The Democratic Domino Theory Revisited

[Nietzsche]

@manhattan

Here’s a hopeful sign:Chirac is indeed is starting to get it; it wasn’t too far a stretch for him, as he got it as regards Haiti which is if anything an even tougher situation.

Yeah, that one is a bit stickier, isn’t it? Because here you are touting “democracy to all!” while helping an armed gang depose a democratically elected leader. I’m glad Mr. Chirac gets it. I’m not so sure the Hatians do.

[furt]

@PatriotX

IIRC, what I wrote was that the mechanism by which this theory was to work was mostly undiscussed. And, I asked, even if it does work, how does it benefit the US to implement it.

Well, yes; we haven’t spent much time explaining why it is that in the long-term, supporting democracy is a counterproductive idea. I’d assumed it was self-evident, but it appears I was wrong.

To boil it down, I would argue that most people are primarily interested in their own lives. They want health, prosperity and personal freedom. Pathological hatred, whether from the Klan or Hamas, is the result of people who are fearful, insecure and/or self-percieved failures. Obviously, not everyone thinks like this: kings and preists may try to whip up hatred so that they may win glory or treasure; but more often than not they do so at least in part to make a discontent populace more governable.

And yes, there is the occasional mob mentality that arises even in prosperous nations. But by and large, I feel quite confortable saying that if progress and prosperity are increasing, people are much less inclined to want to leave that and go attack someone else because he prays or thinks the wrong way. They may not like him – but it is only a fanatic that would leave a happy, successful life and throw it all away just to strike a symbolic blow against the “other.” This article gives an a propos example of what I mean.

The question is, how accurately does the above description describe the onversation under discussion?
I’d say very poorly.

I’d say 100%. You never did give an alternative plan, even after asking for the thread. I can only take it to mean that you don’t have one, or that you do but do not wish to share it. Either way, the effect is the same: you offer criticisms (again, some of which I share) but nothing constructive.

I didn’t say that the idea had to be airtight, just that it had to be more than assertion only. All I’ve been looking for is an explanation. I’ve been unable to see mere proximity as a mechanism.

We discussed this already and you seemed to understand what we were saying. You didn’t accept it, as is your right, but don’t say it wasn’t explained to you.

If you really can’t see how watching the Iraqi elections on Al-Jazeera might make Joe Egyptian restive, I don’t know what more I can say. You may want to look up historical precedents, like the Atlantic Revolutions of the late 1700s, the revolutions of 1848, or the way the Warsaw Pact nations fell in succession.

In the individual, idealism can be admirable, even honorable, idealism in the conduct of nations is foolhardy and potentially disastrous.

True. But to again repeat myself, high ideals are not a disqualifier in and of themselves.

Kissengerian realpolitik was loathsome even when it worked; now that it has failed us, I see no reason to carry on with it. “Foment a wave of reform the middle east” beats “do nothing” for the least bad plan on the table, absent that constructive alternative proposal.

And I truly hope you don’t call yourself a “progressive.”

The reports that i supplied in that thread made it clear that from the pov of Muslims/Middle Easterners the issue at the crux of the biscuit is American foreign policies and their effects in the region.
From that pov, the invading of Iraq is more of the same. The invasion is the status quo.

I wouldn’t have the temerity to speak for the entire Middle East, given that so many pundits’ predictions have been proven wrong. But if we were setting up an amenable strongman in Baghdad, you’d be 100% correct, and I’d imagine that many in the thought we would be doing exactly that.

The wave of change was spurred when they saw free elections. Fot the first time in a generation, America’s actions matched our rhetoric. The next big thing will be the permanent constitution; but the capper will be when the elected Iraqi Government starts taking off the training wheels. Their first big, public diplomatic disagreement with the US (I’d say early/mid 2006) will be a big step forward.

I’m still adamant that the primary focus US foreign policy should be advance US interests.

Me, too, and as has been explained in excruciating length, many of us believe making the ME a better place to live IS in the US’ interest. Again; reject the logic if you wish, and offer an alternative vision.

Most people diverged merely at the invasion of Iraq. Which, afaict is a tactical level decision rather than a strategic one.

True; although I’d also say that I heard precious few concrete, feasable alternatives to that tactical choice.

And of course that’s more or less irrelevant to your position, which (so far as I can tell) is that reforming the Middle East is not likely to succeed, and that instead we should … well, there we are again.

[pantom]

Ah well. It’s just wonderful to put all that energy into a series of posts and then have the person it was principally directed at pick at a peripheral point and cite obvious lies as his backup. If you’re too naive to get it, I’m too busy to bother.
Have a nice life.