Book World Live

Francis Fukuyama
Author, "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy"
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:00 PM

Francis Fukuyama , author of "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy," was online Tuesday, March 28, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his book and his criticism of the war on Iraq, which countered traditional neoconservative thinking.

Read the Book World review: The War Among the Conservatives , ( Post, March 26, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

Charles Krauthammer 's op-ed: Fukuyama's Fantasy , ( Post, March 28, 2006 )

Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.

____________________

Boston, Mass.: Krauthammer has hit back, essentially calling you a liar about his speech at the AEI. Have you read his Op-ed today and what is your response?

Francis Fukuyama: I never said his speech was about Iraq; it was about US foreign policy and it treated the US exercise of power in Iraq and elsewhere as a success, without mentioning issues like how the failure to find WMD had undermined our credibility, how the transition to democracy was being held up by an unexpected insurgency, and how globally the world had not chosen to legitimate our actions but to oppose them. Krauthammer also keeps insisting that I changed my mind only after the fact. I shifted on the war in the summer of 2002 in the course of a Pentagon study I had been asked to lead. You might want to check out pieces I wrote for the Washington Post on Sept. 11, 2002, and the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 24, 2002.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: Seeing as how many in the Bush administration were signatories (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby) what role did the Project for a New American Century have in the decision to go to war in Iraq? Is the PNAC an important tract of neo-conservatism?

Also, although social engineering is not highly touted among Neo-Cons, now that the U.S. is in Iraq for the immediate future (and possibly beyond), do you think that there's a cure for the chronic corruption, cronyism and tribalism that's hampering effective governance of Iraq by Iraqis?

Francis Fukuyama: I think the PNAC's influence is vastly exaggerated. The principal advocates of the Iraq war were Cheney and Rumsfeld, and not a group of outside intellectuals.

Good governance is very difficult to promote (my last book State-Building was about this) and the US will face declining leverage over the new Iraqi government as it becomes clear we are looking to an exit.

_______________________

American University: Mr. Fukuyama, I'm curious to know your response to Krauthammer's assertion that your book is proof of a lack of a plausible alternative to the policies he and the neocons advocate. What is the best way, in your opinion, "for attacking the root causes of Sept. 11?"

Francis Fukuyama: There are two separate problems, how to deal with Iraq's WMD programs, and how to deal with global jihadism. The former I think could have been contained through a concerted effort to revive the sanctions/inspections regime, as indeed happened with Security Council Resolution 1441. The latter I think is an essentially political problem of separating the hard core jihadists from the broader Muslim populations they operate in, discrediting the extremist ideas, and physically neutralizing terrorists.

_______________________

Hoboken, N.J.: You have emphasized that the reasons for the Islamist jihad against the United States is a reaction to modernity and globalization, not the absence of democracy. Yet if one reads bin Laden's writings, he emphasizes the occupation of holy lands by infidels as the source of his grievances. Wouldn't the American public be better served if it knew that the reasons for the threat of terrorism were not modernity, globalization, or absence of democracy, but perceived foreign-policy grievances?

Francis Fukuyama: I think we ought to take seriously Arab complaints about US foreign policy (though not necessarily bin Laden's, since he's got a much larger ideological agenda). Over the past five years this probably would have involved greater attention to the Palestinian question, though I'm under no illusions that we could have done much to resolve that conflict.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: I have heard that you are a follower of the Ayn Rand philosophy. Is this one of the basis for neo-conservatism? Is it well known that neo-conservatism is based on her philosophy? Do the far right Christians know that she was an atheist? These people who sneer at Secular Humanism?

Francis Fukuyama: Ayn Rand's ideas appeal to mostly male adolescents and is not a serious approach that can be dignified by the word "philosophy." They played no role in my thinking or those of other neoconservatives.

_______________________

London, U.K.: I am admirer of your work. I think that intellectual or political progress comes only when you have the courage to spell out bold new ideas and policies and accept the risks and criticisms that inevitably come with it.

But I wonder if you had no doubts before about the underestimation of diplomacy and legitimacy and the overestimation of military power and coercion by neo-conservatives (Charles Krauthammer was perhaps the most obvious example, but not the only one)?

I also have my doubts regarding your policy recipe for the future: a community of democracies in alternative to the U.N. and other international organizations. After all NATO is an organization of democracies and Bush has had problems working within it too. Besides would you not agree that most emerging democracies, like India or Brazil or South Africa, want to have more power in the U.N. but do not support any move to undermine that organization, quite the opposite? And in more conceptual terms what is you response to the argument made by John Rawls in The Law of Peoples that you should be able to deal even with non-democratic States as long as they do not commit egregious violations of basic human rights and other international norms?

Francis Fukuyama: My doubts crystallized in the year leading up to the war, in the course of a Pentagon study on strategy toward the war on terrorism I was asked to participate in.

I don't regard an organization of democracies as a solution to any but a small range of problems. I think we need a multi-multilateral world, but even then power wielded by nation-states will be critical. So there is not one single approach to future problems of world order.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Fukuyama, it's a pleasure.

I've been following your debate with the neocons recently, and the more I read your writings the more I don't understand how you ever considered yourself among them. You seem to me to reject some of the basic tenets of neoconservatism, such as ambitious social engineering projects abroad and forceful regime change in the name of American security. Even more, I feel that you're more in kind with Wilsonian liberals. You say that neoconservatism has changed into something you can no longer associate with. But could it be that it is you that has changed? Possibly due to the failures of Iraq?

Francis Fukuyama: As I try to point out in my book, caution about social engineering was a neoconservative principle which other neoconservatives seem to have forgotten. The one area that I've rethought concerns international institutions. I believe that the conservative critique of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the UN is right, but that we need a world populated by a multiplicity of others kinds of organizations. Iraq has changed my view on this.

_______________________

Denver, Colo.: Mr. Fukuyama,

How do you respond to Mr. Krauthammer's characterization of your description of his speech?

Francis Fukuyama: Krauthammer's speech was an extension of his earlier writings on the need for the US to benevolently manage a unipolar (what others would call hegemonic) world. A successful democratic transition in Iraq and the uncovering of WMD there were critical to the legitimacy of our performing this larger role, and there is no reference to the fact that the missing WMD or chaotic post-war situation had gravely undermined our credibility. That is why I thought it was completely disconnected from the reality that I was seeing at the time.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: I find it interesting that people claim that "conservatives" are expected to support the war in Iraq. Going to war is neither a liberal nor conservative issue but one based on whether there is a proper need to go to war. As I recall, before we went to war, there were strong reservations expressed about going to war from Patrick Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, and other conservatives. More recently, the war has been questioned by William F. Buckley, Jr. and even more conservatives. My question: why do "neocons" seem to think they get to define conservative thought, and why is their defense of the war (as Anne Coulter does) is to challenge the patriotism of those who oppose their way when many of the most patriotic Americans opposed the war from the very beginning?

Francis Fukuyama: Your answer is as good as mine. I know many long-time conservatives who opposed the war and there is no reason to question their patriotism whatsoever.

_______________________

Va.: Hello. Bruce Bartlett was told to leave his job at NCPA when he wrote hi book, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Do you still have a job at RAND/Hudson?

Francis Fukuyama: I'm a professor with tenure at Johns Hopkins, so I'm blessedly free from this kind of pressure. But I don't think that Rand would have made an issue of what I've written.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Hello Professor Fukuyama,

Nearly 3000 people were murdered and billions of dollars in damage were incurred on 9/11.

In direct response to these horrific attacks, George W. Bush and his supporters -inadvertently- fathered in Iraq a burgeoning extremist Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran, a so-called axis of evil.

Now what?

Francis Fukuyama: Having gotten into the war, we need to stabilize the new government and encourage it in a liberal direction. That is an argument for not withdrawing our troops too early, since they will be our primary source of influence over the Iraqi government.

_______________________

Larchmont, N.Y.: I've read "America at the Crossroads," in which you essentially say that the war in Iraq has been a disaster in implementation. Due to missteps and a peculiar combination of neo-conservative doctrines, the U.S. is now bogged down in a long-term guerilla war.

It would seem that the war in Iraq is mainly a disaster in fundamental concept, that it is possible to export democracy to other countries whose political culture has no experience with it. As a political science professor, could you comment on research such as Almond and Verba's "The Civic Culture," and Putnam's "Making Democracy Work." It seems that the architects of the Iraq war totally ignored the basic findings that Democracy requires democrats.

I have an M.A. in political science.

Francis Fukuyama: I actually don't argue that the problem was only one of implementation, though poor implementation was certainly a problem. The problem was rather the concept itself. There are no cultural absolutes, but certainly there should have been warning signs about the project's difficult.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Professor Fukuyama,

Thank you for writing what is sure to be a very important book at a critical moment in our nation's history. In your new journal The American Interest, you engage in a lively discussion with the French pop-intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy over his perceptions on America. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on the current state of the Fifth Republic, particularly the expiring social contract and youth unemployment, immigration and foreign policy.

Francis Fukuyama: Much of France seems totally out of touch with reality--they believe that forbidding employers to fire workers will increase the amount of work available. Without reform of their whole system of social protection, they will not be able to enjoy the kind of standard of living they have today.

_______________________

Buenos Aires, Argentina: If, as you wrote, jihadism is "a by-product of modernization and globalization", how do we combat jihadists? How will Western culture stop such ideology?

Francis Fukuyama: It's not Western culture that will stop jihadism, but a battle of ideas that will separate extremist ideologies from other interpretations of Islam that are compatible with the modern world. We can contribute to that, but much of the contest will be among Muslims.

_______________________

Oslo, Norway: In your excellent book you offer realistic Wilsonianism as an alternative to both neoconservatism and realism. But how will this new approach differ from liberal internationalism as both seems to have multilateral institutions as their core element?

Francis Fukuyama: I also suggest we need a bit of Bismarck as well--the knowledge of how to use power, but disguised and indirect so that we do not stimulate unnecessary opposition to its exercise.

_______________________

Manchester, U.K.: In a recent Slate article, in response to America at the Crossroads, Christopher Hitchens stated that you essay "betrays a secret academic wish to be living in "normal" times once more, times that will "restore the authority of foreign policy 'realists' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger." Fat chance! Kissinger is moribund, and the memory of his failed dictator's club is too fresh to be dignified with the term "tradition."

How do you respond to Hitchens' rather stinging statement?

Francis Fukuyama: I've never said we're living in normal times; radical Islamism is a huge challenge. But you need to meet that challenge intelligently, and strike the real targets rather than subsidiary ones in ways that make your situation worse. Hitchens seems to regard democracy-promotion largely as a test of national manhood.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Thank you for joining us, Professor Fukuyama. My question is about your approach to history. Hasn't Hegelian thinking brought enough absurd ideologies into this world to be cast into the dustbin?

Francis Fukuyama: To the contrary, Hegelian thinking is so deeply embedded in the way that we look at the world that we don't even notice it. When someone says "you need to get on the right side of history" with regard to an issue like women's rights or environment, that's essentially a Hegelian perspective.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Prof. Fukuyama,

I'm surprised more conservatives haven't openly opposed the war all along. I'm moderate to conservative on most issues, and strongly supported our role in the first Gulf War. But when talk began after 9/11 of invading Iraq, I didn't believe it, assuming it must be a bluff to get Saddam to disarm.

Remember not so long ago when it was Republicans criticizing Democrats for being stupid enough to get us bogged down in "land wars in Asia"? And even more recently for believing in "nation building" adventures?

Francis Fukuyama: George Bush himself in 2000 campaigned against nation-building. But times change. I'm not opposed to nation-building, but think that we need to be very careful when and when we take on expensive commitments like that.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Mr. Fukuyama,

I assume that you did look, sincerely and objectively, into Islamic History from all point of views (specifically the Islamic point of view).

What is your reading of the polls that say Islam is the fastest growing religion in the word despite all the negative presentation in the Western Media?

Francis Fukuyama: I'm not sure that Islam is the fastest growing in terms of new converts; it is more a matter of culturally Muslim people taking up a conservative form of the religion. Evangelical Christianity is also extremely fast-growing and probably rivals Islam in that respect.

_______________________

Malento, Italy: Mr. Fukuyama,

I'm an Italian reader. What do you think about the spreading of democracy in the Middle East now? Is the recognition suitable among the Islamic people? Thanks very much.

Francis Fukuyama: I think that democracy can spread in the Middle East, but it will be a drawn-out process because there are many Islamist groups that are profoundly illiberal and who make transition to liberal democracy more difficult. But I don't believe in permanent cultural barriers to political practices--the Christian West itself evolved substantially since the end of the Middle Ages.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr. Fukuyama I'm curious as to what you think the prospects are of "illiberal" democracies of an Islamist bent coming to power in various areas of the Muslim world and do you think in the long term this would not be a terrible thing as it would finally show the masses who tend to support them the bankruptcy of such regimes, a la Iran?

Francis Fukuyama: The problem is that illiberal Islamist regimes can do a lot of damage before they're discredited, as in Iran. I don't however think that violent suppression through corrupt authoritarian regimes is much of an answer, either. What you want is for these groups to come to accept the democratic process through the actual exercise of power, as in the case of the AK party in Turkey. But the transition could be very unpleasant.

_______________________

Glen Ridge, N.J.: Do you think the U.S. government should create a new department that specifically handles non-military foreign assistance e.g. humanitarian assistance, police training, rebuilding infrastructure, building political institutions? It seems like the Department of Defense is the only organization with the ability to deploy large numbers of people and equipment overseas, yet such missions are outside of its core competency of war fighting.

Francis Fukuyama: The administration has already created such an office in the State Department, S/CRS, for reconstruction and stability operations. The problem is that it hasn't been well funded, and the lines of authority within the USG are still up for grabs. This is an evolving story and I hope that the White House doesn't lose interest in fixing the bureaucratic problem.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: Professor Fukuyama,

Everyone always gravitates towards the "End of History" part of your famous essay, but I was wondering if you would comment on the "Last Man" part. It seems to me that people who deride your claim about an "End of History" never bothered to actually read what you meant by the end of history. Mr. Krauthammer's article about your new book reads a little "last manish" to me. Do you feel that the neocons that you have separated yourself from represent more of the worst parts of modernity that you are consistently critical of than you had originally suspected?

Francis Fukuyama: Charles Krauthammer is way to feisty to be a last man. I still have respect for many neocons: they take ideals and principles seriously, even if I think that they have misapplied many of them in practice.

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Tony Blair recently raised the prospect of the United States retreating from world affairs, "pulling up its drawbridge and living behind its moat" or words to that effect.

Frankly I think we've stuck our chin out too much, but sense the empire mentality will never fade in Washington, D.C.

Do you think there's any real chance the U.S. will retreat into a more circumspect role?

Francis Fukuyama: I think it is entirely possible that there will be a backlash against the kind of foreign policy activism we have recently seen, a the growth of perhaps not isolationism but of a more inward-looking nationalism. This is a danger for the Republican right, but also for protectionist Democrats who did not acquit themselves well on the Dubai Ports World deal.

_______________________

Lincoln, Neb.: Mr. Fukuyama, thank you for your excellent book. My question is, do you feel that we would be in a better position vis-a-vis Iraq if John Kerry had been elected president?

Francis Fukuyama: I ended up voting for Kerry but in a way I'm glad that Bush won because he now has to fix the problem that he created. I didn't really have much confidence that Kerry would be able to do much better, but he certainly would have been blamed for the inevitable deterioration in Iraq.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Professor Fukuyama,

You argue that the Islamist threat is a result of globalization and modernity. However, your colleague Mary Habeck has argued that the enemy draws upon a long history of Islamist thought going back centuries? Does her argument at all clash with yours? If so, how do you reconcile the two arguments? If not, how are they complimentary?

Francis Fukuyama: I don't think it's hard to reconcile these arguments. The ideas come from a continuous reinterpretation of religious doctrine, and so that is one cause. But you then have to ask why it is that these ideas appeal to people, to the point that they're willing to fly airplanes into buildings. And for that, I think you have to look to more sociological explanations concerning the need for identity and alienation from European societies that don't provide an adequate sense of belonging.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Will certain foreign policy principles of the post-9/11 world made explicit by the "Bush Doctrine" carry over into the next presidential administration--irrespective of political party? If so, what will remain, what will be changed, and what will be added?

Francis Fukuyama: I think that the Bush administration has itself been walking away from its first term legacy, acting multilaterally on North Korea and Iran and seeking to repair relations with key allies. I may be wrong, but I think the threshold for military action now will be much harder because so much of the world and the American public is mobilized against it.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Given your skepticism about the possibilities for global social engineering through force, I'm interested in how this influences your thinking on humanitarian intervention. What's your take on how to deal with genocide in places like Darfur?

Francis Fukuyama: I think that the international community should intervene through the Security Council. But it is revealing of the UN's weaknesses that action there has been effectively blocked, both by Arab countries and by the Chinese.

_______________________

Former Fukuyama Student, Alexandria, Va.: Dr. Fukuyama- former student-one class, but big influence.

What do you see as the relationship between your book "Trust" and your new book? How do you envision us thinking about both books?

Francis Fukuyama: Thanks for logging on. There's actually not too much connection--international relations differs from domestic politics because the level of trust and shared norms is so much lower between societies. We have been trying to get to a world in which norms and law can regulate interstate relations, but we are very far from that right now.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: " inevitable deterioration .."

I don't know of many events short of death and taxes that are inevitable. Perhaps a properly constructed aid program would have saved the day. I saw better work when we were in Vietnam. Why did we do so badly in Iraq?

Francis Fukuyama: the reason has to do with the excessively rosy predictions the administration made concerning the post-war situation. As I explain in my book, this may have been the result of the way the Cold War ended, with unanticipated bloodless victory rather than a protracted struggle. Also management of the postwar reconstruction by the Pentagon was a huge mistake, because it didn't have the administrative capacity to do this.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr. Fukuyama, following up on one of your earlier questions you said you thought Saddam could have been contained by a renewed sanctions/inspections regime but give what we now know of French and Russian chicanery in this regard do you really think this would have been a viable option? I think rather the likeliest outcome had Hans Blix been allowed to continue would have been a further much greater erosion of the sanctions regime resulting in eventual collapse and an Iraq then unburdened and free to resume its weapons programs.

Francis Fukuyama: People assume that the sanctions regime would inevitably have eroded. But as people say, "everything changed after September 11," including our ability to make new arguments for renewal of sanctions. And we did manage to get inspectors back in. From the Iraq Survey Group, we now know that the UN inspectors had a reasonably good fix on what what happening--the mistakes they made were actually on the upside of estimates.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Professor Fukuyama, I graduated from SAIS a couple of years ago and was fortunate enough to hear you speak a few times--although unfortunately never took one of your classes. My understanding is that you're now the head of the development program at SAIS. Do you find development to be the area most in need of resources and facilitation? What should policymakers be looking at? I believe a few of your colleagues (e.g., Cohen) have evolved to this line of thinking in recent years. Thanks!

Francis Fukuyama: You're tossing me a softball question. My new book has a chapter on development, and how development has gotten neglected by US foreign policy. The focus needs to be on institutions and institutional reform. Greater resources will also help, but without a clear plan for using them effectively they can well end up doing more damage than good. Bill Easterly is very good on this question.

_______________________

Republican Party: Thank you for taking our questions. I am confused about the direction that the republican party is taking on foreign policy now. I am a strong believer in a two party system that is healthy and vital to our democracy. What is the future of the republican party if neocon ideology is the party platform and, more importantly, if future republican presidents embrace that ideology, what is the future of our country?

Francis Fukuyama: I don't think that neoconservatism ever had deep roots in the Republican Party--it's more for intellectuals and policy wonks. I thus anticipate there will be a big fight within the party over foreign policy, whether it goes in a realist or idealist or nationalist direction.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Professor Fukuyama,

I'm curious to get your thoughts regarding the military withdrawal in Iraq. Recently, an article in Foreign Affairs claims that training the Iraqi security forces and giving them a bigger role in the fight only encourages sectarian views and will lead to more distrust of the central government by Sunnis. Do you agree? Are we recycling a failed strategy from Vietnam?

Francis Fukuyama: We don't have much choice but to train Iraqi military and police forces. The problem is that the police especially have been infiltrated by the different militias, which continue to exist outside the orbit of the central state. There is really no viable plan I see to disarm the militias, and our leverage will decrease as it becomes evident we are on the way out.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Looking at the situation beginning with the Arab Oil Embargo, the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the civil war in Lebanon, the Reagan Arms-for-hostages scandal, the Persian Gulf war, the conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now 9/11, toppling the Taliban and the invasion of Kuwait, I am convinced the U.S. will be militarily active in the Middle East for many decades ahead. We are radicalizing influence there, and we aren't leaving. So shouldn't we be moving forward, with an invasion of Iran? Isn't it time we destroyed that terrorist society too and replaced it with a peace-loving Muslim democracy? Why delay the inevitable?

Francis Fukuyama: I don't think that our experience in Iraq suggests we will be very good at managing coercive regime change in Iran, a country that is 3 times as large and which has a much more functional government and infrastructure than Iraq did.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Professor,

In your book "Our Post-Human Future" you discuss the potential threat of biotechnology as practiced by a peaceful society and capitalism. What do you think of future use of biotechnology as biological weapons by terrorists or rouge nation states? Will this rival nuclear weapons as an existential threat?

Francis Fukuyama: Biological weapons can be very dangerous as a terrorist weapon and we should spend a lot of effort to prevent their use, come up with responses, and work on antidotes. They don't really rival nuclear weapons though for sheer destructive effect.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Dr. Fukuyama, what role did the media play in misleading the American people in the run up to the war?

Francis Fukuyama: The media can always be manipulated by administrations, but the real question is whether that manipulation can be maintained over the long run in the fact of contradictory evidence. So far I don't see that the process isn't working.

_______________________

Va.: Any comments on the neo-liberalism?

Francis Fukuyama: I'm not sure what neo-liberalism is...

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Mr. Fukuyama, thank you for your contribution to intelligent discourse. Do you feel that the neocons will ever see the light as far as this disaster of a war is concerned?

Francis Fukuyama: I think that many neoconservatives in fact have second thoughts, but it is difficult for them to say so publicly.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Many Muslims believe that the problem worldwide with Jihadism is fundamentally a question of internal education first and then external education.

Do you think this is possible with no central hierarchical religious organizational model? Is there a role for external pressure/subsidization to help enable this education?

Francis Fukuyama: I think that jihadism has been fed by the failure of states like Egypt and Pakistan to provide decent public education and social services for their people. The Islamists have stepped into this vacuum, providing madrasas, social services, and the like. So reclaiming this territory from them is part of a long-term solution.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Dr. Fukuyama,

First, let me state I think this new book will prove to be very interesting. I am using some of your research in my book on presidential rhetoric.

My question for you is that some of Bush's critics, such as G. John Ikenberry and others, have argued that Bush has gone away from renewing and using the institutions of the liberal international order to help him make his foreign policy more successful. It seems that you even make the argument in this new book. I was wondering if you could talk about the specific international institutions, if any, the Bush administration should use to "demilitarize" its foreign policy? What kinds of programs should the administration be promoting to take the militant edge of their foreign policy?

Francis Fukuyama: I have several approaches to this in the book. One is a new contract with NATO, that would streamline NATO's decision-making machinery to make it more efficient, while agreeing to seek NATO support for a certain class of interventions. Another idea is a 5 power organization for Northeast Asia; or use of the Community of Democracies to provide democracy assistance.

_______________________

Norman, Okla.: Please explain what you mean by "America at the Crossroads" (the title of your book)

Francis Fukuyama: I think that we have important choices open to us now in foreign policy. We can stick with the Bush Doctrine, retreat to a Kissinger-style realism, or even further, to some new form of isolationism, or choose to recreate a centrist policy that would preserve neoconservatism's idealism but marry it to more realistic methods than coercive regime change.

_______________________

Palo Alto, Calif.: Dr. Fukuyama, thank you for your outstanding book. What do you think will constitute the "tipping point" in the Iraq war -- the point at which we have no choice but to withdraw?

Francis Fukuyama: It's hard to define that exactly--it'll be more one of those cases where you know it when you see it. Imminent state collapse and a large increase in intercommunal violence might be the final trigger for withdrawal.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Professor Fukuyama, In your opinion, what is the appropriate neoconservative strategy for the U.S. to pursue vis-a-vis Iran? Also, what do you think about the controversy that has been stirred up by Mearsheimer and Walt's article on the "Israel Lobby" in the London Review of Books? Do you think that their conclusions should have any bearing on the debate about U.S. policy regarding the Middle East? Thank you very much.

Francis Fukuyama: Several people have asked about the Mearsheimer-Walt piece. There is obviously an Israeli lobby in the US, but I think they overstate its impact, particularly on the policy toward the Iraq war. Cheney and Rumsfeld had plenty of reasons for wanting to intervene apart from a lobby's influence.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: This concludes our discussion with Francis Fukuyama. Thank you for joining in.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.