1. What does Fukuyama write about the likelihood that "America" will indeed "fail"? Why should this be the title of his book?
For me "failure" is a big word. I am thinking about "state failures", which was the topic of a superficial Fukuyama book (State Buiding, governance, 21st century, blabla).

2. There are plenty of discussions on Fukuyama's book.
http://www.technorati.com/search/America%20at%20the%20Crossroads

Your posts are good:
http://dialoginternational.typepad.com/dialog_international/2006/03/the_neocons_imp.html and http://dialoginternational.typepad.com/dialog_international/2006/02/a_neocon_recant.html

You write in your post above: "But where was his voice in late 2002 when many of us were warning about what would happen with a unilateral US invasion of Iraq?"

Wasn't he supporting the war because it was popular to support the war at that time?
Fukuyama likes to write and say what is popular, just like this The End of History nonsense.
Now, it is popular to criticize the Neocons...

He is a prof, but he does not write scientific books. He does not contemplate much, but writes whatever is popular or Zeitgeist and changes his mind enormously when he writes the next book. I have read his "End of History" and I have read several essay. That's enough. If he would not make such bold statements. He would not need to change his mind so much so often.

3. If you think the German title is more appropriate, why did not they use the more gloomy version in the US?

The only point I wanted to make was that the publishers appeal to the audiences. Apparently they think Americans can't stand the idea of their country "failing" => Thus a more positive title. The same with the Newsweek story.
For German reader it has too be pretty gloomy to attract attention.
So the criticism goes both ways.
I don't know how common it is to have such different titles. (Perhaps it is more common than I think...?)
However, I don't think Fukuyama would have wanted to use "failing" in the title.

I am surprised that they did not use the word "Neocon" in the German title at all. After all there were so many popular debates about "Neocons." Everybody seems to have an idea of what Neocons are, what they did etc.
Perhaps the publishers thought that Germans consider "Neoconservatism" dead and irrelevant, i.e. the book isn't as hot as it is in American. Therefore they had to consider whether America is failing.

4. The Neocons have not been the only ones, who got you into Iraq.

5. You write in your comment here: ""America at the Crossroads" is an important book that has major implications for the future of the Germany-US alliance."

Do you think any die hard Neocon will listen to him? Will anybody else learn something new from Fukuyama?

Thank you for contacting Fukuyama.

I have skimmed the preface and the first chapter, which are available here:
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/fukuyama_america.pdf

Re your question: Many politicians, civil servants, journalists. Most of them have not been Neocons. And they have not been fooled by Neocons, I believe.
Fukuyama writes on p.16 that the connection of the Bush administration to neoconservatism is "often overstated and glosses over a more complex reality." Fukuyama does not consider Cheney and Rumsfeld to be Neocons.

I did not see Fukuyama considering that America could fail. He does not seem to talk that much about America, but more about Neoconservatism, its history, and influence etc. I have not read the book and I have not read the preface and first chapter that thoroughly, thus I could be wrong.

Are you saying Fukuyama seriously considers America's failure in his book?