So. He's made it explicit. Bush has made it clear that democracy is the goal in Iraq. It will take time, and the means we use to achieve that goal will be subjected to criticism. But any chosen path has its perils, and would have its critics.
But democracy is now indisputably our goal. Those of us who believe in it will have to remember to keep Bush's feet to the fire to make sure that he carries through on that promise.
Some will point out that we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't have other motivations, if there wasn't something in it for us. To which the response is: yeah, so what? Are we required to do things only when there is absolutely nothing in it for us? We should only do this if it doesn't benefit us?
International relations aren't about purity of motives. Countries persue policies that are in their own interests, just everyday people do. We won't be democratizing Iraq because we're the world's Messiah, because America is pure and noble in everything.
But a free and democratic Iraq will be good for the world, and good for us. Guess who else it'll be good for?
I have been a vocal supporter of regime change in Iraq from day one, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration has handled this badly.
But who knows? Maybe they did the only thing they could -- wait until the troops were deployed while making the effort to get UN support.
But I've always said that relying on the UN was a fool's wish.
A key assumption of this administration's plan was that the invasion of Baghdad would be a repeat of the invasion of Paris in 1944. I hope it will be. But I can't say for sure one way or the other.
Tom Friedman posits another scenario. [I'll wait while the jeering and catcalls die down].
Friedman suggests that there are two scenarios for post-war Iraq.
The first is the post-WWII Germany scenario: we occupy Iraq, we build the institutions of democracy and we see Iraq become the democratic anchor of the Middle East.
But the second scenario is the Tito/Yugoslavia analogy: When the brutal dictator falls, the country of Iraq shatters into the chaos of ethnic hatred and warfare; eventually Iraq as we know it is erased from the map after many years of additional bloodshed.
Which one will happen? I have no idea. I'd like it to be the first choice.
But do we have a contingency to prevent the second choice from happening?
Hope someone at the top has thought this through and has a plan.
My chief concern with having the UN along is that their presence will prevent us from doing the job properly. That's what happened in '91. If we hadn't thought we had to keep a "coalition" together we might have been free to go to Baghdad after Kuwait had been retaken. Having allies dilutes your purpose. And what good did it do? No country other than Britain did anything real in Gulf War I.
This concern is mitigated by the thought that, after the Iraqi regime is changed, what else do we really have to worry about, militarily? It doesn't help to go right in to Iran or Syria or even Jordan. Those dominoes will fall, as will Saudi Arabia, which hides behind the symbolism of Mecca. So it might actually make more sense to have allies this time. It might give some political cover to Bush and especially Blair, and we might get some real help with postwar cleanup. One can hope.
>> Friedman suggests that there are two scenarios for post-war Iraq. The first is the post-WWII Germany scenario: we occupy Iraq, we build the institutions of democracy and we see Iraq become the democratic anchor of the Middle East.
But the second scenario is the Tito/Yugoslavia analogy: When the brutal dictator falls, the country of Iraq shatters into the chaos of ethnic hatred and warfare; eventually Iraq as we know it is erased from the map after many years of additional bloodshed.
Ara,
You point out the real fly in the ointment facing President Bush. This is the problem. Arabs have no experience whatsoever governing themselves. They have always relied on some authoritarian or totalitarian to make governing decisions for them. This has also been a prescription for strongman rule in the Middle East. No Arab “democracy” exists in the Middle East presently. Iraq will be the first. Remember too, Americans made the same argument regarding Taiwan and Japan following WWII. It turned out to be unwarranted. Hopefully, it will be unwarranted regarding Iraq, too.
Otherwise, we are in for another assassination of the “President” or “PM” of a new, “democratic” Iraq. Then it’s Mary hold the doors. I believe we can bring a democracy to Iraq. We can also make it last provided we stay long enough without overstaying our welcome. Remember, Benjamin Franklin said, “Fish and visitors smell in three days.”
>> Having allies dilutes your purpose. And what good did it do? No country other than Britain did anything real in Gulf War I.
Robert,
I do not believe that having allies dilutes your purpose since Great Britain was one of our true allies. I consider many nations opposing us as barely being allies at all. This time we are learning the hard way just who our allies are. Having the right allies is always good. Nations opposing us are doing so for their own selfish reasons. Hopefully they will realize their mistake soon.
Posted by Robert Speirs at February 28, 2003 07:26 PM
>> It doesn't help to go right in to Iran or Syria or even Jordan. Those dominoes will fall, as will Saudi Arabia, which hides behind the symbolism of Mecca. Therefore, it might actually make more sense to have allies this time. It might give some political cover to Bush and especially Blair, and we might get some real help with postwar cleanup. One can hope.
Robert,
I doubt that these countries will need much “persuading.” If we breathtakingly remove Saddam Hussein, I firmly believe other troublesome governments will be sufficiently intimidated to actually reconsider their support of international terrorists. Some stubborn tyrants just might find their governments undermined.
>> This concern is mitigated by the thought that, after the Iraqi regime is changed, what else do we really have to worry about, militarily?
Robert,
Nobody else exists today to challenge us militarily. That is why terrorists attack America as they do. That does not mean nobody will challenge us. Power detests a vacuum. Hopefully, winning this war on terrorism will usher in another Pax Romana or a Pax Britannica.
It will not be Pax Romana, or Pax Britannica, but Pax Americana at the point of a gun, like the good old USA. Must be just like the Pax Americana in Detroit.