Det er tid for å gjøre opp status for Irak-«eventyret». Mange faller ned på etterpåklokskapens trygge grunn. Det er lett med fasit i hånd. Vanskeligere er en ransakelse, som skjeler mindre til egen fortrefflighet.

Bush har fått sitt pass påskrevet for både opptakten til krigen, manglende forberedelser og grove feil i tiden etter at regimet falt. Bush har fått stryk-karakter, men likevel har det ikke materialisert seg en stor krigsmotstand, hverken i USA eller Europa. Det som ifjor høst så ut til å kunne bli det, har ikke slått til.

Det bemerkelsesverdige ved treårsdagen var mangelen på oppslutning om protestmarkeringene, noe norske medier omhyggelig unnlot å nevne. Demonstrasjonene var bare skygger av den store nei-til-krig-motstanden 15. februar 2003. Hva kan det komme av? En av forklaringene er utvilsomt karakteren til motstanden i Irak. «The insurgents» fremstår ikke akkurat som modeller på frihetskjempere. For ikke å snakke om jihadistene. Og hvem kan si hvor grensen går?

Historikeren Francis Fukuyama er ute med en ny bok, «America at the Crossroads», der han prøver å analysere hvor neocons tok feil. Spiegel online har intervjuet ham. Hva gjør man når islamistene vinner valg?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The results of recent democratic or quasi-democratic elections in the region have not been promising. We now have Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, expanded influence for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and pro-Iran Shiites more or less calling the shots in Iraq. How can anyone argue that democracy is good for security in the region?

Fukuyama: That’s a complicated issue. I agree with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she says it is not possible to hold back the forces of social change by supporting authoritarian regimes. Right now, unfortunately, a lot of the leading voices of social change in the region are Islamist groups. In the long run, their voices are going to be heard no matter what you do. The task is trying to get them to enter a democratic form of political discourse. There is a real danger with Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, for example. But on the other hand, you can’t build a lasting peace based on a highly corrupt Fatah group either.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In other words, the radicalization we are seeing is the first step in a debate?

Fukuyama: It’s the first step in a very, very long process. But I do not agree with the Bush administration that this is a necessary phase to win the war on terrorism. If that’s the case, we’re still going to be fighting this thing 30 odd years down the road. But it is part of a broader pattern of political change that is going to take place in the Middle East and I don’t think you can stop it in the end.

Fukuyama påpeker at Bush-folkene nærmest demonstrativt ga blaffen i hva resten av verden tenkte om USA. Han sier det vil ta en generasjon å gjenreise tilliten og respekten. Men så kommer de inn på antiamerikanismen i Europa, og Europas manglende ansvar for verdens stabilitet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Much of the international criticism against the US has been justified. But has Europe been too content to sit back and criticize the US while doing little to deal with the hotspots around the world?

Fukuyama: There has been a kind of self-indulgent anti-Americanism on the part of a lot of Europeans. More than most other Americans, I appreciate many of the criticisms that Europeans have made and I think some of them — especially those of the Bush Administration — are quite justified. But there is also this revelry in what I think is irrational anti-Americanism — this idea that America is the source of all the injustice in the world. Americans are responsible for a lot of good outcomes; just look at the Balkans in the 1990s. Europeans should be careful. It feels good to indulge in a lot of this casual anti-Americanism but it’s not healthy and it’s not just. In the long run it’s going to lead to Americans saying, «to hell with Europe.»

«A Model Democracy Is not Emerging in Iraq»