Could be, there are a few different variations, maybe I need a scorecard.
I think it is true. I think our attitudes may lead to a lessening of support for democracy. If we try to force it on people they may get defensive.
However democracy and liberal democracy are very popular ideas globally. Of the 190ish governments on earth 122 are electoral democracies. Of those about 90 are liberal democracies (liberal democracies are democracies that mostly follow the universal declaration of human rights).
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/051220134942.8w8uaqyp.html
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Combine that with the fact that of the remaining 70 countries that aren’t democratic there are partial democracies or pushes towards democracy. Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain, to name a few, aren’t democracies (as they have monarches), but they do have elected parliaments. Myanmar held elections in 1990 but when the military didn’t win it nullified the elections. So democracy is already a globally popular form of government. Virtually all governments are either full democracies or partial democracies.
However, Islamic countries are less likely to be democratic.
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Jensen/20011218.html
“Freedom in the World 2001-2002” rates 192 countries – 145 dubbed non-Islamic, though some may have a Muslim minority, and 47 with a Muslim majority. Among the non-Islamic nations, 110, or 76 percent, are electoral democracies, but only 11 of the Islamic nations, 23 percent, fit that category
Of the Islamic nations, only one, Mali, is rated free, the same one as 20 years ago. Since 1981 the number of partly free Islamic nations dropped from 20 to 18 while the number of unfree Islamic nations rose from 18 to 28. By contrast, in the non-Islamic world during that time period, the number of free countries increased from 50 to 85, the number of partly free countries rose from 31 to 40 and those not free dropped from 42 to 20."
So you have to take into consideration that neoconservatism is based on ideas of freedom and democracy but there is a major gap between islamic majority countries and other countries. So the attitudes that helped the US win the cold war may not apply to the war on terror. Eastern Europe and the USSR satellite states are made up of liberal democracies now (mostly). However islamic majority countries are far less likely to be electoral democracies or have a wide range of freedoms. And consider that the terrorists are pushing to end various forms of freedom. Bin Ladin was very close to the governments of Sudan & Afghanistan, two of the most oppressive governments on earth.
So my point is that the attitudes that helped us win the cold war may not apply as much to the war on terror. However there are major movements for democratization all over the islamic world. But if being pro-democracy is also seen as being pro-US that will lead to blowback.
Lowering unemployment in the middle east would probably do a good deal to end islamic terrorism. I don’t know if the US does anything to promote that.
What could the U.S. do to promote that?
Maybe I missed the part where Fukuyama addresses his own role in the ideologuism that led up to what he now acknowledges to be a fiasco, and how he came to realize his own error.
As it is, he seems to have the mindset that all that’s needed to make the world is the *right * ideology to follow slavishly. That’s the mindset of an ideologue, and I would suggest to him that ideologuism is *itself * the problem. It doesn’t help that the “right ideology” he demands must by definition be a *new * one, not the generally quite successful, if inconsistently applied, one whose discarding he had demanded in the last administration.
He’s gone partway by admitting that his brand of rabid neocons had been wrong, but not to the point of admitting that the Clinton approach of in-depth engagement in issues, based on respect for humanity on all sides, had been right. No, he needs a new ideology. Go take your place on the ash-heap of history, Francis.
Maybe by helping the UAE’s port-management business? 
To start off, diversifying Middle Eastern economies so that the two primary types of jobs available are no longer oil workers and servants for the big oil sheikhs (both of which are occupied by a fair number of foriegn workers, anyway). They need to build up a services sector, invest oil money in better education and job-training opportunities, and encourage entrepeneurialism.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, letting women drive and go out by themselves would also encourage consumerism, since they would no longer be dependent on their husbands to escort them everywhere and approve every purchase. They could, at least theoretically, be somewhat self-sufficient.
It’s only unfortunate that McDonalds and other American-associated franchises are the first to be vandalized or destroyed whenever there is a major anti-Western protest, since these types of businesses are exactly what helps the owners to gain the funds and experience to further invest in their own country.
Supporting James II’s succession of the throne?
It’s called neoliberalism, just so you know. The school of foreign policy/IR that the Clinton administration usually followed is called neoliberalism. It’s an ideology too.
Call it what you like. I believe in what works. Or maybe that’s an ideology, too.
Everyone believes in what works. The question is “works to accomplish what end?”
Is there some debate about the importance of peace and prosperity?
Hire Iraqis to do reconstruction work instead of Haliburton croneys?
Those are all things the Middle Easterners themselves could do. But what could the U.S. do to help?
Uh… ecourage 'em? Seriously, we have the know-how and they have the funds. We can, either directly or through international institutions such as the WTO, lobby these countries to reform their business creation and investment laws, provide technical assistance to Middle Eastern universities, and create/facilitate more scholarships for Middle Eastern students to study in the US. We’re already doing many of these types of things, we just need to do more.
Gee. You mean give them the contracts, the jobs, the opportunities we originally promised them, at the expense of the oil cronies? Won’t happen, not in a bazillion years.