Fukuyama says it clearly enough that even the wingnuts should be able to grasp it.
In today's NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/opinion/31fukuyama.html
He concludes with this thought:
"We do not know what outcome we will face in Iraq. We do know that four years after 9/11, our whole foreign policy seems destined to rise or fall on the outcome of a war only marginally related to the source of what befell us on that day. There was nothing inevitable about this. There is everything to be regretted about it."
More below
He argues against withdrawal:
" If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions - Asia, for example - for years to come."
I disagree. Staying in Iraq will NOT deter a civil war, and will only lead to more US deaths.
Fukuyama says,
"The United States can control the situation militarily as long as it chooses to remain there in force, but our willingness to maintain the personnel levels necessary to stay the course is limited. "
This, to me, seems absurd. We're not controlling Iraq militarily right now, with 140,000+ troops over there. We control patches of ground, and cede them back to insurgents when we leave.
I think, on the whole, this op-ed piece is a good sign. The foreign policy intelligentsia - and Fukuyama is a big player in that world - are now starting to step up to the plate and speak out, against Bush's fuck ups.
Soon enough they'll see that the myth of military control is just that - a myth.