When Arnaud-Amaury was asked whom to kill he replied “Kill them all. God will know his own.”

(Google for “albigensian crusade’)

Which does not change Lewis’ point – it’s just that we might as well give credit to old quotes where they are due.

Um. Did you forget China? South Korea? Taiwan? The latter two are now democracies, but they weren’t until the past 15 years. If East Asia can do it, why not the Middle East?

If that’s the case, are you saying that this administration is simply Conservative?

This administration has grown the Federal goverment by a number of Departments, has stood against States Rights on numerous occasions, has passed legislation that compromises privacy and personal freedom and can’t balance the budget. What interpertation of Conservative are you using?

I’m not even going to argue if the administrations choices are wise or unwise, only that they do not hold with traditional conservativism. Do you have some different term you would apply?

You have obviously missed my posts. The neo-Con movement ended when the Wall came down. Neo-Cons are product of the rejection of liberalism by ex-new dealers in 1960′s. Why do you think they were called neo-Cons. By 1990 there was no neo in conservatism. Please stop using the term.

However, I would like to address what I consider a more key issue, that of the neo-con movement. Eight years ago, the neo-con movement appeared fresh and GWB’s election and subsequent choices of cabinent members seem to have given the neo-con’s a huge boost. The invasion of Iraq seems to sit well with neo-con political views (be it from WMD’s or regieme change or whatever). This war, it could be argued was based on Neo-Con theories (nothing wrong with that)

However, (and I think this may be more key than many people want to realize) the war was sold as an easy, short and cheap venture. We were told months, few lives lost, shock and awe/hearts and minds and democracy. So far, the facts on the ground seem to indicate that the presumed outcome and the real outcome were substantially different. This, to many people may translate as failed neo-con theory. If polls are to be believed, support for the Preisdent is not good and support for the republican party overall seem faltering. Yet, for the most part, the Republican party seems to be holding a neo-con heading (with an occasional diversion into christian fundamentalism). Failure of the Repubican party at the polls this fall, could indicate a failure of the Neo-Con agenda to maintain its support amongst the general public. If the republican party loses in ’06 and in ’08 due (at least in appearance) to Neo-Con theories, how likely will the party be to support another Neo-Con agenda? If the Republicans decide not to support neo-con ideas in their party and democrats surely won’t in theirs, where does that leave the neo-con movement?

No one may get the axe for the errors and failures during the war, but I think its a possibility that the neo-con movment (for better or worse), may risk getting beheaded.

it wasn’t seen as worth the American blood (and treasure to a lesser extent) to reform Iraq–unless the Iraqis first showed strong inclinations to do most of the heavy [lifting] themselves.

Among the failures of the international MSM is their failure to make it known how much of the “heavy lifting” the Iraqis are doing for themselves.

Every US casualty makes headline news. The level at which the Iraqis are dying is treated with silence. The “Iraqification” of the conflict must be dressed up as failure. It cannot be described for what it is – a tough, hard, slog that will take time and have some setbacks. It must be presented, always, as a failure.

To the MSM success is not an option. Like David Irving they cannot accept that they were wrong, and work to get it right, they must work to ignore contrary evidence and if any manages to get through their filters, they must present it as a case where they were “wronged” rather than where they were wrong.

BTW, at least a part of this is because they cannot allow an investigation into where and how they went wrong. There was too much “access” being paid for. The public has a low enough opinion of them but that is about as low as it can get – nearly bottomed out. If the full scope of how the MSM all were doing the Eason Jordan in Iraq and elsewhere ever becomes public knowledge they are hosed – they’ll be no more bottom to the public’s opinion of them.

But I supported the Iraq war and still do.

As for Fukuyama’s thesis in his book “The End of History and the Last Man,” I think Fukuyama was partially correct. Democracy is on the march across the globe (just compare the number of democracies in the world in 1900 and how many existed in 2000).

Where Fukuyama’s thesis might have been incorrect is when he underestimated the threat of Radical Islam, believing it to be less of a problem than Marxism because it would only appeal to Muslims while Marxism could appeal to people of all ethnic groups.

But people can convert to Islam either voluntarily or by force.

So, while I would recommend that people interested in foreign policy read Fukuyama’s famous 1992 book, I would not recommend that we adopt Fukuyama’s conclusions reached in his latest column.

We can’t change human nature. But we can give the good parts of human nature a push now and then.

Most American conservatives have always wanted to conserve the classical liberalism of the American founders–albeit a liberalism with an American twist. What has changed is the cost/benefit analysis. Pre 9-11, it wasn’t seen as worth the American blood (and treasure to a lesser extent) to reform Iraq–unless the Iraqis first showed strong inclinations to do most of the heavy listing themselves. The Iraqis were edging that direction (especially the Kurds), when 9-11 suddenly changed the analysis.

All that, and the events in eastern Europe and western former Soviet Union since 1989 make some things possible that were not before.

Thanks for the quote but you didn’t really understand the point of the post. This is not to say you are right or wrong in your opinions but only that you seem wedded to this notion of a Neo-conservative movement. The Neo-Conservative movement is something that existed at a particular time for a particular reason, i.e., a combination of the breakdown in the faith engendered New Deal/New Frontier/Great Society liberalism and the rehabilitation of Communism in the Post-McCarthy period and its takeover of the intellectual base of the Democratic Party. After the Reagan Revolution and the fall of Soviet Communism the Neo-Conservative movement was over. People use the term Neo-Conservative as a pejorative term to describe non-socialist Jews and supporters of a Wilsonian foreign Policy. There is no such thing as a modern neo-Conservative movement. For example, William Kristol, Irving’s son is not a neo-Conservative. He is just a normal Conservative. Doug Feith has always been part of the conservative movement without the neo label. Buchanan and his Paleos don’t want to call them dirty Jews so they call them Neo-Cons. Socialists call them Neo-Cons for their Wilsonian internationalism … and because they don’t want to call them dirty Jews. The Conservative movement is not a monolith. Perhaps we should rename Conservatives as Madisonians or Hamiltonians. The reason that many liberals feel a need to fragment the Conservative movement is that they really canít relate to a political movement that allows diversity of thought and lively argumentation. Liberalism as we know it today is merely another form of Statist totalitarianism.

As far as Iraq goes, I don’t about WMD in the Bekka but I can tell you that the insurgency is in the process of winding down since the election. This judgment is based on both public facts and classified information. My guess is that AQI is winding down their operations in Iraq and setting up in the Palestinian territories. The Sunni insurgents are just going through motions right now. I think they have figured out if they keep fighting, they will all end up dead.