Standing Athwart History

Conservative uber-ideologue William Buckley described his then-nascent political idea with these iconic 1955 words: Conservatism is about standing athwart history, yelling stop.

Neo-conservatism is more ambitious -- not satisfied with building dams on history's torrent, it seeks to power changes in history's flow.

In Iraq, these sibling ideas, clashed loudly. Neoconservative America smashed through the conservative dam (of geopolitical realism) that, for decades, held back Arabian rage under dictator thumbs.

After Samarra, it's (alas) increasingly difficult to believe that American power will successfully hold back, or alter, the flow of Arabian rage. Conservative icon Mr. Buckley asserts the obvious in It Didn't Work. Neoconservative pioneer Francis Fukuyama has thrown in his towel and looks at the world After Neoconservatism.

We remain absolutely convinced about neoconservatism's valid purpose in Iraq. We fault a poorly waged war for America's crisis in that country. Either way, the Iraq project is in trouble.

This takes us to the tricky Indo-US negotiation over nuclear collaboration. Mr. Bush has wagered pretty much all his political capital on Iraq. With Iraq in flames, and barely a year or so before he is completely lame duck, he needs to create a positive legacy for his presidency.

Because, as Fareed Zakaria notes, India could be for Mr. Bush what China was for Mr. Nixon, the Indo-US deal is his spectacular sleeper shot at a legacy. It's hard to believe, therefore, that the deal will go down.

The problem is that Mr. Bush's Iraq failure has caused his own party to begin separating from him. India can't really count on him to deliver the deal through Congress.

Indians understand these conflicting dynamics. Because Mr. Bush needs India, we should drive the hardest bargain possible -- as we are. Because US Congress remains still to be wooed, we should keep their sensitivities in mind as we shape the agreement. (What China did or did not do is irrelevant here -- we couldn't care less about aping China, as some would have us do. India has to chart its own course, consistent with history as we find it.)

One last point. Indian opponents of the deal have been busy talking about "national interest". By implication, they've suggested that pro-deal Indians are close to sacrificing India's best interest. This is an unacceptable canard. Policy disagreement is one thing -- questioning our fidelity to national interest is way beyond bounds. National interest is not the preserve of protectionist anti-Americans alone. They better watch their rhetoric.

Instead, standing athwart history, India should yell out her welcome next week to President Bush and the Indo-American deal.