Francis Fukuyama wrote that the neoconservatives:
…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. ..
but later he wrote: .. Neoconservatism…. has evolved into something I can no longer support.
(Fukuyama was originally the main proponent of neoconservatism and pushed Bush to get going in Iraq)
Fukuyama (having started off as an enthusiastic militarist) then announced the end of the “neoconservative moment” and argued for the demilitarization of the war on terrorism:
“[W]ar” is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle,” he wrote, “since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a “long, twilight struggle” whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.
Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran? Lebanon? Gaza? Iraq? etc etc
Fukuyama changed from the biggest advocate of war to the biggest advocate of not war. Reality is no doubt somewhere in the middle. Fukuyama just confuses everyone (including George Bush) by trying to make out that it’s all really very simple – to please the American mentality.
I think we need to move on from simplistic explanations of what is going on, and look at specific threats and situations and how to deal with them effectively. Obviously hearts and minds is part of the picture.
Fukuyama seems to suffer from the worst kind of American mentality that thinks there is always a simple and quick solution to every problem – no matter how complex. Who else could write a book called The End Of History?