I repeat, where’s the causal connection? The resignation of the Lebanese government was obviously precipitated by the assassination of anti-occupation politician Rafik Hariri – who was active in politics, and opposing the occupation, long before the Iraq War, wasn’t he? And I don’t think he was assassinated by Iraqi insurgents. The Syrian opposition is feeling a lift because the Lebanese example inspires them. Palestinian politics are being redefined because Arafat died – which he was bound to do, sooner or later. As for Egypt, maybe after 23 years in power, Mubarak is just tired of being a dicator and thinks things are calm enough to risk elections. What has any of this to do with Iraq?
Dominos aren’t falling fast enough. Let’s kill more people.
Another one trick pony. Freedom and Democracy are fought for. Get over it.
No sir, I did not pursue your links. I felt the thread topic could stand on its own. For throwing in a red herring through not following up material you offered, I do apologize.
Okay. My objections were to the Bush Administration justifications. Insofar as I know, neither Freidman nor Hitchens has military force with which to invade another nation. It’s their privilege to support the war on whatever grounds they choose. However, were these justifications adopted by the Administration prior to the war?
You mistake me here. If pro-democratic movements install democracies in the countries of the Middle East which do not now have them, that’s fine. My objection was, “What happened to the stable democratic government of Lebanon?” And, “Mr. Bush cannot claim to be giving Lebanon democracy.” Should the Lebanese be enabled, by virtue of the Iraq War or anything else, to re-establish their democracy, I’ll join you in rejoicing however it may happen.
Wait, let me update my Iraq war scorecard:
What the Neocons were wrong about: WMD.
What the left was wrong about: Everything else.
Remember the ‘Arab Street’? How it was going to rise up in flames? How about the brutal Afghan winter? The brutal Iraq summer? The civil war in Iraq? The humanitarian disaster? The quagmire? Remember how the insurgency was supposedly a populist movement strongly supported by the Iraqi people? Recall how the war was going to incite the other ME countries into building their own WMD, and how new terrorists were going to come flocking out of the Middle East?
Remember how the elections must be delayed, because the security situation won’t allow them? Ted Kennedy was all over that idea. In fact, Kennedy wanted to cut and run, because it was a ‘disaster’.
As for the rationale for war, I suggest you go back and read the history. The WMD argument was only one of many arguments. It rose to the forefront not because of the Neocons, who felt the U.S. should just do it, but because of the people who demanded that the U.S. go to the U.N. for approval. That required a legalistic argument, which forced the administration to focus on WMD and broken U.N. resolutions. That turns out to have been a mistake.
But I didn’t bother to start a thread like this several days ago, because I knew it would turn into yet another thread where the two sides don’t budge an inch and people demand cites and proof for things that are non-citable. Brainglutton wants proof that the Iraq invasion had anything to do with Lebanon. Such a thing simply cannot be proved. But anyone with any sense can see what’s going on - the demand for proof is just a convenient way to avoid having to re-examine one’s own cherished beliefs.
But here are some people who opposed the war but are not quite so blind:
Hey, my one trick is emulating Wittgenstein. That was just a throwaway I had lying around.
Yeah, it’s called “throwing out bushit to sell a war for self-serving interests.”
WMD was the convenient bogeyman excuse to frighten the populace into backing the damn fool war. But when said WMDs failed to materialize (thanks in large part to inept cherry-picking of half-baked intel), the Administration couldn’t admit to either screwing up or lying to the public, so they scrambled with the revisionist backpedal twaddle about how it was just a “salable” excuse. The ability of the Bush Apologists to regurgitate this nonsense – even in the face of overwhelming pre-war bushit from high-ranking Administration officials – merely demonstrates how pervasive the groupthink is.
(And frankly, the idea that a war has to be “sold” to the public – as if it were nothing more than a new brand of sugar water – is repulsive enough to reflect horribly on the duplicity of those peddling it. But that’s a topic for another thread…)
As furt’s links show, yes they were. As he showed, here’s a link to the President’s speech to the AEI, where, along with the comments about WMDs, he talks about bringing democracy, human rights, and humanitarian aid to Iraq.
Here’s the White House list of reasons as to why Iraq is a threat and action is required. It does include WMD reasons, but it also talks about human rights violations, violence against women and children, and refusal to return prisoners taken after the first Gulf War:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html
In the Iraq report, the White House says:
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html
<meta name="date" content="2004-07-21">
<meta name="WT.cg_n" content="News Policies">
<meta name="WT.cg_s" content="Policies in Focus">
In what year did we invade Iraq?
Don’t reasons normally precede actions?
Afghanistan’s national economy remains crippled and largely dependent on the heroin trade; it is obvious that there would be a flaming civil war in Iraq if our troops weren’t on the ground; Iraq is indeed a “quagmire” and a “humanitarian disaster”; the insurgency is clearly a lot more than a few cells of malcontents, and shows no signs of dying down even after the election; the Iraq war has, to say the least, done absolutely nothing to deter Iran from following through whatever plans it had regarding nuclear development (what those plans were remains controversial); and there have been many incidents of terrorism outside Iraq since the invasion. What, exactly, was the left “wrong” about?
Other than presonal testimonals, there isn’t going to be a “causal relationship” established. Something like the spread of democracy isn’t like the spread of a virus.-- we’re not going to make a scientific determination.
In the case of Lebanon, I think we have enough testimonials to say that the Iraqi elections played a significant role in the willingness of the Lebanese to rally in the streets as they have in the last few days. As for the Palestianians, I think the death of Arafat overwhelms the other factors, and we’ll never really know what role the Iraqi elections played in what happens there (assuming things actually take a turn for the better). Egypt? Meh. I’ll believe it when I see it. There isn’t any real evidence that democracy is taking hold.
And this all begs the question: Was invading Iraq the only way or the best way to proliferate democracy in the ME. I don’t see it. We (ie, our government) have shown a willingness to tolerate very undemocratic governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) as long as they’re on our side, while railing against similar governments (Iran, Syria, the Palestinians) which are NOT on our side.
All in all, I’m unconvinced. Perhaps there will be some domino effect, but it’s completely unclear that there weren’t other methods to accomplish this that didn’t involve war.
Then again, I think we have enough evidence from the history of unrest in Lebanon, to say that a major attack, or assassination will inevitably get the various Lebanese factions roiled up, with or without a war in some nearby state.
Bush, like the proverbial blind squirrel, does appear to have stumbled on an acorn. However, much as it may surprise the US-centric audience on this board, not everything is about the US. Some of it is about the inspiration of other examples, which we certainly supported, but which came about entirely on their own. Like, for instance, Ukraine. That a discussion that so largely focusses on Lebanon should omit mention of what just recently happened in Ukraine is a pretty stunning display of both ignorance and arrogance. To quote from a column in today’s FT:
from Lebanon’s Lessons for Arab Leaders
Just to make this excruciatingly obvious, please recall that the situation in Ukraine was almost exactly analogous to that in Lebanon: a local, pre-existing democracy (not brought into being by the US, please note) that rejected a puppet of a foreign power.
Not everything is about what comes out of the brains of the DC dummies, strange as that might seem to some.
Absolutely. I think we can safely say that any announcement concerning the death of tyrany in any ME country is premature.
Hmmm - it would be interesting to find out whether the major Arab Satellites (Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiyah) covered the situation in the Ukraine extensively. The reason I ask is that I read somewhere (forgot where exactly) that one could make the claim that the rise of the Arab satellites have played a major role in the burgening demand for democratization in the Middle East (if one could call it such). From your link I suspect it did - at least with respect to Lebanon.
As to the claim that the US invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein somehow triggered a democratization domino effect - well, I think it’s still way too early to make an assessment. Long standing allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) have made token gestures (if that) towards democratization. Egypt (read Mubarak) has announced new multi-party elections - although whether it’s another token gesture (likely) or a genuine one remains to be seen. What happens if the Egyptians decide to install an Islamicist regime via the democractic process (likely if fair/legal multi-party elections actually take place?)
Plus, there’s still the issue with Iraq. As the Shia are now effectively in control, who’s to stop them from implementing an Islamist regime that seeks to foster better relations with Iran? And one in which wants to see the Americans leave as quickly as possible?
I think it behooves those who support the democratization domino theory to be very careful about what you wish for - you might just get it. But not in the way you envision it. If democratization comes, it will come because the people in those countries want it and in a form that addresses their economic, political, and social concerns - which might turn out to be problematic to the long-term (and strategic) interests of the United States.
Note: For those who have forgotten, it was al-Sistani that effectlvely forced the US (or rather the CPA) to allow for the elections in Iraq.
Not exactly. He forced the issue of not DELAYING the elections, but there was never a question about ALLOWING the elections. Big difference.
While the html tab on the page is 2004, the president’s speech to the UN is from 2002, and I believe the first page I linked to was originally put up in 2002, as well.
Then what about this?
Caucuses and democracy in Iowa and Iraq: Are direct elections best?
Relevant section:
"However, the planned Iraqi caucuses have come under fire from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq’s most widely respected religious figure. Ayatollah Sistani and thousands of his Iraqi Shiite supporters would prefer direct elections to select the government.
It is easy to dismiss Sistani’s preference as self-serving. Given Iraq’s Shiite majority, direct elections would almost certainly result in a Shiite-dominated government in which his followers would wield substantial influence.
Yet if Sistani favors direct elections in Iraq because of their likely result, the same is true of U.S. officials’ preference for caucuses there. Both President Bush and L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq, favor caucuses at least in part because caucuses would likely lead to greater power sharing with Iraq’s minority Sunni and Kurdish population."
So to summerize, while it’s true that their was never any question of allowing the elections, it’s also true that the elections that did take place were a direct result of al-Sistani institing on the manner in which they DID take place (direct elections) versus what Bremer and the Bush administration originally had planned for (caucus system).
Which underscores my point about the manner in which the democratization process may occur in the region - it will be done by the people themselves in a manner they deem important/necessary. Which may, in fact, be contrary to what the US wants or desires.
Sam Stone: What the Neocons were wrong about_: WMD.
And how long the Iraq war would last. And how much it would cost. And how many lives it would take. And the alleged involvement of Hussein in 9/11. And that the Iraq invasion would scare the Iranians away from their nuclear ambitions. And that Iraqi oil revenues would mostly pay for Iraq’s reconstruction. And that detainee torture was just the isolated actions of “a few bad apples”. And that the security situation wouldn’t permit Iraqi elections to be held as early as they were. (You tried to attribute that opinion to Ted Kennedy, but as John pointed out, it was the CPA who attempted to delay elections until al-Sistani pressured them.) And that the insurgents were only a few disgruntled Ba’athists. And a number of other things.
It’s true—and we’ve known it for over a year now—that the worst pre-invasion forebodings of the war’s opponents didn’t materialize, for which everybody is thankful. And if the ME really moves toward a more stable and peaceful environment, then everybody will be even more thankful.
But even if that happens, it won’t justify revisionist attempts to claim that the neocons were right about everything except the WMD blunder (which even the most ardent neocon supporters can’t rationalize away). It’s quite clear that they’ve been wrong about lots of other things too.
Sam Stone: *Such a thing simply cannot be proved. But anyone with any sense can see what’s going on - the demand for proof is just a convenient way to avoid having to re-examine one’s own cherished beliefs. *
If you’re so determined to claim that a causal connection that “simply cannot be proved” is nonetheless obvious to “anyone with any sense”, I wonder whether you’ll be ready to acknowledge the Iraq war’s responsibility for other post-invasion developments that aren’t quite so cheerful. Such as the al-Qaeda attacks in Madrid and Saudi Arabia, or North Korea’s increased nuclear belligerence, or Iran’s resumption of its nuclear program, or the increasing global hostility towards the US.
If you’re going to assign credit for the positive developments without admitting the need to prove any causal connection, then it’s equally valid to assign blame for the negative developments, using the same standard of proof.
I agree 100%, but what’s your point? Your earlier post is still incorrect. If you didn’t mean it that way, it certainly could be interpretted that way (re: “allow”).