Some detail on Francis Fukuyama's position on Iraq

Why shouldn't I change my mind? - Los Angeles Times

See the above article where Fukuyama responds to some of the criticism of him for having allegedly jumped ship on Iraq. But as Philip Adams now cites Fukuyama with approval (see today's over-the-top column in the Australian), it is well worth reading Fukuyama's recent article to see that his position is not as anti-Bush as Adams might like to portray:

In my view, no one should be required to apologize for having supported intervention in Iraq before the war. There were important competing moral goods on both sides of the argument, something that many on the left still refuse to recognize. The U.N. in 1999 declared that all nations have a positive "duty to protect, promote and implement" human rights, arguing in effect that the world's powerful countries are complicit in human rights abuses if they don't use their power to correct injustices. The debate over the war shouldn't have been whether it was morally right to topple Hussein (which it clearly was), but whether it was prudent to do so given the possible costs and potential consequences of intervention and whether it was legitimate for the U.S. to invade in the unilateral way that it did.

It was perfectly honorable to agonize over the wisdom of the war, and in many ways admirable that people on the left, such as Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Michael Ignatieff and Jacob Weisberg, supported intervention. That position was much easier to defend in early 2003, however, before we found absolutely no stocks of chemical or biological weapons and no evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program. (I know that many on the left believe that the prewar estimates about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were all a deliberate fraud by the Bush administration, but if so, it was one in which the U.N. weapons inspectors and French intelligence were also complicit.) It was also easier to support the war before we knew the full dimensions of the vicious insurgency that would emerge and the ease with which the insurgents could disrupt the building of a democratic state.

Overall, the article is not badly argued.

I agree strongly that it was always clear that the decision to invade was a difficult one that had to be made by balancing quite a few pros and cons. (Of course, many of the possible "cons" cited by the antiwar movement, such as fierce resistance by the Iraqi army, never materialised.) Given the nature of the decision, one had to respect those who felt that, on balance, it was better not to invade.

However, the anti-war movement does not give the same respect to those on the other side, and by and large still refuses to grant that there was any legitimate moral or practical motive for the decision. (This despite increasing documentary and other evidence that Saddam was co-operative with Islamic terrorism, the sanctions regime was not working except for his benefit, and of course the many, many citizens killed by Saddam's regime.) This is where those like Hitchens loses patience with the anti-war movement, and deservedly so.

If the invasion has taken longer than expected to result in anything like good government, this should not be grounds for gloating by the Left. That the problems of how democracy can be made to work is attracting new attention is understandable, but it was never going to be easy. Criticism of how the post invasion was handled is legitimate, but some caution needs to be exercised even there least it it fuels the very problems the critics raise.

I remain, like Tim Blair (see his Continuing Crisis column from a couple of weeks ago) a cautious optimist on the long term outcome in Iraq. But there is no doubt that the current stalemate there tests that optimism much more than I would like.