well, Joe Wilson has, up to this point, more or less gotten away with it. A rational response on his part to the famous 16 words in the SOTU speech, would have been: 'Ah, the Brits found out about the Iraqi 'trade delegation too.'

Instead, he ginned up a complete fabrication about Cheney ignoring his debunking of the idea Saddam still wanted nukes. And is collecting handsome royalties and speaking fees, almost three years later. Because there's an audience that wants to hear that.

Fukuyama probably will find the same type of audience, and for the same reason.

[maryrose]

Patrick R. Sullivan
I considerFukuyama as like David Brock a switchhitter or in Kerry talk a flip-flopper. Any way the wind blows. It's convenient and monetarily wise now to take the opposing view. He went a step too far by rewriting what he thought he heard at a lecture.. I especially like Krauthammer's writing and the opinions he shares on Fox News. He calls a spade a spade and has been spot on regarding the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

[Javani]

What crap. Someone's speech turned his mind? He claims to be a historian, previously debunked or not. His opinions should be formed by independently observed facts.

And he seems to miss the idea that it was the way Iraq was handled after the major war might be the problem.

[pepster]

Daddy,

"Lighten up Francis" was uttered by Warren Oates(playing Sgt. Hulka), not Bill Murray. I can understand how Francis Fukuyama could misremember Mr. Krauthammer's entire speech. But to misquote a line from Stripes is just plain inexcusable. To quote NiederMeyer "Drop and give me twenty".

[kim]

But, but, but....Daddy Knows Best.
======================

[Joe Mealyus]

"My final scoreboard:

....

(c) the brief passage in the 2006 book is a misleading oversimplification of Fukuyama's 2004 position."

ISTM (c) is itself a misleading oversimplification of what this is about. Fukuyama's oversimplification strikes me as opportunistic or self-serving. How about:

(c) Fukuyama in 2004 criticized Krauthammer's proposal to make, in a "targeted, focused and limited" way, "the spread of democracy, the success of liberty, the ends and means of American foreign policy" on the grounds that Krauthammer was ignoring negative feedback from the war in Iraq. Fukuyama in 2006 is criticizing Krauthammer's 2004 rosy view of the Iraq war on the grounds that Krauthammer was ignoring negative feedback from the war in Iraq.

Or the short version:

(c) FF had CK ignoring factor X in making an argument about Y, now he's got CK using factor X (misread) to make an argument about X itself.

[maryrose]

Pepster:
That's the facts JacK!

[maryrose]

Joe:
When you start using letters it's too much like Algebra to me . When you're doing math with numbers what's up with using letters? Why not just say "I'm solving for the unknown rather than looking for X. I always want to answer X is between W and Y. Maybe that's why I got C's in Algebra and Statistics.

[larwyn]

Taranto, who was there, writes today:
.......
We were there, and Krauthammer's description of the speech--which we thought quite good--matches our recollection. But see for yourself; the text is here. As Krauthammer further notes:

Fukuyama now says that he had secretly opposed the Iraq war before it was launched. . . . After public opinion had turned against the war, Fukuyama then courageously came out against it.

And of course garnered great media attention and praise for doing so, which seems undeserved even if he turns out to be right. The good news, though, is that he has a history of being so spectacularly wrong--"the Paul Ehrlich of geopolitics," as an InstaPundit reader calls him--that his turn against Iraq strikes may itself be reason for optimism about the outcome there.

[maryrose]

Larwyn:
LOL
How are feeling? I hope getting better as soon as possible. 24 was something else last night.Also try watching Prison Break right before 24.

[AJ]

Point - Krauthammer

[larwyn]

MARYROSE,
Think that when the Dems heard that "E!" picked "24" their #1 TV show, they decided that calling GW

"The Jack Bauer President"

really wasn't such a hot idea.

Wonder if Howie Fineman put it into any Newsweek articles?

Went the way of "6 & 60 in 06".
As Clarice asked on that one, what Dem "stratagist" came up with that and how much did they get paid.

Evening chores interfer with actually watching anything that starts at 8PM - but I have caught bits of Prison Break and it looks interesting.

[Neo]

This story, for some unknown reason, reminds me of the scene in the movie "Back to School" here the main character, Rodney Dangerfield, is confronted by an English professor who hands him a paper and says "you obvious don't know a thing about Kurt Vonnegut"; Dangerfield gets on his phone and says "Vonnegut .. your fired."

When you launch a creation, whether a novel or war, it becomes the property of the masses, who will interpret it in whatever means fits their purposes.

[Daddy]

Pepster, Thank you Sir, can I have another?

[kim]

OK, BF, in honor of my ignorant comment, I've investigated. The proper skeptical point of view would be a bolt from the blue acting upon a conscience guilty with post episode optical dyscorticee.
==========================================

[Ken]

Fukuyama is right. Krauthammer spends the bulk of his speech shoring up one outlook as superior among four he identifies. He calls this vision, Democratic Globalism; which, in the way he describes it is a vision attributed to Bush, Blair, and hence, the war.

He then says,"I support that. I applaud that." Now he also admits, "Yes, it may be a bridge too far," but adds, "And if that power is used wisely, constrained not by illusions and fictions but only by the limits of our mission--which is to bring a modicum of freedom as an antidote to nihilism--we can prevail." Not start, not contemplate, but prevail.

Given his absolute dedication to the outlook, and barring one iota of criticism for anything it, to that date had done, it is reasonable to assume that he was declaring the war an unqualified success. I don't see how any critical reader could think otherwise.

[boris]

it is reasonable to assume

Or not.

"if wise ... we can prevail" is not the same as "well done, mission accomplished".

Unless one is critically challanged.

[Ken]

Challanged? Gotcha.

[JM Hanes]

Ken

"I don't see how any critical reader could think otherwise."

This critical reader thinks there's more than a whiff of moral superiority in the distaste Fukuyama expresses for what has become the sterotypical strawman in academic argument these days. That he leads off with an emotional rejection of Krauthammer-as-hapless-warmonger doesn't auger well for anyone expecting a serious intellectual examination of the actual foreign policy posture Krauthammer represents. Indeed, the original critique of his AEI lecture reads more like a collection of familiar ex post facto political talking points than a nascent attempt to place the particulars of Iraq in a larger multi-dimensional historical context.

The source of Fukuyama's horror is significant. What Krauthammer really said is almost beside the point; Fukuyama is aghast at the very idea that anyone might describe Iraq as a success. I suspect it had never ocurred to him that he might have to defend the proposition that Iraq is emblematic of a disastrous foreign policy failure. For Fukuyama's thesis to work, one must accept that premise unreservedly; small wonder that he attempts to dismiss any argument to the contrary at the outset. That he supplies a hyperbolic anecdote starring Krauthammer as a dangerously deluded soul instead of mounting a proper defense speaks volumes.

[Mealyus the long-winded pedant]

"Given his absolute dedication to the outlook, and barring one iota of criticism for anything it, to that date had done, it is reasonable to assume that he was declaring the war an unqualified success."

If CK in 2004 thought the war was an unqualified success, he had every opportunity in his speech to make an explicit statement to this effect, and chose not to. That wasn't his point. His point was that he agreed with the foreign-policy viewpoint (or was "absolutely dedicated to the outlook" in your words) that led to the war.

FF's 2004 criticism of CK for ignoring the lessons or facts of the Iraq war is completely fair (agree with it or not). FF's 2006 criticism of CK that he was, in your words, "declaring the war an unqualified success" is unfair.

"I don't see how any critical reader could think otherwise."

Heaven help us if the definition of "critical reader" is someone for whom "it is reasonable to assume" that someone is *"declaring"* something that they are choosing not to declare! It might be reasonable to assume, on some occasions (if not this one), that someone is *inferring* something left undeclared....

[Ken]

Does, "We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost, " sound like he has any doubts the war was not a success? Is he qualifying it with words like, "any others,"?

And if that statement isn't a pretty clear declaration, I don't what is.

[clarice]

JMH.very well put.I agree.

[danking70]

Heaven help us if the definition of "critical reader" is someone for whom "it is reasonable to assume" that someone is *"declaring"* something that they are choosing not to declare! It might be reasonable to assume, on some occasions (if not this one), that someone is *inferring* something left undeclared....

Very nice...

Reminds me a little of the "16 Words" inferrals; British Intelligence = CIA, sought = got, Africa = Niger.

[Joe unqualified commenting success Mealyus]

Ken: "Does, 'We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost,' sound like he has any doubts the war was not a success?"

Well, er, no, we can't tell from this what his overall view of the war is. Right?

CK's point here is not that the war was an unqualified success, but to give an example of the fruits of pre-emption - fruits that a "realist" deterrence strategy wouldn't have yielded.

There's a similar quote in the section refuting "liberal internationalism" (note the Iran bit):

"Moral suasion? Was it moral suasion that made Qaddafi see the wisdom of giving up his weapons of mass destruction? Or Iran agree for the first time to spot nuclear inspections? It was the suasion of the bayonet. It was the ignominious fall of Saddam--and the desire of interested spectators not to be next on the list."

I will give you this: when CK says that "we are safer not only because Saddam is gone," I think a good critical reader will assume that CK in February 2004 was declaring that (1) the elimination of Saddam had increased our safety and (2) we were, overall, more safe. I don't want to speculate on whether you are going to make another comment to say that CK therefore was declaring or revealing a belief that the war was an unqualified success.

[kim]

Besides, the war is nearly an unqualified success. Ask nearly any Iraqi.
==============================

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Metin2 yang .