Fukuyama reflects on Iraq war shift and the quest to understand state formation
In a recent interview, Francis Fukuyama explains why he moved from supporting the Iraq invasion to condemning it and how that experience shaped his research on how modern states emerge.
He explains that his initial backing stemmed from a belief in using force to remove dictators and a fear of Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons program, but that the lack of a clear post-conflict reconstruction plan and the lessons of past interventions made him increasingly skeptical.
After witnessing the war’s escalation, he wrote one outlet's op-ed urging a UN Security Council resolution and later one outlet's piece denouncing the invasion, which strained relationships with former allies such as Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. The discussion then turns to his two-volume study of political order, arguing that state formation historically hinges on military competition, merit-based bureaucracy, and the separation of religious and temporal power, with examples from Europe, China, and the United States.
He critiques alternative accounts that emphasize geography or elite extraction alone, emphasizing the interplay of ideas, contingency, and institutional learning. The interview is presented as part of a liberal-virtues series supported by the John Templeton Foundation.
Why it matters
Understanding Fukuyama’s shift on Iraq and his state-building theory helps frame current debates on foreign intervention and institutional development.
In this story
