This section was curious:
"...the president, by the time of his second inaugral address, justif(ied) the war in exclusively neo-conservative terms: that is, as part of an idealistic policy of political transformation of the broader Middle East".Curious because the Guardian reader is left in no doubt that this was a Bad Thing, which would never have happened if only people had taken his advice - which rather begs the question of how his name came to be at the bottom of this statement from the PNAC.
There's been plenty of examples of people backtracking in various ways from what they claimed was a stance made on principle, but this is ridiculous.
I'm sure Fukuyama didn't choose the strapline because his article doesn't actually address the advertised question. I'm not big on political soothsaying, but if I were, I wouldn't in any event consult Mr. Fukuyama because, to be perfectly candid, he sucks at it.