Bush's "Mideast democracy" speech

Great Debates
21

One thing about this talk, and any other talk given by any other national public official or aspirant to national public office: For the next year every thing every one of them says must be viewed against the back ground of next year’s presidential election. That includes talk by supposed policy guys like Paul Wolfewitz who spoke before the President did. Mr Wolfewitz’s contribution to the give and take of ideas was to suggest that our friends in Iraq (who ever the Hell they might be) will be dismayed by the possibility that there might be regime change in Washington–and specifically that there might be a precipitous American withdraw from Iraq, never mind that no responsible official or aspirant to public office is urging cut and run as a serious policy.

The President may well have been converted to the democracy-as-the-cure-for-all-things camp but, as always, the Devil is in the details. Somehow I doubt that the President’s lip service to the principles of a democratic Middle East is going to butter very many parsnips. I also doubt that a majority of Congress will be cajoled into releasing what we have left of an armed force to bring the blessings of a representative parliament democracy to Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Libya, or Algeria (where the established government recently queered that idea because it was likely that a fair election would produce the wrong result). Still less I see Congress unleashing the armed forces when a fair portion of the forces required would be mobilized reservists and National Guards. Before we get to excited about this new dawning of ethical foreign policy, lets see what the President proposes to do to make the image of a democratic Middle East a reality.

Does anybody remember some talk within the last few years about what a foolish policy nation building was?

22

Certainly agree with this. Fwiw, I do think we’re seeing the emergence of a more mature and layered strategy, no longer the simple shrill call-to-arms of the past few months (because the polls can’t take it).

So, one assumes from here to November 2004, speechwriters will be all-but sleeping with pollsters and target groups, there’s a job to be done now, a big job; Bush’s 2000 constituency needs to be reassured, cajoled and massaged back into their voting booths. Hark the Heartland!

But none of this voter-friendly rhetoric should disguise, at least for us cynical hardheads of the SDMB, that there would always be undercurrents and less savoury/palatable subterranean agendas; things in politics are never what they seem.

Nonetheless it is interesting that the neo-cons have something here that’s substantial, defendable and amounts to a coherent approach; this is quality posturing, indeed it’s an entire reelection (foreign policy) platform of posturing.

Plenty more, then, of this ‘Middle East democracy’ spiel to come over the next 12 months, and, call me old fashioned, but he might even squeeze in the odd reference to “freedom” and “freedom loving people”.

23

Why, that sounds like compliment.

I think Bush has finally laid down the proper, moral position for the U.S. to take. In a world in which terrible destructive power is available to relatively small groups, the security of the world depends on ending the conditions that create such groups. Specifically, it’s time for the world to get its act together and push the last few recalcitrants into the 21st century as free, democratic nations. And by far the biggest problem is the collection of failing and failed dictatorships in the Middle East. North Korea will remain a black eye for some time, because it’s just too strong to do anything about, and too crazy to listen to reason.

But the Middle East can be reformed. The people there want and deserve freedom just like anyone else. But they feel like pawns in their countries, always given excuses why they aren’t ready for total freedom, or played by the west for geopolitical reasons. I think the reaction of the Iraqi people was a wake-up call for many in the Arab world. They looked the other way with Saddam for a long time, allowing him to butcher people en masse while pretending that he was just one of the boys. But the Iraqi people surprised many by not rising up against the Americans, but welcoming them. Whatever strains there are in the occupation now (and there are plenty), the fact is the Iraqis would clearly rather live under an American occupation than a Ba’athist thugocracy. Of course, they would even more clearly like to have everyone gone so they can get on with running their own country. But nonetheless, many Arabs were shocked by the depth of the depravity that is now coming to light, and they are reconsidering their own situations.

Take, for example, this article the Arab News:

There’s more there that I couldn’t quote for length reasons. The article isn’t all positive - there’s plenty of criticism of the U.S. in there for past crimes including support for Saddam (and the ongoing Israel problem). But by and large it’s a very balanced and positive op-ed.

Bush’s speech was greated about as warmly as can be expected by the Arab world. They like the idea, but they’re not sure they like the messenger. Trust will have to be built.

BTW, a good step towards that trust happened this week, when the U.S. and Turkey gave in to the wishes ot the Iraqi people and cancelled Turkish deployment in the country.

24

Sam, as a liberal, I for one agree with some of the sentiments of that speech.

But what I don’t understand is why this guiding document was released almost a year to the day after Iraq was placed on the President’s shit list, and three days after the President trashed Hussein on the radio.

And I don’t understand why this speech is being given fourteen months and a bullshitted war later.

Remember? The bullshit about connections with al-Qaeda, and yellowcake from Niger, and the tightrope walk in the State of the Union Address, and I won’t even mention the wascally wabbit in the hat. It wasn’t about any of that, as I have told all of you repeatedly.

I think it is a deceptive, cynical manipulation of a public which could have been taught the valuable and persuasive parts of that national security strategy a year ago. Hell, I would have even bought the preemption part, if by “preemption” we meant engaging foreign nations, encouraging them to reform their governments in return for increased trade and a bit of bribery, and maybe even rustled a couple of feathers by tossing over a government or two if we had to, like back in the Ike days.

Instead, the entire premise for the overthrow of Hussein was shrouded in a veneer of deceit which totally destroyed our national credibility. That’s what I want to know: why? Why do it in this apparently incompetent way which drains our credibility and the world’s empathy?

I have my own ideas about that, but I’d particularly like to see your answer, Sam.

25

First, I don’t think there was an intentional deception. Many other countries’ intelligence services believed the same thing the U.S. did. Germany’s intelligence agency told Shroeder that Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in three years. Canada’s CSIS thought there were WMD in Iraq. So did Russia. Everyone was surprised.

Was the evidence strong enough to go to war? This is where I think the administration may have some explaining to do. What I think happened is that the administration came to the collective decision that the next correct step in the war on terror was to take out Hussein. For many reasons. Remember, at first the Bush administration offered so many different reasons for going after Iraq that the media accused them of incoherence. So they made the strategic decision to zero in on the one issue they thought would have the most resonance with the public, and press that issue. And having drawn the conclusion that war was inevitable (or the threat of war if Saddam caved in), they then went through the evidence and cherry picked it a bit to make the strongest case they could. Negative opinons left out, positive included, etc.

But that doesn’t change the fact that I believe they thought that they would find all the weapons they claimed they would. You can either believe they were fooling themselves, or that they made good judgements that just happened to be wrong. Whatever.

But ultimately, the decision to go to war rested on many factors - the opportunity to create a democracy in the heart of the middle east, the removal of a major destabilizing influence in the gulf (payment of blood money to the families of Palestinian terrorists, etc), the legal justification of a war that never ended in peace but a negotiated cease-fire that had been broken, and finally the apalling human rights offenses ongoing in the country.

The WMD judgement may turn out to be wrong, but many of the others were and are correct. The Iraqi people have been liberated from a tyrant, Saddam was removed as a threat to Iran and Saudi Arabia (do you think Iran would have made that nuclear agreement last week if Saddam was still next door?), U.S. troops are out of Saudi Arabia, and a whole bunch of terrorists are being killed or captured in Iraq. The fight is now in the enemy’s neighborhood. The U.S. now has an anvil from which to hammer on Iran and Syria if need be. The Iraqi people, if handled carefully and justly, may become the biggest supporters of the U.S. in the Arab world.

And I disagree that your credibility has been blown, for the simple reason that most other countries also thought there were WMD in Iraq.

But you know what really blows a country’s credibility? When it gets a reputation for not following through. For making threats it can’t or won’t back up. For allowing itself to be bought off by tyrants. By showing fear in the face of aggression and responding to terror ineffectually or even by trying to accomodate terrorists.

Bush has tons of credibility. The man just exudes determination. Far more so than his old man, who was a waffler who could be convinced to change his mind daily.

It’s refreshing to see a president who can be counted on to do what he promises, back up his threats with action. When he says, “We will not leave Iraq!”, you can bet that he means it. If Clinton had said that, all we’d know is that his advisors told him that that was the most politically expedient thing to say at that moment.

26

…But the expedient thing to say at this moment is portrayed as a brilliant new facet of the war against terrorism… now. Not when the issue could be debated amongst us and the people of my nation. Now. Why now, and not then?

27

Does the U.S. even have the military manpower to invade and occupy a third country while we’re still occupying Afghanistan and Iraq? I mean, without reinstating the draft.

28

Sofa King: It was mentioned. Quite a bit, in fact. Go back and have a look at the commentary about six months before the war. The media was accusing the Bush administration of ‘incoherence’ because they had different members of the administration going around offering different justification. Rumsfeld would talk about the military threat and WMD. Powell would talk about U.N. resolutions. Wolfowitz and Rice would talk about strategic change in the middle east.

So rather than treat it as a complex issue, the media went, “The Bush Administration can’t make up its mind on why to attack Iraq. Their arguments are an incoherent mess.”

So the administration went back and picked one main area to push (WMD) and focused on that.

But early on, they were saying all of this stuff.

29

Except we all know now that this line on reasoning is completely false. The decision to go after Iraq was made years before 9/11. It wasn’t the “next correct step in the war on terror” at all. 9/11 just provided a convenient excuse to carry out an entirely unrelated activity.

You do know, don’t you, that the aggression and terror had nothing to do with Iraq?

No, he doesn’t. He’s either a flat-out liar, or is so delusional that he actually believes the bullshit that he speaks. That doesn’t equal credibility.

How’s Afghanistan going?

30

what grabbed me most about Mr Bush’s MidEast Peace speach, is how he conveniently didn’t even mention Israel.

it’s the two weights/two measures sytem that the US of A employ, in Israel’s favour, that angers the Arab world. That is the real crux of the issue, as long as Israel is perceived to be allowed to do as it pleases, at everybody elses expense, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Israel is no democracy, it consistently discriminates against its own minorities. Bedouins are being treated as sub humans, Israeli Arabs don’t have a vote.

And last, but not least of all:
quote: **Particularly worrying is a recent survey by the Israeli
Democracy Institute, which points out that more than half the Jewish population of Israel is opposed to equal rights for Israeli Arabs.

It concludes that Israel is a democracy in form more than in substance.** end quote.

from this site, nearly all the way at the bottom.
It’s a reader’s letter,
http://www.thepost.ie/web/Sitemap/1.9did-427811680-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FLetters.asp

I’m sure all facts stated in the letter can be easily verified.

My point in all this, is that if the Bush administration are planning to bring this kind of democracy to the Middle East, we’re in for a rough ride in the years to come.

31

Actually elfje, Israeli Arabs (that is Arab citizens of Israel) do have the vote, though there are some serious discrimantion issues in Israel, some of which relates to discrimnation in politics.

32

*discrimination

33

[quote]
kwildcat
In a nutshell, GWB has officially come around […] to the liberal, idealistic, Democratic[li] perspective on how U.S. foreign policy should be conducted after the grotesque abuses of realpolitik.[/li][/quote]
I think this is an important point, and a sad irony.

In my youth, I subscribed to this idea that the West should impose a little of what makes our societies fine places to live on the places that the vast majority of people live. Later, I realised that we don’t have the credibility, sophistication, commitment or even the sheer power to do it. The problem with the romantic left’s idea of a benevolent foreign policy is the same problem as the New American Century type’s idea: feasibilty. Even if you accept the bona fides of the neoconservatives, you have to question their realism.

I don’t respect those who say this is a moral foreign policy. It is a fantastic policy. I would welcome Bush’s speech if I thought it was an indiction that his regime would give thought to long term as well as short term consequences. But I don’t think they yet understand the limits on their power or the odour that they are perceived to give off.

*[sub]", Democrat" is not quite right here. Hard heads and soft hearts often sit well. See Zbigniew Brzezinski’s views as discussed in this interesting Slate piece.[/sub]

34

After that pearl of wisdom, I’m speechless myself.

35

Nah, don’t need to. Pollin already took care of him. :smiley:

36

Yes, I see now. The primary occupation of the Iraqi people is strewing roses in the path of our soldiers and offering them thier daughters. The universal joy and approval is a direct parallel to our status as Beloved of the Nations, all of whom gaze with adoration upon Our Leader, waiting with baited breath for his next brilliant geo-political strategem. Imagine thier surprise when they learned that it was the perogative of the USA to determine how the ME is to be governed. And how will we know that democracy and freedom has truly flourished therein? By thier complete and abject agreement with us! By following the shining example of democracy posed by Spain, who blithely ignored the expressed will of thier people in order to comply with the Big Dog. Yessiree, Bob, democracy in action!

37

I have posted a few rather compelling photos and citations at http://sailor.teemingmillions.com/images/iraq01.htm

It seems to me the iraqis are, in fact, rising up against the Americans.

The photo of a young Iraqi standing defiant against the American rifle on his chest is as moving as the photo of the lone man facing a tank in Tiananmen square.

38

Ya think?

**Arabs Bristle At Bush’s Speech on Democracy
**

**

39

What a ridiculous comparison. But indicative of the bias some people have towards the U.S. here. Any comparison with American forces in Iraq and the vicious crackdown on freedom by the Chinese Communist government is repulsive.

And you know, as long as there isn’t 100% support for the U.S. in Iraq, you can ALWAYS find a photo like this, especially when photographers are running around trying especially hard to document such cases. To get the real picture, you have to look at what the vast majority of Iraqis are saying and doing, not the few fringe elements who are opposed to the liberation.

Let’s be clear: the fall of the Ba’athist regime put a lot of people out of work. It took a lot of thugs off the despotic gravy train. It was even hard on some good and decent people who, though circumstance and threats found themselves in bed with Saddam’s regime. So of course there are people who are mad at the U.S. for having invaded. And the sometimes ham-fisted way in which the post-war reconstruction has been handled has alienated even more.

But this is still a minority. The majority of the people (the VAST majority) are glad that Saddam is gone. They’re wary of the U.S., but over 2/3 of the people want the U.S. to stay at least a year or more. Hell, that’s probably better support for the war than in America itself.

Here are some interesting things to read:

An Iraqi Blog

Another One

What do Iraqis Think? (from the Globe and Mail - not exactly a Bush supporting newspaper).

Revisionist Thoughts on the Iraq War (from the Arab News)

David Brooks on Who’s Doing the Fighting in Iraq

Iraqis Condemn Suicide Attacks, Blame Foreigners

Observations from Iraq (good article in the New York Observer)

Bipartisan congressional group claims media bias on Iraq

Rep. Jim Marshall says media distorting events in Iraq

From the article:

40

The survey mentioned with these findings is here