Some on the hard left and hard right extremes are using recent unrest in Iraq as proof that "the Iraqis hate us." In the meantime, surveys are showing that a huge majority of Iraqis support the American effort, and most of the rest are still ambivalent and distrustful at worst. Allowing radical hatemongers to control the agenda would be a horrible mistake--for both the Iraqi people and for America's long-term national security. Which is why this campaign is every bit as important as ever:
Support democracy and human rights in Iraq!
We are still looking for web sites who want to participate in this campaign. If you run a web site--it doesn't matter whether it's a weblog or not--and want to take part in this campaign, it's as vital as ever that you consider taking part.
Also: if you're already participating, there's been an update. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies redesigned their web site, and the old link has expired. Since the linked documents--which examine the both the pitfalls and the positive potential of pro-democracy efforts--are still very good, I urge everyone to update to the latest link code.
Click here to find the current code. Whether you're already participating, or want to join now, the current code can always be found there.
By the way, if you can't get it to work, shoot me a note (my first name, "dean", at deanesmay.com) and I'll help you figure out how to make it work.
The war's over. The hard part's begun.
I checked out the foundation's on-line info and was quite nonplussed to see its spin on Syria, which of course it is entitled to. However, judging by that sort of recent positioning, it isn't exactly the nonpartisan outfit it claims to be.
Since when has Syria been anything other than a repressive dictatorship with a government-run press, Jane?
Since never, and I'd be the first to say that they are state sponsors of Hamas for a start. However, when I see the WMD canard, my radar goes up, particularly since there is no legal or UN reason why Syria cannot have weapons. And Syria is a threat to its neighbour Israel to be sure, but it is no way, shape or form a threat to North America from anything I have seen. That doesn't mean that we should pay them no mind, as the Syrian government does participate in destabilizing the region; however, the WMD stuff and the actively aiding Saddam claims were pretty partisan to my mind.
Okay, so wait. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, whose principle public sponsors are Donna Brazile and Newt Gingrich, is "partisan" because it points out that Syria is a brutal dictatorial WMD-possessing terror-sponsoring anti-democratic regime?
How does that compute?
The fact that they were aiding Saddam is now a proven fact. So how is that partisan?
As for the position that Syria threatens the US: where does the FDD say they threaten the US?
Color me completely lost.
I note you ignore the WMD part of my response. If WMDs are no threat to the US, why the sabre-rattling last month from American officials? And by partisan, I am not referring to the Democrat/GOP style partisan...believe it or not, no one much cares about that outside of the US. By partisan, I mean that it is "democracy for Iraq in the style and manner in which Americans decide it will be."
And that's not an anti-American statement...I just think democratic government in the Middle East may take a form different from that desired by the Pentagon.
What did I ignore? Yes, Syria has WMDs. Do they have a "right" to them? I suppose in some international law sense they do. What does that have to do with anything? Oppressive dictatorships with weapons of mass destruction and a habit of giving backdoor assistance to terrorists are a threat to any potential democracy in the region--whether the oppressive dictatorship has a "right" to those WMDs or not, it's still a potential threat that must be addressed.
I mean, would ANY sane person deny that?
Beyond that, I have very little idea how to address formulations like, "Democratic government in the Middle East may take a form different from that desired by the Pengaton." First, because the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is not the Pentagon. Second, because the Pentagon hasn't proposed any particular form of democracy.
Why don't we try to turn this into a real discussion instead of going in circles?
It is a fact of life that the U.S. government is going to have a huge role in shaping postwar Iraq's government. So my question for you is: Do you want them to accept input from third parties, or don't you? If you do, then the FDD has lots of ideas, lots of information, and lots of perspectives. And their only "partisanship" is the spread of democratic systems of government, and not any particular style of it.
I'm trying to have a discussion, but obviously we're speaking at cross-purposes.
I should have prefaced my original comment by saying that I'm not American. I'm fully in favour of instilling a democratic process in Iraq, know it's not going to be easy or quick, and believe that it's going to take a broader effort than an American administration one alone could provide (and not because the administration is inept, or evil...I'm not a liberal ideologue).
So I went to the site, and checked the "who we are" first. Then I clicked on the Syria link to get some idea of how it was approaching what had been a hot cable topic for a few days. And you are correct that this group is not the Pentagon, but the piece on Syria uses what I consider to be "fog of war" terms...WMD...ties to Saddam, etc. When I see the language employed by the Administration and widely disseminated on American news during the invasion (and often without foundation, but that's war for you), I take what is being said with a grain...okay an entire shaker full...of salt.
And that's what I mean by partisan. I'd be quite content to never hear the expression WMD again, not because certain regimes pose no danger if they have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, but because WMD has become a political canard....witness the past year or so and the current debate in which "WMD" is a term that defines the culture wars at home as much as the conditions in Iraq and elsewhere.
Weapons in and of themselves are not illegal, and are held by several regimes that we'd both consider to be hostile...for example, until 9/11 Pakistan was considered a loose cannon with nuclear capabilities. NK is quite a nuclear threat as we have been hearing in the past few months.
Having said all that, and what I'm trying to get at, is that when a group repeats the administration spin that "Syria has WMD", which even the administration dropped after a couple of days, I consider it to have a certain idea of how democracy will work in Iraq. Certainly I'm not the first to suggest that the Pentagon has a particular view as opposed to the State Dept for example.
And now that I've spent your entire bandwidth in trying to give some clarity to what I am saying, I'm going to go back to the site and do some further reading.