Jumblatt has made a remarkable about-face regarding America – but that strikes me as rather opportunistic, America being the new biggest kid in the neighborhood. I.e., he now sees us as potential allies of the Lebanese against the Syrians. And why does he think that? . . . Let’s not go there. Let’s really not go there.
So what he has done to push Saudi Arabia or Egypt towards democracy? Seems like we give a “small chunk of change” to Egypt every year. Any new strings attached to that?
I was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia wrt ObL. I don’t have the cites handy, but surely you’ve seen the public opinion polls where a significant majorty of Saudis consider ObL to be a hero, haven’t you?
He might have said he was abandoning it – but do you think Pervez Musharraf or King Fahd are losing any sleep?
Errmm . . . yes, there is, furt. It might not be a majority viewpoint in Iraq but it definitely has been a very important factor, both in the election and in the insurgency. Fundamentalist Islamicism also remains pretty important in Egypt. And Iran, needless to say. As for Saudi Arabia – we’ve discussed the prospects for change there in several GD threads in the past year, and the consensus is that the only significant opposition to the monarchy is coming from radical Wahhabists like bin Laden who think the House of Saud is too corrupt, impious and Westernized. To date, no one has offered the slightest shred of evidence of any pro-secular-democracy movement, or grassroots sentiment, in SA.
Posts 1 (NY Times editorial and Mark Steyn), 8 and 9 (Jumblatt), 17 (Hitchens and Freidman), and 25 (Washington Post, the Guardian, Der Speigel, NY Times, and those conservative bastions Matthew Iglesias and Jon Stewart).
Again, I ask:
-
What sort of “proof” do you want? I can’t “prove” that the work of Freud and Darwin spurred changes in societal attitudes, but I can certainly argue that they did.
-
Are you contending that these things are not connected? Do you intend to take a contrary position, or do you merely want to play the don?
[/QUOTE]
I was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia wrt ObL. I don’t have the cites handy, but surely you’ve seen the public opinion polls where a significant majorty of Saudis consider ObL to be a hero, haven’t you?
[/QUOTE]
Sure. And SA will be the last to throw off Wahhabism, simply because there they have the cash, and there the US has been so deeply in bed with the Sauds.
But keep in mind, I’m NOT saying that this is pro-US sentiment. Arab democracy is a “third way” between, on the one hand, the dictators, and on the other, the Islamicists.
The former, no, not yet. But I think he also knows which way the wind blows. The latter, yes.
Oh, I’m not saying its dead … not by a mile. But I would argue that in the region as a whole, its influence will be, and indeed, is, waning in the face of real deomcracy as a viable alternative.
But the Islamists were elected in Iran, in what appears to be an open and fair election. There is ample evidence that a large portion of Irans population deeply regrets that fact, but the fact remains. There is nothing inherently secular about democracy, as witness the impact of the fundy Right on American politics.
And AQA, you seem to be trying to have it both ways: you claim that WMD’s were just one of many reasons, and offer quotes as proof. OK, so GeeDubya is willing to dress up his foreign policy blunder as a noble effort for egalitrarianism. Now, if this were truly the case, why not (as I’ve mentioned but you seem to have missed) start with countrys we already occupy, such as Kuwait? Kuwait is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a democracy a-borning.
If every word weighed the same, the mass of verbiage expended upon WMD as a justification for war would vastly outweigh the verbiage expended on “democracy”. Are you going to deny this?
But come now. Anyone with the good sense God gave a goose knows full well that we were sold this war based on the threat of Iraq, a threat that has since proved to be bullshit. Whatever splendid consequences might arise, either by purposeful and forsightful planning or sheer dumb luck, does not change this fundamental fact. If you wish to claim that the bullshit was justified by the glorious dawning of ME democracy, that is your privilege. But at least speak plainly.
Post #1:
Mark Steyn: Does not actually demonstrate or even describe any causal connections between Iraq and the other events, he simply assumes them. WRT Egypt, he mentions U.S. pressure as pushing Mubarak in the direction of democracy – but such pressure does not really depend on our having troops in Iraq, does it?
The NYT editorial: Does not even imply that the Iraq War precipitated any of the other events; it’s simply a list of hopeful developments, happening at the same time, and lumped under the general heading of “breaking the ice.” (A strikingly inapt metaphor for anything Middle Eastern. 
)
Post #8 & 9: Jumblatt might say that, but that doesn’t mean he’s right. The sequence of events in Lebanon was: (1) Hariri, an anti-occupation activist, announced intention to run for another term as P.M. (2) Hariri was assassinated. (3) Popular suspicion fell on Syria. (4) This ignited long-simmering public resentment of the Syrian occupation, culminating in massive demonstrations in the street. (5) The pro-occupation government responded to obvious public feeling and resigned. Where’s Iraq or the U.S. in any of that?
Post #25: Washington Post: Says nothing, really, but that the Arab autocrats are feeling scared – which is not necessarily a good thing. (See below.)
Matthew Yglesias: Content-free glurge.
The Guardian: “The Lebanese protesters are surely emboldened by the knowledge that Syria is under heavy pressure, with US and France united in demanding its withdrawal.” Maybe so, but what’s that got to do with Iraq? “That pressure carries an extra sting if Damascus feels that the latest diplomatic signals - including Tony Blair’s remark yesterday that Syria had had its “chance” but failed to take it and Condoleezza Rice’s declaration that the country was “out of step with where the region is going” - translate crudely as “You’re next”. Similar thinking is surely at work in the decisions of Iran and Libya on WMD and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on elections. Put simply, President Bush seems like a man on a mission to spread what he calls the “untamed fire of freedom” - and these Arab leaders don’t want to get burned.” :eek: This is less inspiring than chilling! In claiming a “domino effect,” furt seems to be asserting that these changes are happening because the peoples of the ME are inspired by the Iraqis’ example in going to the polls. But this article is saying it’s because their leaders are afraid of U.S. military action (and their pro-democracy movements are, perhaps, inspired by the same prospect). You see the difference? I hope you see the difference. It’s a very important difference.
Der Speigel: Again, content-free.
Washington Post: 
“Catastrophe theory”? I have doubts as to whether this even deserves to be dignified with the name of pseudoscience.
New York Times: Of course there could have been no democratic elections in Iraq if Hussein were still in power. But, again, no causal relationship is described between that and anything else.
Jon Stewart: Is merely considering the possibility that a “wave of change” exists. The interview is all over the map. Soderberg says, “I think partly what’s going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they’re–people are sort of sick of that, and saying, “Wait a minute, that’s a stretch too far.” So part of what’s going on is they’re just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them.” Just so, but that doesn’t mean the Iraq War was in any way a precondition for it.
See, when you don’t want to believe what’s in front of your eyes, all the evidence presented is just ‘content free glurge’.
Of course, when those same left-wing source say things that Brainglutton approves of, they become authoritative, argument-proof cites.
As for whether democratization of the Middle East is a post-war justification after WMD weren’t found, I’d like to point out what I said in the old, “Iraq Prediction Thread” several years ago (and before the war started):
I recall meeting with a lot of derision over those predictions.
John Mace said:
Opinion polls taken in dictatorships mean nothing. But even if there is an overall pro-Islamist sentiment there, the reason is because the Saudis have been paying off the extremists in their country for years to keep them in line, and the extremists have used that money to radicalize the population through education, intimidation, and forcing charity to go through them. Take away the dictatorship, and things will change. It may take time.
Excellent! Just so long as it doesn’t take another war!
Which “free and fair elections” are you referring to? The Council of Guardians (unelected clerics) get to veto any candidates they don’t like.
I’m pretty much with you on this thread’s topic, 'luc, but “free and fair elections” in Iran? Am I missing something…?
Sam: Yes, polling info isn’t always the best source of data, but do you have anything better?
You are joking, right? ‘Open and fair elections’ in Iran?? They elected Islamists in Iran 'luci because only Islamists are on the ballot. Its kind of like saying the Iraqi’s REALLY liked Saddam because they kept electing him.
-XT
Is there a non-registration cite for that info, or can you quote the pertinent part?
Apparently, I’ve been unclear. There were many, many reasons to go to war with Iraq. Just as WMD wasn’t the only reason for the war in Iraq, democratizing Iraq wasn’t the only reason for war. If you read the post I linked to earlier, you’ll see that there was a very long list of reasons that Iraq made a prime target for war.
There were far fewer reasons for war against Kuwait. For example, Kuwait does not have a history of aggression against its neighbors in the region, Kuwait has not been accused of torturing and murdering its own citizens, Kuwait is not an avowed enemy of the US, etc.
No, but I do deny that it matters much. Just because I spend a lot more time talking about the Dallas Cowboys doesn’t mean the Oakland Raiders don’t exist. And just because I told that girl last night that I asked her out because of her wonderful personality doesn’t mean that there weren’t other, perfectly valid reasons I asked her out.
I believe I have spoken plainly. But I’m starting to see why we’re having trouble reaching a consensus.
You seem to be under the impression that the Bush administration can have only one reason for war at a time. Well, I’m pleased to inform you that despite our obvious mental deficiencies, we conservatives can actually hold more than one idea in our heads at any given time (… well, at least some of us can, … at least when the ends are consonant, … and we concentrate really hard). In fact, we can have lots of reasons for the things we support and the things we do. For example, I’m eating goldfish crackers right now because they’re delicious and because I’m hungry and because they’re fun to eat and because they don’t drip sauce on my shirt and because they’re sitting right in front of me, and for quite a few other reasons, too.
There was no one justification that made the war with Iraq justified. It’s the existence of all those reasons that made war with Iraq justified. And the mere fact that Bush didn’t talk as much (or even at all) about those other reasons doesn’t mean that they weren’t good and valid reasons for war.
And the existence of all those other reasons is why Bush isn’t being hypocritical for not waging war against other countries that fit some, but not all, of those reasons. It’s complicated, but there are at least a few of us conservatives that can hold such ideas in our heads without blood pouring from our ears.
This is a riot! I have a friend at work, a very conservative fellow, who some time ago made a prediction. “Bob,” he said, “you’ll know that Bush was right, you can be certain that he chose the right path, when a certain progression occurs.” This was what he told me to look for:[ul][li]The goals that the adminstration specifically identified and predicted would begin to unfold. Democracy would start to take root in the ME, with people specifically citing the “Bush Doctrine” as the inspiration for their efforts.[/li][li]The Left would snort, “Merely coincidence!”[/li][li]As democracy took a firmer hold, this would lead to, “Actually, this outcome was an inevitability, completely unrelated to anything the Bush adminstration did. In fact, I believe I may have predicted this back in the Clinton administration. Yes, nothing surprising here at all.”[/li]And finally, “Now that I think about it, the invasion of Iraq probably set back the cause of democracy. If only Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, the tide would have turned months earlier. Damn Republicans!”[/ul]My pal points out the leftist apologists who similarly dismissed Reagan’s influence on the fall of the Soviet Union. Anyway, judging by this thread, we’re in phase II (“merely a coincidence”). I can’t wait to see if my buddy’s progression concludes as he predicts. Maybe even in this thread! Stay tuned…
I submit you’re wrong about this. There was only one justification for the war. There were, however, a number of stated reasons.
When you say that the reasons for the war not pertaining to WMD and Iraq’s supposed imminent threat to world peace based thereon were “good and valid reasons for war”, what do you base that on? Lets leave aside for the moment that, were the other reasons sufficient to justify the war, there’d have been no need to cherrypick/distort intelligence concerning the WMD. What you are arguing is that the war was justified despite the fact that Iraq did not hold WMD and thus did not pose a threat to world peace. Do you acknowledge that this is a very radical departure from the UN Charter and the history of international relations since WW11? The tone of your last post suggests that the proposition is not at all novel.
Its your right to argue and believe that unprovoked wars waged against countries that do not pose any threat to international peace are “justified”, but don’t kid yourself that that view doesn’t constitute a massive moving of the goalposts condemned almost unanimously internationally and a minority view even amongst Bush supporters (cite).
The LA Times is properly humble before me, and did not ask for registration:
These were Bush’s conditions for avoiding the Iraq war, as stated in the U.N. General Assembly in Sept, 2002:
Note that WMD is only one of five conditions.
Comments by Ari Fleicher at a press conference before the war:
Here’s what Bush said at the American Enterprise Institute two years ago:
Note that the statements above are virtually identical to the statements he’s been making since, and yet they were given before the war.
I’m not surprised that the left has managed to bury all the other reasons for going to war with Iraq - the failure to find WMD ensured that the left would seize it as THE rationale for war, because it was the one they could discredit. But the administration has been talking about many reasons for invading Iraq, and ‘draining the swamp’ was in fact that overall strategic goal - WMD was the casus belli that the U.S. used to show the war was legal, but the motivation for war was much more complex than that. In fact, ‘draining the swamp’ was a catchphrase used by pundits during the run-up to war.
I don’t know how many recall this, but early on in the run-up to war, the administration was accused of ‘incoherence’, because it floated so many different rationales. Cheney would show up on Meet the Press and talk about WMD. Then the next day Perle would go on another show and talk about remaking the middle east. Critics started accusing the administration of not being able to stick to a reason, so they graduallly zeroed in on WMD. But as you can see, democratizing the middle east was always part of the plan.
Here’s another one for you, written while the invasion was underway:
By the way, the Bush speech I linked to in the last message was given at the American Enterprise Institute, and was widely considered at the time to be proof that Bush had ‘bought’ the Neocon vision of the was as being all about remaking the Middle East and ‘draining the swamp’ of terrorists by causing a catalytic reaction through the other tyrannies in the region. This neocon strategy has been widely known since 1991, and really came to the forefront in 1997 when the Weekly Standard published an issue dedicated to the proposition that ‘Saddam Must Go’, and remaking the Middle East was a big part of it. Al Gore and Bill Clinton were on board with that, by the way, and in the 2000 election Gore reiterated that it was imperative that Saddam’s regime be brought down.