The New York Times editorial board:
[T]his has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power. Washington’s challenge now lies in finding ways to nurture and encourage these still fragile trends without smothering them in a triumphalist embrace.
Lebanon’s political reawakening took a significant new turn yesterday when popular protests brought down the pro-Syrian government of Prime Minister Omar Karami. Syria’s occupation of Lebanon, nearly three decades long, started tottering after the Feb. 14 assassination of the country’s leading independent politician, the former prime minister Rafik Hariri. … To stem the growing backlash over the Hariri murder, last week Syria announced its intentions to pull back its occupation forces to a region near the border - although without offering any firm timetable. Yesterday, with protests continuing, the pro-Syrian cabinet resigned. …
Last weekend’s surprise announcement of plans to hold at least nominally competitive presidential elections in Egypt could prove even more historic, although many of the specific details seem likely to be disappointing. Egypt is the Arab world’s most populous country and one of its most politically influential. In more than five millenniums of recorded history, it has never seen a truly free and competitive election.
To be realistic, Egypt isn’t likely to see one this year either. For all his talk of opening up the process, President Hosni Mubarak, 76, is likely to make sure that no threatening candidates emerge to deny him a fifth six-year term. But after seeing more than eight million Iraqis choose their leaders in January, Egypt’s voters, and its increasingly courageous opposition movement, will no longer retreat into sullen hopelessness so readily. …
Over the past two decades, as democracies replaced police states across Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America, and a new economic dynamism lifted hundreds of millions of eastern and southern Asia out of poverty and into the middle class, the Middle East stagnated in a perverse time warp that reduced its brightest people to hopelessness or barely contained rage. The wonder is less that a new political restlessness is finally visible, but that it took so long to break through the ice.
But it didn’t take long at all, really, once the Western world actually showed a commitment to the cause of freedom in the Middle East. As long as we allowed ourselves to be lulled into inaction by the paternalistic attitude of the “multi-culturalist” Left — the belief that Arabs have a “different way” of doing things, that we shouldn’t “force Western democracy” on them because, really, they don’t want democracy — the tin-pot tyrants of the region were able to hold sway over the teeming masses.
Many liberals used this result as evidence that their paternalistic attitude was correct, asserting (or, more often, snidely implying) that the people of the Middle East could rise up if they wanted to, without Western support — and if they didn’t do so, that meant they didn’t want to. Hence the argument, “I support the overthrow of Saddam, but only if it comes from within.” (Lest we forget, the United States needed foreign help to throw off the yoke of tyrannical rule, too. Internal revolution is hard.)
Thankfully, we have a president who recognizes that freedom from tyranny is not a cultural construct, but a universal human yearning — and a universal human right. Now, at last, it’s perfectly clear that the awesome power of the United States stands not with the tyrants, but with the democracy-supporting masses… and suddenly those masses are feeling emboldened, and are proving the Left wrong and (though it pains me somewhat to say it) the Right right.
And the New York Times, which opposed the policies that brought about this sea change, wonders why it took so long.
As Dale Franks says: “Finally, the NYT is on board with Democracy promotion in the Mideast. Glad to have you aboard, guys.”
The Times is right about one thing: we shouldn’t be triumphalist. These are small steps, and there is plenty of time and opportunity yet for the forces of repression to push back. But these small steps could very well be, as Gandalf said, “like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche.” The pro-democracy Arabs are beginning to wake up and realize that they are strong. That is a very good thing.
Andrew yesterday pointed me to this post, which cites some evidence that even the execrable House of Saud may be starting to come around. Wouldn’t that be something? And as Franks says, these are developments that “we wouldn’t be seeing at all had we followed the advice of the Dean/Kennedy crowd.”
Money quote from the article Andrew sent me:
The most deeply pessimistic view one can take of all this is that regimes in the Middle East and the Arab world now feel pressured into giving lip service to election reform and to making cosmetic changes allowing women more rights and participation in the process of government. But even this is an improvement from where we were just a few short months ago. You don’t have to be a full-blooded neocon to feel a twinge of cautious optimism in your gut over these recent events and to hope they are the beginning of something much bigger.
I’m not a full-blooded neocon by any means; I’ve always been appalled by the Left’s attitude toward this stuff, but I’ve never been quite sure that the Right was right, either. I’ve long been on the fence as to whether this “democracy promotion” business would work, though I certainly hoped it would. I am definitely feeling a “twinge of cautious optimism” now.
Oh, and about that whole “Arabs don’t want democracy” meme? I think we can safely conclude that it, too, is bound for history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore of the Democratic Leadership Council, guestblogging for Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo, provides a rebuttal:
[I]t literally never crossed my mind that Bush’s fans would credit him with for this positive event [in Lebanon], as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It’s the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch–even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria’s setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.
Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.
I suppose it’s possible that post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here, but when democracy in the Middle East makes virtually no progress for decades, and then suddenly a whole bunch of positive developments occur in rapid succession within the course of a few months, I am inclined to invoke a different rule: Occam’s Razor. Which is more likely: that these simultaneous developments are being helped along — catalyzed, if you will — by the presence, almost literally next door, of the world’s most powerful military, whose commanders publicly and vigorously support the spread of freedom in the Middle East… or that this is all a grand coincidence?
I think the answer is fairly obvious.
|
Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East
|
March 1st, 2005 at 10:36:32 am
I would just like to take this opportunity to personally credit George W. Bush with winning World War II and curing polio. If it weren’t for George W. Bush, we would all be speaking German and wheeling ourselves to our national party rallies. Thank you, and God bless you.
What was I saying a few posts ago about fast-tracking to canonization?
March 1st, 2005 at 10:46:23 am
Well, I’m convinced. Where can I sign up for the Hillary ‘08 campaign?
ERRRRR your random sarcasm does nothing to convince me that Bush’s policies don’t deserve a substantial amount of credit (as even the New York Times concedes!) here.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:03:00 am
this is the longest post ever!
March 1st, 2005 at 11:56:24 am
I’m remembering something from history class about how we asked the French to help out. And then later they grudgingly did, but basically out of a desire to stick it to the Brits and not really out of any desire to help us out. Of course, their helping us helped led to their later bankruptcy, a massive revolution, that instilled an emperor instead of a king.
Brendan is correct, nothing happens in a vacuum. But certain causal relationships are often difficult or impossible to prove. Things tend to happen because of — “are caused by” — more than one catalyst. It was not just fighting lots of wars that bankrupted France, it was also extravagant royal spending. It was not just France helping out that lead to the American revolution, it was also the stamp act, the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, etc. etc. etc.
It would be silly to say that Bush brought these things about. It would also be silly to say that he had no impact on them whatsoever. Very few things are either or. Even things we tend to think of as either or. No one thing causes historical events. And often we don’t begin to fully understand those events for quite some time — there are too many variables at work and it takes time for them to sort out.
March 1st, 2005 at 12:06:54 pm
Granted, but when the Bush Administration says “we are going to pursue this policy with the hope it will help bring democracy to the Middle East,” and then they pursue that policy, and suddenly democracy begins to take baby steps toward flourishing in the Middle East, I daresay the burden is on the administration’s opponents to show that there is not at least some sort of causal relationship there. No one is arguing that Bush’s actions are the exclusive cause of the changes; I believe I used the word “catalyst.” The key, though, is would this stuff be happening if not for Bush’s policies? That’s a speculative question that is really impossible to answer, but my hunch is, no, given that it had never happened before now and given the Occam’s Razor argument I stated in my post.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:25:55 pm
Indeed, no neocon would take full credit. The hypothesis has always been that the masses want freedom, and that the technological tools of modernity give the edge to tyrants over their subjects, making it nearly impossible for the people to assert their inalienably human desire for liberty. Therefore, the answer is for free peoples to stand with unfree peoples and let them know that if they resist, free peoples will help them so that they can overcome the dictator’s natural advantages. Ronald Reagan expressed nothing different, merely that if the United States pursued a policy of voicing unequivocable support for freedom and democracy and did its best to pipe that message behind the Iron Curtain, then communism would become untenable much more quickly. The corollary to this approach was that our position vis-a-vis the USSR needed to be much stronger, meaning we had to build up and modernize our armed forces to be a more effective deterrent and to test whether an attempt by the USSR to match our efforts would tax their economy to the breaking point. I think a historical analysis would show that we were right beyond what we had even imagined when we embarked on those efforts, and I hope today also that the success of our efforts exceeds our best hopes.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:27:22 pm
All that to say that its the people themselves who deserve the credit, and nobody on the right insists otherwise. It’s our job to make their hopes possible; it’s their job to fulfill them.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:14:03 pm
As I remember correctly, we rose up and declared our independence before the French agreed to help. The french didn’t say the Brits is an evil regime and should be overthrown and we’re going to attack Brits, without cause, for the people of America.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:22:40 pm
Granted. But we would not have succeeded without the French… nor would an Iraqi rebellion have succeeded without foreign help… and they knew this well, having tried once and failed. That’s why they would NOT have event tried; they would risked their hides rising up against a dictatorial regime — that’s why, in other words, the argument “I only support the overthrow of Saddam if it comes from within” is effectively tantamount to saying you support keeping Saddam in power.
I know I’m going to catch hell from Sean for saying that, but rest assured, I’m not implying that war opponents were Saddam-supporting traitors: I know that’s not what they meant in their heart or hearts, it’s not the reason for their beliefs (well, except a very small minority of them, like the hardcore pro-dictatorship A.N.S.W.E.R. folks). It would, however, have been the practical effect of the policy they advocated.
Inaction has consequences, too. And that’s why I supported the war, and still believe it was the right thing to do, notwithstanding all the problems and all the mismanagement and everything else. NOT going to war meant keeping Saddam in power indefinitely, and that was not a viable option in my book.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:50:51 pm
Brendan, your argument is basically “the ends justify the means.” My main objection to the war is that Bush lied. The second objection is that we invaded a sovereign nation without cause. The doctrine of preemption is a dangerous moral relativism slippery slope. Also, war has to be the absolute last resort, because the price of war is not measure in dollars and cents but bloods and bones.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:54:36 pm
Just to provide additional details, in 1991 the first president Bush and his spokesholes repeatedly implied that, should the Iraqi people rise up and overthrow Saddam, we’d support them, but that otherwise we had no intention of marching onto Baghdad for fear it’d fraction our impressive coalition. When the Shiites did rise up, they were crushed mercilessly by Saddam, hundreds of thousands were killed, and Saddam went the extra mile by completely draining the inter-river wetlands where the so-called Marsh Arabs lived, effectively destroying that environment and ruining their ability to live off the land. Meanwhile our troops stood by in Kuwait in full knowledge of what was happening, and we lifted not a finger. So when Sean and others chide us for erroneously acting on the Iraqis’ behalf and saying the people themselves should rise up, I have no choice but to call “Bullshit!” on that position.
What is ironic is that, in Serbia during the Kosovo conflict, there actually was a chance of Serbians rising up to depose Milosevic and institute a real democracy, and as soon as we started bombing Belgrade and leveling the Chinese embassy on accident (which went over real well with the Chinese, thank you Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton), Milosevic clamped down on the pro-democracy protesters and scuttled the rising movement against him. It took another two years after the war to accomplish what was already nascent at the time.
March 1st, 2005 at 6:58:42 pm
Anonymous, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to MY opinion, and my opinion is not as simple as, “the ends justify the means.” My argument presupposes that both ends and means must be considered in deciding the correct course of action. Neither can be ignored. I would submit that the anti-war argument largely ignores the ends and looks only at the means, without regard to the catastrophic consequences of inaction. Do I need to make the obvious analogies here? Can you not see that there might be some situations where the imperative for achieving an end — overthrowing a dictator, ending a humanitarian catastrophe, etc. — is so overwhelming that we absolutely have to do it, regardless of the procedural niceties, even if the cost is very high? I think — I hope — we disagree not on whether the ends can ever justify the means (which is a crude oversimplication, but I’ll go with it here for the sake of argument), but rather, under what circumstances. I say the circumstances were right here; you say they weren’t. Fine. But don’t insult both of our intelligence by boiling my argument down to a platitude whose very articulation begs the question.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:25:26 pm
Wow Andrew, you have outdone yourself. In your post you manage to take a swipe at Bill Clinton for actually fighting a war based on the arguments Bush used after the fact in the Iraq invasion AND you point out how the first Bush administration basically screwed over the Iraqi people without critcizing Bush. I am impressed with the moral and ideological contortions you must do to support your world view.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:36:05 pm
What, I didn’t criticize the first president Bush? Are we reading the same comment? By the way, spokesholes is a conglomeration of spokesperson and asshole, so maybe that should make my position clearer. In any case, you’re right, I didn’t support the Kosovo war and felt it was highly unproductive, especially in light of the fact that post hoc evidence showed that the so-called ethnic cleansing of Kosovars didn’t even begin until after we started bombing! Oh and by the way, at least Bush II tried to go to the United Nations, something Bill Clinton completely ignored because he knew Russia would veto.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:39:40 pm
I can’t believe that you don’t see the danger of the doctrine of preemption. The circumstances could never be right because of the slipper slope danger that it presents.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:40:13 pm
Actually, the practical effects of a leftist policy (or noninterventionist libertarian policy, for that matter), would be that the US never helped Saddam rise to power in the first place, nor helped him murder so many Kurds and Iranians. (The mujahadeen that begat al Qaeda would also never have been funded or helped to go international.)
Thing is, there was hope for democracy in the Middle East before we showed up. Iranian students have long marched in the name of democracy. Palestinians elect their leaders. (The quality of their choices is another issue entirely.) Egypt has been very democracy-friendly, at least by the region’s standards.
I’m not sure many liberals said it this way - maybe some of them were just expressing themselves poorly - but I know my own beef was not so much that Arabs were incapable of any kind of democracy, but that it was up to them, not us, to do it.
The reason Afghanistan worked so well is that the Taliban itself was a foreign occupying power and the Afghanis were already fighting back against them. The reason WE had a moral right to interfere was that they were harboring a terrorist conspiracy bent upon our destruction. It was an act of self-defense to topple them. And now democracy is beginning to take hold. There are hiccups - warlords, Karzai assuring men that they can control their wives’ and daughters’ votes later - but it was an easier road precisely because the people there did want it. (Plus, who’s going to blame an army for going overseas to defend itself? And then kill them for it?)
I’m sure democrats (small d; easy there, Republicans) in Lebanon feel safer taking to the streets because of recent events. But let’s keep in mind all the consequences, both good and bad. The perfect example was of somebody who was quoted as saying the vote in Iraq inspired him. He was quoted earlier as defending the attacks on American soldiers. Afghanistan is much freer, but still has issues. Iraq may just get that democracy, but the ruling party is rather theocratic, and over 10,000 of them are too busy being dead to be free. Meanwhile, there’s no sign that arbitrary detentions and torture are going away. In fact, we’ve rewarded the fellow who said it’s okay. Our War on Terror’s objectives can be rather fuzzy, which is why we can condemn one country, like Syria, then turn around and give money to the dictator of Uzbekistan. The same war, just like any massive overseas intervention, necessitates a further crackdown on our liberties at home. We also have a nasty habit of purposefully not taking terror suspects to US soil, so other countries can torture them for us. And those terrorists in Iraq weren’t terrorists before our invasion. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum, either. It’s not all as pretty and black and white as a lot of folks like to think.
I can hope about some signs. But a march to freedom? I’m not entirely convinced.
March 1st, 2005 at 7:44:34 pm
Somebody mark a calendar. Andrew and I opposed the Kosovo war FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:16:31 pm
I can’t believe that you don’t see the danger of the doctrine of preemption. The circumstances could never be right because of the slipper slope danger that it presents.
I can’t believe that you don’t see there could potentially be a need for preemption if, for example, there was a need to stop another Hitler from rising to power before he can murder millions of civilians.
Nor can I believe that you don’t see there could potentially be a need for preemption if, for example, an Iranian mullah had his finger on the button to launch a nuclear missile at Israel, but hadn’t pressed the button yet.
Please note that I’m NOT saying Saddam was Hitler, nor am I saying that Iraq had nukes. But as a conceptual matter, OF COURSE there are some (easily) conceivable situations where preemption would be necessary. The debate, again, is merely over which situations those are.
Yelling “slippery slope” at the top of your lungs, without any further consideration of the issue, is never, ever, EVER a valid argument. There’s a reason slippery slope is classified as a logical fallacy. It has its uses sometimes, but you have to go further than just saying the words and assuming that’s an argument.
Anyway, we’re really off topic here. I’m not making a argument that war in Iraq was necessary for preemptive reasons. I’m making an essentially humanitarian argument, and there’s nothing “preemptive” about the assertion that Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror was, always had been, and always would have been a humanitarian disaster.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:18:01 pm
Sean, you make some good points — well, except for the non sequitur about not letting Saddam rise to power in the first place, which doesn’t have much at all to do with the situation in 2003, which is what we were talking about. Anyway, I stand by my position, but you articulate yours well. I don’t have the energy or articulation to fisk your comment; I’ll leave that Andrew, if he’s so inclined. :)
March 1st, 2005 at 9:02:37 pm
Here’s the danger of preemption. The bad guy (Iran, for example) wants to drop the H-bomb on Isreal, but hesitates because he knows that if he does that the US is going to bust a cap in his ass, so he doesn’t. But the US has info that Iran is thinking about dropping the H-bomb, so Rummy and his friends say we must prevent that from ever happening, the only surefire way is to preempt him, so the forces in gulf is called up and plans are set into place. Now, Iran upon hearing that the US is going to preempt them, so the only way surefire way to win in war of preemption is to strike first, so Iran decides to pre-preempt the US and presses the button. Now Isreal, knowing that the only way to win in the war of preemption is to preempt ’cause striking second in a nuclear game since half your infrastructure is gone, so it decides to preempt Iran, so now there are two missiles heading towards each other. Now, a fourth player enters the stage, Pakistan, upon seeing the white lights of the nuclear bombs, thinking that its next ’cause the US is calling up its forces in the gulf, decides to preempt the US, presses the button for a missiles that heads towards DC. India, hearing that Pakistan has pressed the button, thinking that it’s for them, presses the button too and voila WW3. That’s the danger of preemption. They can preempt us also.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:09:52 pm
PS. that’s the slippery slope I was talking about.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:23:16 pm
Anonymous, your “danger of preemption” progression of logic is so absurd as to defy explanation. Let me nip it in the bud this way, though: The Bush Administration’s policy of preemption is almost exclusively geared towards preventing rogue states from gaining WMDs, after which point our power to preempt without risking serious collateral damage is reduced drastically. Hence why we have chosen not to attack North Korea–they already have nukes.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:46:15 pm
“Actually, the practical effects of a leftist policy (or noninterventionist libertarian policy, for that matter), would be that the US never helped Saddam rise to power in the first place, nor helped him murder so many Kurds and Iranians. (The mujahadeen that begat al Qaeda would also never have been funded or helped to go international.)”
Sean, I’m not sure what the fancy pantsy legal Latin term is for this kind of argument, but moving the goal posts is a cheap and ineffective way to escape an argument. I could just as easily say that the practical effects of a “noninterventionist libertarian policy” would be that the US never intervened to stop the Third Reich because we were never directly threatened. Indeed, that was popular opinion in America up until Pearl Harbor, and FDR’s promise that our boys would not be sent to die for an internecine European fight was key to his reelection in 1940.
“Iranian students have long marched in the name of democracy.”
And yet they’ve gotten nowhere because until Bush came to office, there was no guarantee that they would be protected from wholesale slaughter if the government decided to crack down on them.
Palestinians voted once, and Arafat was there until he died. The real test of democracy in Palestine will be whether and when Abbas ever comes up for reelection. Meanwhile, Egypt is not a democracy; Mubarak has been the “president” since 1982 and the legislature is powerless to overturn anything he wishes. Jordan and Syria also have parliaments, but except for Turkey, all of the region’s legislative bodies are no different than those you’d find in a constitutional monarchy such as Britain was prior to the 1800s.
“…I know my own beef was not so much that Arabs were incapable of any kind of democracy, but that it was up to them, not us, to do it.”
Sean, you can argue that line of reasoning all you want, but when the Shiites did rise up to demand democracy, they were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. History trumps ideology, Sean, so I call Bullshit on your logic because it has already been proven ineffective and irrelevant in actual historical context. In addition, when the unopposed dictators of such countries evolve over time to become an ever-increasing threat to us (regardless of whether or not dangerous Islamist ideologies fester among their peoples and breed terrorism, it does become our problem to install democracy.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:47:28 pm
Odd that I find myself supporting Andrew here; Anonymous, I suspect your politics and mine might find a lot of common ground, but your view that it is categorically illegitimate can lead to disastrous practical results.
Perhaps a better argument would be that in a Cold War era MAD scenario preemption is not realistic; or, that preemption was a stupid choice as used in March 2003. Indeed, as a concept it may not be always useful, nor should it be the first bow in our quiver. That doesn’t make the entire concept illegitimate. Numerous hypotheticals can be conceived in which it is necessary and right.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:52:51 pm
“The reason Afghanistan worked so well is that the Taliban itself was a foreign occupying power and the Afghanis were already fighting back against them.”
Again, you’re factually wrong. The Taliban was made up of the dominant ethnic group of Pashtuns. The “Afghanistans” fighting against the regime (the Northern Alliance, as it was then called) were largely Tajik and Uzbek and were small minorities who got significant support from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
“…but it was an easier road precisely because the people there did want it.”
And you don’t think the Iraqi election proved that the Iraqi people also wanted it?
“And those terrorists in Iraq weren’t terrorists before our invasion.”
Sure they were. Of those who came from outside Iraq, most if not all of them are al-Qaeda sympathizers. Of those who are Iraqi, virtually 100% of them are Sunni Arabs who comprised the loyalists that helped support Saddam’s regime, which in turn was a terrorist state that threatened us and its neighbors.
It doesn’t have to be “all pretty and black and white” to still be right.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:56:57 pm
“Best of the Web” slices Kilgore’s argument to pieces quite effectively, using Josh Marshall himself:
Someone called Ed Kilgore has been “guest blogging” for the vacationing Josh Marshall. (We’re not sure if “Kilgore” is a real name or a joke at the expense of the former vice president.) Anyway, Kilgore pooh-poohs the idea that the Bush administration’s policies have anything to do with the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon….
Did Kilgore ever read Marshall’s stuff before agreeing to act as his understudy? Two years ago Marshall published an article in The Washington Monthly arguing that Bush had a secret plan to promote democracy in the Middle East, and all that weapons-of-mass-destruction stuff was just a cover story to obscure the conspiracy. If Marshall weren’t sunning himself on some beach somewhere, he could be crowing right now about how right he was.
Come to think of it, it’s awfully convenient for the Bushies that Marshall just happens to be “on vacation” when his conspiracy theory is proved right. Could Karl Rove have had a hand in arranging Marshall’s absence?
Heh.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:57:04 pm
Andrew, I believe you wish to criticise Sean for setting up a counterfactual, which really leads to no rational answer to whatever hypothetical is being conceived. However, I believe Sean’s point is that democracy cannot be established there by fiat nor by external force. As for history, most of those dictators — such as Mubarak — were usually either installed or at the very least supported by us. Bombing our way out of it is going to be only so effective, once it starts to cause unintended negative consequences (such as a large anti-American population).
March 1st, 2005 at 11:10:01 pm
NOT going to war meant keeping Saddam in power indefinitely, and that was not a viable option in my book.
Indefinitely? Sorry Brendan, but that is the same logical hole that people who attacked Kerry for saying he believed that the war as at the wrong time fell into. It wasn’t a now or never situation. If we hadn’t gone to war then we could go to war this very day and remove Saddam from power.
Whether or not that would have been better or worse is a debate unto itself.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:35:22 pm
You are correct David, it is only “indefinite” if we never went to war. If, at some later date, we decided to go to war, then it would cease to be indefinite. But as long we did NOT go to war, he would have stayed in power indefinitely. I think that’s what I said, but I suppose I could have been clearer.
The war could have been fought at a later date, but I fail to see what that would have gained. According to my understanding, to the extent the administration blundered the postwar planning, its blunders were strategic ones, not logistical ones. I don’t think we were hurt by “rushing” the war. The strategic decisions they made would have been the same regardless. And if the war is just, why wait?
March 1st, 2005 at 11:40:20 pm
Getting back to the original topic of Lebanon/Egypt/etc. and who deserves credit… I realize I’m the one who started this debate with my post, but I think it’s worth taking a step back from the debate for a moment and acknowledging that, ultimately, IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER whether or not Bush is responsible for the recent positive developments in the Middle East. It’s interesting fodder for discussion, but what REALLY matters is that good things are happening. Let us all hope they continue to happen, and let the chips fall where they may as far as who gets credit. The spread of human freedom is much more important than any question of credit or blame.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:14:17 am
Well, if spreading human freedom around the world is part of the purview of the US, then we should be consistent. Thousands of people are dying in the Dafur region in Sudan and there are calls for the US to step in and stop the genocide, calls from US military “advisors” there for the Bush Administration to do something, yet nothing is done.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:21:04 am
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds… if we are “consistent” in the way that you suggest, we will obviously accomplish nothing, since it is literally impossible to promote freedom everywhere in the world simultaneously. We have to make choices. You know that, so please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence with that facile argument.
That said, I agree with you that we should do something about Darfur.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:44:13 am
Ditto Brendan on Darfur, I’d really like us to do something there. And Brendan, your earlier comment reminds me of a famous Reagan quote (at least I think it was Reagan): “It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit.”
And for your even earlier comment, what logistical mistakes did Bush make? If our strategery was right in not putting off the war much longer, how can you criticize the fact that handling supply lines, protecting infrastructure against wantonly destructive terrorists, and making sure every soldier is as safe as reasonably possible is an extremely difficult state of mastery to reach? The best explanation I’ve heard is that we actually are suffering from putting off the war as long as we did, as our ill-fated and ultimately irrelevant dance with the U.N. at the request of Tony Blair gave Saddam the critical time necessary to diffuse his loyalists and money and put into action post-war insurgency plans.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:21:59 am
Consistency is not action based, consistency is not ignoring a problem and pretending it doesn’t exist. And I agree, we have to make choices … but making choices is about prioritizing, not ignoring. My point, if the US is going to make extending human free part of its foreign policy, it should go with it full force and not when it’s polically convienient. Remember the original reason for invading Iraq is not to liberate the people of Iraq, it was to stop Saddam from acquiring WMDs. It only became a war of liberation when it is clear that neither has nor is acquiring WMDs.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:24:11 am
Andrew, you might want to take another look at Brendan’s comment about logistics. He said that the mistakes made were strategic, NOT logistic.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:44:32 am
Ergh, yeah, I misread that. No wonder I was so confused.
So what was wrong with the strategy? If this goes back to the argument about not having enought troops….
Anon, dude, we had more than one reason for invading Iraq. Did you not hear Bush’s speech at AEI December ‘02, where he basically outlined his neocon domino democracy vision for the Middle East?