This is of course somehow different than the blindfolded arrogant ignorance of the majority of the other 5,700,000,00 people in the world?
Do you really think more alternatives were pursued by the current administration ? I feel they went to the last one too quickly and cut any chances of other alternatives.
I agree empty multilateralism does no good… as does arrogant unilateralism.
So you explained France and Russia… why are the other 160 countries against Bush ? No one really thought US power needed to be checked before 2000. (Besides the old URSS of course).
So if Bin Laden dies nothing much happens… but Saddam dying opens up the doors to democracy ? I hardly think Saddam was the major or even minor roadblock to democracy in the ME. Seems you believe in magic bullets only from one side of the issue. Also why is democracy the only way to “give them something to live for” ? Democracy seems to be making a lot of unhappy people elsewhere… again its no magic bullet against misery and bad governance.
Well multilateralism was suggested… diplomatic and other means suggested. Yet the sense of urgency prevailed it seems. Giving the american public a solution that seemed “soft” was bad for political survival and approval. Your comment also seem like its better to do a shitty “alternative” rather than none… I at least feel Bush is making things worse. I’d rather have nothing done than getting into silly wars… sucks politically of course.
Then finally you fail to explain how a democratic Iraq will push other ME countries into democracy which is the whole point of the thread.perv,
Why will Iraqi democracy have more effect on the region than Turkish, Jordanian and Israeli democracy, (not to mention the various other nominal democracies in the region)?
Fair enough. Hussein’s not much of a standard to exceed in many ways.
However, we’re expecting a quite abit more than “better than Saddam.”
But on the other hand, there wasn’t evidence of Hussein being much of a threat to the US. It wouldn’t take much more of a threat to be more of a threat than Iraq was.
Sam,
How will a liberated Iraq help make the ME democratic, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)? And how will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?
It’s kind of you to point this out. However, because there is a neocon vision of spreading the “zone of democracy,” I assume that you mean " not an exclusively neocon position." Armed imposition of democratic reforms is an essential element to the enlargement of the zone of democracy as envisioned by various neocon authors.
furt,
After the level of honesty you displayed in our last exchange, I’m not sure if this is response is even worth the effort; however…
The Army War college doesn’t have a particular voice to speak with as such. However, the fact that they respected the fellowe enough to decide to invite the him to teach there and have decided to publish his paper says that the paper is held worthy of serious consideration in the ongoing debate about American foreign policy.
This is a biscuit crux if I’ve ever seen one. This is not easily demonstrated though. One of the fundamentals of Democracy, that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, is not universal.
The only discussion of a mechanism for the spread of the democratic zone in what you linked to is the “mere existence” one, (“Iraqi liberal democracy will represent a threat to the autocratic regimes in the region merely by existing…”).
Why will Iraqi democracy have more effect on the region than Turkish, Jordanian and Israeli democracy, (not to mention the various other nominal democracies in the region)?
One has to wonder about the depth of committment to “democracy”. There is a rosy scenario therein hidden, the presumption that a democratic, elected governance must inherently be sympathetic to American interests and policy. Why should this be so?
Lets take an extreme example: suppose it became apparent that the Iraqi people, given thier druthers, would elect Saddam Hussein. Far-fetched, to be sure, but suppose. Clearly, the American occupation regime will not permit such a circumstance, but how to avoid it? Given that we are publicly committed to democracy in Iraq, how do we thwart the will of a nation while mouthing platitudes about democracy?
Now, take a less unreasonable example: given a Shiite majority in the population at large, what is to prevent them from imposing a Shiite theocracy? An outcome only marginally more agreeable that the previous nightmare scenario. A nightmare scenario brought about by entirely democratic means.
Would the US be willing to accept an authoritarian autocracy that is friendly to American interests and policy? My guess is yes, and in a Newyork minute. If you agree that this is the case, then you must further accept that our committment to “democracy” is mere window dressing. If we can have a freely elected regime friendly to ourselves, excellent! I suspect, however, that we will discover the need for more time for democratic institutions to flourish, time for the Iraqi people to accept the wisdom and goodness of American leadership. A “transition period” will be found necessary, a period of “guided democracy” to educate and indoctrinate the Iraqi people in the true path. Time enough to create a nation of small entrepeneurs and Starbucks franchises.
Meet the new Boss, similar, in many ways, to the old Boss.
None of us are privy to that information, but that isn’t the point; the point is that nobody outside the adminstration is offering a compehensive plan for eliminating the threat either. The left throws out bromides about multilateralism and the UN and peace, but on the whole they are not offering constructive, practical real-world suggestions.
Check that. They are. The whole idea behind the phrase “neo-con” is that these were people who were at one time solid liberals, but who were disenchanted with the way their parties were increasingly detached from the real world. Imagine.
Oh, please. I stated why I didn’t think further discussion would be useful, and stopped posting. I read your response, and since your position on the matter at hand was unchanged, and more imprtantly since we seemed to be have differing grounds for our positions, I decided to let you have the last word and let the matter drop. If you want to call me a liar, open a pit thread. I already invited 'luci to do so.
well, I’d differ, but regardless, my point was that it is a bit confusing to say “the Army War College paper…” as if it was an official position. I’d hate to see something I said attributed to my University just because they pay me.
Agreed. I think the unstated truth is that many people either don’t think Democracy is a universal good, or that it is but it is incompatible with Islam and/or Arab culture, or that the people there aren’t ready for it right now. Opponents to the plan don’t say any of this in part because it’d be political suicide.
Envy of freedom of speech. Envy of being free from fear of the government. Envy as women in those countries get jobs, go to school, and are generally treated as human beings. Envy as the free nations gain more respect on the world stage. Greed, if freer markets create wealth. All leading to groundswells for reform.
Turkey and Israel are not Arab; sounds dumb to us, but it matters to them. “Nominal” democracy is the exact problem.
Again, I’m not sure it’ll work. My own feeling is that I wish there was less talk of “democracy” and more of “open societies.” If we could ensure freedom of speech, etc. it will create democracy in time. I’m not sure we can even do that; but failing any better plans, it’s worth trying.
Step one: Conquer Iraq
Step two: Profit, err democracy flowers in the middle east.
This is the plan you’re so excited about?
What’s the causal mechanism whereby we move from step 1 to step 2?
I’ve no need for name-calling, hence no need for the Pit. Simple facts were sufficient to demonstrate the intended deceitfulness of your posts.
Since the paper was published by the Army War College in their official journal it’s quite reasonable to refer to it as an Army War College paper. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your assertion otherwise is mendacious.
No need to bother replying further.
My take on the issue:
I don't think anyone would dispute that the Arab world in general is in a bad situation. There are a myriad of problems, some unique to individual countries, but high rates of unemployment and otherwise poor economic conditions are hallmarks.
In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has completely marginalized his secular opposition and effectively turned al Azhar (the Muslim Ulema is tasked with criticizing and advising the government) into an organ of the state. His country is in dire straits, and his people have no real recourse save for radical Islamist organizations that provide for social welfare while spouting hatred for Israel and America. It?s sort of a paradox that Mubarak himself quietly does the same thing ? when the Egyptian people ask why the government does so little; he points to America and Israel as the source of their problems. Democracy, says Mubarak, is untenable because Islamists will seize power. He wouldn't know.
Across the Red Sea, the Saudi monarchy is in a similar situation. For a long while, but mainly since the 1973 oil embargo, the Saudis have been promoting puritanical Wahhabist Islam throughout the Islamic world as a means to exert political influence, and as a bulwark against Khomeini?s rival brand of Islamism. Rich Saudi families have long imported laborers from other parts of the Muslim world, such as Pakistan and Malaysia, who then return to their home countries with a lot of money ? and Wahhabist Saudi Arabia to thank for it. With no shortage of funds, the Saudis have promoted their agenda directly in places as far away as the US and the Phillipines. Since one of their aims was to oppose Shia Islamism, they were unfortunately obligated to fund any group that claimed to defend Sunnism, no matter how radical. After the Gulf War, many of these Saudi-funded groups turned on their former benefactors for allowing US troops to be stationed in the Kingdom. The consequences, exemplified by the recent attacks on Riyadh, have been devastating. The Saudi problem of importing labor has caused another problem ? the rich sons of Saudi oilmen don?t have to get jobs, and so are free to major in such useful and job-winning subjects as Islamic Jurisprudence. They?re bored, without purpose, and chock full of conservative Wahhabist doctrine. Enter al Qaeda. Of course, the Saudis realize the problem, but when young Saudi men to do try get jobs, infinitely more qualified laborers from abroad shut them out.
I could go on with examples from other countries, but there are plenty of books that do just that. [In the Shadow of the Prophet](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385476914?v=glance) [Jihad: the Trail of Political Islam](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674008774/103-7460539-9568617?v=glance)
All of this begs a question, and that is ?how to change things?? I think that?s the angle neocons are coming from. As Fareed Zakaria and others on this thread have deftly pointed out, democracy means nothing without certain guarantees and institutions. Free speech and protection of minorities, namely. There?s no question that Arabs recognize their poverty and want desperately to do something about it. The idea, quite simply, is to let the Arabs themselves figure it out. If that?s to happen, though, a stable and fair Iraqi democracy will have to materialize, and the US and other world powers will have to *encourage* other Arab powers to pursue reform. Jordan, Kuwait, and many other Gulf states are already doing exactly that. Saudi Arabia is doing so cautiously, but I think Bush needs to do much more to give them an impetus.
As Aldebaran has made very clear here and in other threads, Arabs are not stupid and are not to be spoken down to. I do think it's a safe bet, however, that a successful democracy in Iraq will make the trend elsewhere unstoppable. And despite Iraq's problems, I have enough naive and idealistic faith to think that Iraqis will not let Saddam's fall be in vain.
btw - I apologize if I’ve missed some glaring point, or if everything I just wrote is incoherent. It’s 2:30 am.
… In case you couldn’t tell, the word>thread translation turned all my apostrophes into question marks.
Neo-cons throw things lightly around... "worth trying" is put pretty lightly. Invading Iraq isn't a mild social experiment in changing Arabic nations... its a fucking full blown military invasion and OCCUPATION. (emphasis on what Bush seems to have forgotten). This sounds just like the communists I talk to... they put it mildly with words like "revolution" and "system change". They like the neo-cons beleive themselves as being made of purer stuff ... but in the end its people's lives and countries were are dealing with. If things fail its not a simple let's start from the beggining. If things fail you have chaos and messed up country. Add to that the half hearted effort at creating a democracy and its a total mess.
Are you so sure ? I see so many people saying no alternatives were given. In the US its granted... no one dared voice opposition... but otherwise there was no lack of seeking alternatives by the UN and other nations. From exile to more forceful inspections... from military and diplomatic pressures too. The US was creating the momentum to finish Saddam's reign for sure... and that was not bad at all... but it was the so called "solution" adopted that became a quagmire.
In the end Bush didn't seem to want any other alternative. The number of troops already in Kuwait and the silly "proofs" of WMD made it clear that WAR was the only choice being seeked. Most countries instead of trying at "offering constructive, practical" suggestions were busy trying to stop the US from invading Iraq unilaterally. Or do you really think Bush was willing to try something else more political or diplomatic ?
You can chant your diplomacy is for pussies mantras of course and say its foolishness and weakness... and all you have to show is that "envy" will change the ME into something better.How will a liberated Iraq help make the ME democratic, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)? And how will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?
I think that the alternative to the democratization of the the Middle East is the continuing of the pre-war status quo. The problem with the pre-war status quo is that it produced Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden as well as thousands of people willing to die trying to kill us. The Shah of Iran was a friendly autocrat, King Fahd is a friendly autocrat, Saddam Hussein was a friendly autocrat. History seems to suggest that friendly autocrats do not work out for the United States interests. History also seems to suggest that democracies are better for peace than autocracies. Germany has not started any wars since it was democratized, neither has Japan. As for the arguement about experimenting with Iraq, if the new government of Iraq only kills thousands of its people instead of hundreds of thousands isn’t that a big improvement?
Please try to explain to this Dumb Arab why considering Jews and Turks as not being Arabs is “dumb”?
Next be so kind to explain to this Dumb Arab why it is so dumb that we know that we all live in different nations, that we all have different cultures, that we all have different governments = that we are different and not One Big Soup with the same taste ?
I’m waiting in despair to get educated about the reason why the Great News that I need to look at Turks and Jews as if they are Arabs didn’t reach me until now.
I’m sure I am extremely dumb. Thank you for explaining that to me Great Wise Superior Educated One.
I’m going back now to my poor Black Tent with one skinny goat and criple camel in the background, eat my daily portion of sand and start pondering about your wisdom that is in such imaginable great contrast to my dumbness.
Oh come and liberate me with Jerry Springer and Mc Donalds.
Salaam. A
I’ve been reading about World on Fire by Yale University law professor Amy Chua - although I haven’t read it yet, just wanted to introduce the ideas to see what y’all thought.
She argues that when you have a ‘market-dominant minority’ - like whites in Zimbabwe and Chinese in Indonesia - the interests of the minority, who are empowered by the markets, contrast with the interests of the majority, who are poor and pissed off and empowered by democracy. This is a highly volatile situation to say the least.
She also points out that ‘democracy’ is more than just ‘giving everyone the vote.’ First of all, there has never been a democracy that has begun with universal suffrage. There have always been many controls in place to make the process run more smoothly, which may not have been ‘democratic’ or otherwise positive except that they allowed for some stability and predicitability, which I think we agree would be good in Iraq.
Second, democracy has lots of other features, like legislated protection of minorities and anti-trust laws and other things that seem to be lacking in Iraq.
Because when people living with a stagnant economy and political repression get fed up (and they are clearly fed up), they’re going to look to their Iraqi neighbors and want some of that democracy shit for themselves - as if they don’t already. Like I said, though, the solution is not to give a bunch of arms to militants to overthrow the Mubaraks and Asads of the region - the US and other world powers have to work with these governments to get them to reform slowly to avoid the sort of debacles outlined by Zakaria and Amy Chua. One of Zakaria’s main points is that the US should embrace liberalizing dictators such as Pervez Musharraf.
Why would this make the US safer? Because when Arabs can enjoy a decent, dignified standard of life, and can redress their grievances through democratic means, militant Islam can’t take root like it has today.
Aldebaran: I don’t know if you directed that at me, and I can’t speak for others, but I go out of my way to not come across as arrogant and act like I’m talking down to the Arab world. I am not motivated by some feeling of moral superiority, and I sure as shit do not mean to say that Arabs are incapable of dealing with their own problems. If you disagree with what I have to say, fine, but keep in mind that I have nothing but the best intentions when you reply with things like “I’m sure I am extremely dumb. Thank you for explaining that to me Great Wise Superior Educated One.”
I just realized I mentioned Musharraf when speaking about Arabs. My bad.
The principle is the same, though, regardless of the country you’re dealing with. A massive democratic revolt will create more problems than it solves.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable of someone to see your statement above as a false dilemma.
The “pre-war status quo” certainly is an alternative to the democratization of the ME.
It’s certainly not the only one though.
Similarly, there’re scenarios besides the one that’s expected to result from the mysterious effects emanating from the “mere existence” of a reformed Iraq that may result in the democratization of the ME.
It’s worth noting that in the view of some experts,
Are you asserting that the benefit of increased safety for the US will come about because Iraq will be militarily gelded the same way that Germany and Japan were?
Or are you merely using anecdotes in support of a general principle?
It’s worth noting at this point that a number of democratized nations have started wars.
How will a liberated Iraq help make the ME democratic, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?
How will a democratic ME make the US safer, (and what’s the evidence of this “how”)?
Two questions about this:
You’re saying that the democratic reform of Iraq would evoke a desire for democratic reform from neighboring countries because democratic reform in Iraq will bring abut economic well being, and that in the minds of ME residents, economic well being is dependent on democratic reform, correct?
If the mechanism by which the democratic reform of Iraq is to influence the ME is by causing ME residents, (Iraq’s neighbors), to want “some of that democracy shit for themselves,” yet, Iraq’s neighbors already and currently want “some of that democracy shit for themselves,” how would the democratic reform of Iraq change things? How does it eliminate whatever impediments there are to achieving this “democracy shit?”
Since the main grievances that predispose Arabs toward anti-US violence are not, (and would not be), grievances with their own, (or even newly reformed), governments, but instead with the US,
What democratic means would residents of newly reformed ME countries use to redress their grievances with the US?
I’m pretty sure he was addressing furt.
SineN,
You don’t have the member name “furt”, do you?
I’m not familiar with these books you refer to (and I would recommend you to find some written by those who made of the ME their study field). But your posts give at least the impression that you made the effort to inform yourself before posting.
As for your comments on local regimes: If it wasn’t for Western (read: nowadays mostly US) backing, they wouldn’t be there in the first place.
The US with its strong geopolitical and economical interests in the region has little to gain by seeing them overthrown and replaced by a government that represents the vote of the majority. The situation right now would provide us with a variety of fundamentalists popping up like mushrooms in the race to win the game. (And take a look at Algeria to have an idea of the resulting panic and where that ends when fundamentalists win elections. No comment needed.)
These nations harbour underlying tensions between people, tribes, groups, ethnics, religions and you can add to that also the immigrants and all the problems related to this.
Without a strong centralized government all these tensions will surface in no time. You see it happen in Iraq right now.
Even a blind can see that the situation is explosive and that something is bound to happen sooner or later. But don’t pray that it happens just because you think that would “serve the interests of the USA” (or the West, whatever); you could be confronted with a badly surprising result.
It needs to be said that the general naivety of the West when it comes to deal with this region is stunning, especially after the long history of European powers in dealing with - and afterwards in colonising - that same region.
Why they simply refuse to get it into their heads that they deal there with people, traditions, culture and religions that are not in the least comparable with Western … I contribute that to intellectual laziness resulting in what I call “The Post Colonial Disease”.
The USA beats them all by several lengths. The mere assumption that getting rid of Hussein would “solve everything” is too ridiculous to even be worth to be laughed at.
The illusion that by invading Iraq they would create the dreamed situation to be able to control the whole region is something one could expect from Empire Builders who only see profit and have lost touch with daily reality (In this case: they even didn’t have a clue of the reality and still have none, although they were warned often enough about it).
The US is not the first nation in history that wants to rule the world at all costs. Yet it is the first nation to do it at such a global wide scale, using the most murderous weapons that have ever existed in human history.
Well I’m sorry, but I can’t share your optimism for several reasons.
The clumsy arrogant lunatics that govern the USA right now don’t know what they have started and they have no clue how it shall end.
In any case: I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of the one that is elected president and who shall have to clean up the mess, after this intellectual zero -together with his lunatical crew- is voted out of the White House.
Salaam. A
Simonx said:
It could happen as follows:
Iran is the key. Iran used to have a functioning democracy that seemed to be working pretty well until it got overthrown by America. So:
-
we know that Iran can make a democracy work
-
we know that they know how to run a democracy
-
we have a pretty good idea that they want democracy since the ruling mullahs appear to be very unpopular
-
they already have a limited democratic process
HOWEVER, Iran was unable to make radical changes to their governmental system while they had Saddam glaring at them from over the border. It would have been too risky. They needed a strong unified government to stand up to Saddam. The time to change government in Iran was not when they had a mad, hostile dictator just next door.
HOWEVER, if Iran were to have a stable, peaceful, democractic, prosperous, non-threatening Iraq next door then they could risk changing government. That would be a good time to throw the mullahs out.
The next problem then becomes how to get rid of the mullahs. This will require a critical mass of the people to be against them. They already have demonstrations against the government in Iran, they’re just not big enough yet.
Iran is ready to go, could happen at any time.
What will also happen once Iraq’s oil production gets going is that some of that wealth will be spread around. Iraq will attract migrant workers from neighbouring states. The people in those neighbouring states will see democracy working well in Iraq and want a piece of the action.
As regards the argument that there will be a civil war in Iraq between the shia, the sunni, the kurds, the turkemans and anyone else you care to mention. Well this could happen but I happen to think this is a bit of a racist argument - it implies that the Iraqis can’t be trusted to run a democracy.
The same argument was used about South Africa during the apartheid era - that it would collapse into chaos the moment the whites gave up power. The unspoken assumption of this argument was that the blacks couldn’t be trusted to run the government . Well it didn’t happen.
Same with Iraq. Remember the Iraqis have lived under a brutal dictatorship for 30 years. It’s possible that they’ve had enough of dictatorship and are willing to give this new-fangled “democracy” idea a try. Hey, if it doesn’t work they can always go back to dictatorship again. It’s up to them. But I think that it’s just possible that there may be a lot of people in Iraq who definitely DO NOT want another dictatorship. You don’t hear their voices, they are the silent ones. The ones who don’t plant bombs and make a big fuss. But they’re there all the same.
That’s the thing about democracy - it allows the silent ones to have their say.
People say the shia and the sunni will never get on with each other. The argument is that one or the other has to hold total power. Well, I’m not convinced by this argument because that is precisely what democracy was designed for. It’s a system of government in which different competing factions all get representation in government. That’s the WHOLE POINT of democracy - it allows different groups to work together, it removes the need for dictatorship.
Democracy as an idea is strong enough to withstand the sunni/shia squabble. But the people are going to have work with it to some extent - leave it room to function. If that happens then I think Iraq will be ok.
Aldebaran said:
But my point above is that democracy is strong enough to deal with all these tensions. Democracy doesn’t have to mean weak government - would you say the US has a weak government? Democracy is adaptable - it can deliver whatever kind of government is required.
The WHOLE POINT of democracy is that it is a system of government where different factions can be appeased. Where different factions can feel they have a role and an influence in government, so they don’t need to resort to terrorism and violence. If they have a grievance then they can raise it with their representative in Parliament and something can be done about it.
I don’t see any reason why some form of democracy should not work in Iraq. I’m not saying it *will/i] work but, in theory, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t.