New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 28, 2004

Michael Young chooses his candidate.

Comments

|10.28.04 @ 3:50PM|#

Michale Young,

This is about as surprising as The New York Times endorsing Kerry.

|10.28.04 @ 3:56PM|#

The use of the word "cretin" is interesting. Bush has the right policy but arrived at it as a cretin?

|10.28.04 @ 4:03PM|#

How many liberal examples of democracy do you think are needed?

Isn't Turkey right next door to Iran and Iraq?

And isn't Afghanistan just across the mountains?

Are these people incapable of looking across the sea to Italy?

gimme a break what a tired line of reasoning.

|10.28.04 @ 4:03PM|#

Michael,
Bush already seems to be settling for Islamic Law in Iraq.

Would the establishment of Sharia in Iraq be something that you could view as 'the beginning of the liberation' of the Middle East?

Warren|10.28.04 @ 4:04PM|#

What a dork. As if anything we did could ever alter the Mideast from being anything other than a festering sewer. Now it's our festering sewer. Oh yeah, great job GWB! What a dork.

|10.28.04 @ 4:06PM|#

Michael Young,

Endorsing Bush is not an easy thing to do when the American president has overseen the steady corrosion in Iraq of the very qualities for which he is being promoted here.

Why vote then? Why not simply abstain?

|10.28.04 @ 4:09PM|#

trainwreck,

Oh I know; its a total canard.

|10.28.04 @ 4:10PM|#

Mr. Young, you would do well to prioritize what politicians are actually able to achieve over what they want to achieve.

Politicians want to do all kinds of noble things. Even more commonly, they claim to want to do all kinds of noble things as a cover for less noble motivations.

The retreat of the forces of reform in Iran (they rally 'round the flag just as much as Americans, apparently, when there's a foreign army tromping around), the Saudis' ability to give us the finger with impunity when we push them for democratic reform, and the winks and nods we're giving to Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Usbekistan, and Russia make the last four years a time of weakening, not strengthening, of the process of democratic reform in the Muslim world.

I think his rather poor record at moving the Middle East towards democratic reform, rather than his statements of interest in doing so, is a better indicator of the likelihood of a second Bush term bringing democracy to the region.

|10.28.04 @ 4:15PM|#

And the fact that Bush is actively waging war against democracy in his own country doesn't make you just a wee bit skeptical about his sincerity about democratizing the Middle East?

|10.28.04 @ 4:18PM|#

I urge everyone to vote Alkali in 2004. Granted, my plan to achieve energy independence by inventing a perptual motion machine violates the laws of thermodynamics, but the other candidates just don't get how cool it would be if I could do it, and that alone disqualifies them from the office.

|10.28.04 @ 4:22PM|#

I promise to implement a 25 hour day if elected. I'm not sure how I'll do it, and it's likely to fail (my previous attempts certainly aren't promising) but it's important to strive mightily for worthy ideas. All of the other candidates are waffling on this notion, while I'm standing firm!

|10.28.04 @ 4:34PM|#

From the article: "Iraq has the potential to offer Arabs and Iranians a substitute to militant Islam as a means of removing corrupt regimes."

What is the "substitute"? Establishing a group of corrupt exiles who feed disinformation to a credulous American president so that he whips the US into a fervor and invades your country?

|10.28.04 @ 4:36PM|#

I thought John Hospers' reasons for endorsing Bush were a bit overblown. And though I'm a bit of a libertarian internationalist myself, I don't think Young's arguments focusing on remaking Iraq overly convincing. However, an argument argument from hardcore libertarian writer J. Neil Schulman is closer to my own thoughts, and makes me feel better about holding my nose and voting for Bush.

|10.28.04 @ 4:44PM|#

"John Kerry is simply not interested in seriously advancing democracy in the region."


Nor am I.

|10.28.04 @ 4:46PM|#

Well said, Michael. Nice article.

thoreau, if Arab democracy is as impossible to achieve as a 25-hour day, then we'd better just kill all the Arabs now and get it over with.

|10.28.04 @ 4:47PM|#

Dan-

Good point. I don't think Arab democracy is impossible to achieve. I think that externally imposed democracy is damn near impossible to achieve.

|10.28.04 @ 4:51PM|#

Nope Stevo, still doesn't do it for me. I have no interest in spreading democracy in the middle east through force of arms, nor do I think that Bush is the best choice to fight this 'war on terror'.

|10.28.04 @ 4:54PM|#

Oh yeah, and as someone mentioned above, Iran was doing pretty well democratizing itself. Now it has more reason than ever to stay it's theocratic course against western intervention.

It was only a matter of time before Iran would have chilled out. The average age of the population is something like 23yo and a lot of the young people don't want Islam telling them to cover their heads. They want to listen to rock and techno music, wear blue jeans, make money, and have a good time, like most of us in the west.

Now I just don't know.

|10.28.04 @ 5:00PM|#

Look, there's only one real issue regarding the 2004 presidential vote or any other upcoming democratic decision: Will I, JDOG, be enslaved, more or less, to the government or anyone else as the result of your vote ? Less is good, more is bad.

|10.28.04 @ 5:16PM|#

GWB is correct that people want to be free. But it is not our responsibility are Americans to ensure that they are free. I say we leave Iraq alone and they either figure out democracy for themselves or they form an Islamic government and live in the dark ages after we move on to a new form of energy in the future.

If fundamentalist terrorism is still a problem we turn Mecca into a parking lot...

|10.28.04 @ 5:36PM|#

Dave,
I have long wondered why we just dont turn the entire Middle East into a sheet of glass. But then I realized that whoever was left would still continue to fight over the smoldering crater that would be left.


"Those who believe they hold keys to Heaven; guard the gates of Hell." -Anynomous

|10.28.04 @ 5:39PM|#

Doesn't the US endorsing and establishing a Sharia based Iraqi constitution nullify your entire argument?

Although to be fair, you didn't say they were establishing a secular democracy. Yet, the theocratic democracy that they are imposing, isn't better than an oligarchy or monarchy as it is the worst part of democracy that they are establishing.

|10.28.04 @ 5:46PM|#

I just read the J. Neil Schulman piece, Stevo, and I thought he made a pretty good case for Bush. One item was gun control and he correctly nailed Kerry to the wall there. Kerry is useless regarding 2nd Amendment rights.

|10.28.04 @ 6:59PM|#

JDOG:
" Will I, JDOG, be enslaved, more or less, to the government or anyone else as the result of your vote ? Less is good, more is bad."

There is another question you have to ask first: will I be alive ? will my life be threatened by terrorists ?

|10.28.04 @ 7:13PM|#

Why ad a non-libertarian to a staff that is only marginally libertarian? Is there some value to hearing the nonsense of starting a world wide democracy by clumsy Bush imperialism? WTF was all the talk about nuclear bombs and now Bush's latest spin from the mouth of Rove about "establishing democracy" is supposed to be meaningful?

Nothing that he has done there remotely resembles the actions of someone establishing democracy. No matter I guess. Bush's rabid anti-capitalism here in America doesn't matter to some guy in Lebanon either. I wonder if he thinks having the secret police grab him is OK too.

|10.28.04 @ 7:21PM|#

thoreau,

I don't think Arab democracy is impossible to achieve. I think that externally imposed democracy is damn near impossible to achieve.

Why do you feel it's damn near impossible to achieve? I can see why it would be nearly impossible to impose democracy on an unwilling populace, but there are few societies in the world that are *unwilling* to adopt democracy, and Iraq isn't one of those few.

In any case, history suggests that it would take centuries for the Middle East to naturally transition from where it is now to a situation where most of the nations in that area were democracies. I don't think we have that kind of time.

Dave,

GWB is correct that people want to be free. But it is not our responsibility are Americans to ensure that they are free

I agree that it's not our responsibility, but it *is* our self-interest. Free people are (a) dramatically less likely to cause trouble for us and (b) better trading partners.

|10.28.04 @ 7:34PM|#

Dan,
Disemboweled Iragis are dramatically less likely to cause trouble for us, but they tend not to be very good trading partners.

|10.28.04 @ 8:18PM|#

RandyAyn,

I'm not sure why you think "free" is a synonym for "disembowled", but I assure you that it is not. Perhaps you're cranky that the United States has failed to miraculously turn a fascist nation democratic without any of the fascists putting up a fight? If so, grow up.

|10.28.04 @ 8:53PM|#

Dan, I would agree it would be better for us if Iraq and the rest of the middle east was a "mecca" of freedom. But I don't think its worth the price. Because middle eastern countries can maintain a relatively high standard of living for their elites due to natural resources. I think that they will remain culturally and economically disconnected from the free world until they have some insentive to do otherwise.

|10.28.04 @ 9:11PM|#

"I think externally imposed democracy is damn near impossible to achieve."

Postwar Germany? Postwar Japan?

Not that the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly like postwar Europe. But it's still way too soon to say for sure whether or not this bold new policy re the Middle East is a bust. In any case, what other long-term plan would you suggest for the region? Business as usual?

|10.28.04 @ 9:13PM|#

few societies in the world that are *unwilling* to adopt democracy

mr dan, i think you significantly overestimate the practicability of establishing enduring populist decadence overseas.

while i don't deny that some people (radical liberals, as it were) in every country want it, a powerful group in most countries will never allow it -- and some even understand the manifest historical lesson that democracy is, for all its wonders, also a fleeting and traumatic avenue to bankruptcy and tyranny that in most cases ends within a few years. only the very, very fortunate make it to 230.

sincerely, i fear the Global Democratic Revolution because *even in success* it has very few possible positive outcomes. most likely it consumes us in an orgy of imperial militarism, bankruptcy and an american civil war. second most likely is that we succeed -- leaving one or two successes and a trail of nascent failing democracies strewn across the third world descending into chaos and tyranny in our wake (at massive expense to us, of course).

the 'hnuky dory' outcome that dubya and the neocons count on as certain is, alas, a very low probability imo.

|10.28.04 @ 9:21PM|#

Free people are... dramatically less likely to cause trouble for us

and i would challenge this as well, mr dan. part of the problem with democracy in our nation is that it has become so arrogant and militant that it cannot keep out of other people's peace.

the free people of america "intervene" on behalf of their "interests" and for "human rights" all around the globe.

that's code for "we're coming to kick your ass -- for your own good, of course".

there's nothing inherently peaceful about free people, if our democracy (or britain's or france's) is any example. i think that's an ideological fallacy perpetuated by people who are religious about democracy. all we've done for centuries is run our armies around the world.

|10.28.04 @ 9:24PM|#

In any case, what other long-term plan would you suggest for the region? Business as usual?

Something other than social engineering at gunpoint might be nice.

Another good prescription might be �Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.�

|10.28.04 @ 9:34PM|#

I think that they will remain culturally and economically disconnected from the free world until they have some insentive to do otherwise.

Well, yes, ruling elites with access to oil wealth are unlikely to listen to suggestions like "You should implement democratic reforms" unless they have an incentive to. But I think the US military is a pretty powerful incentive.

|10.28.04 @ 9:46PM|#

"I think externally imposed democracy is damn near impossible to achieve."

Postwar Germany?

i see this example cited a lot. unfortunately, mr yoshido, one can as easily cite PRE-ww2 germany as a spectacular failure of imposed democracy -- and the more common result of such practice.

and the common failure of democracy isn't only a poor-places outcome (although it's certainly aggravated there). in 1920, 26 of 28 european states were parliamentary democracies. by 1938, 13 of those 26 were dictatorships.

fwiw, the united states has intervened in and arranged/sustained democracies in germany twice, japan, s korea, s vietnam, the philippines, liberia and more than a dozen central american nations. how many of those remained democracies more than a decade? and that's ignoring the dozens more that resulted from european post-colonial projects.

aga khan recently spoke:

Much of the world?s attention is periodically focused on the phenomenon of so-called failed states. But of the global threats that face us today, apart from nuclear war or HIV/AIDS, the most preoccupying is not failed states. It is the failure of democracy. The global picture at the beginning of the 21st century is a story of failed democracies in the Muslim world, in Latin America, in Eastern Europe and in sub-Saharan Africa.

A startling fact today is that nearly forty percent of UN member nations are failed democracies. The greatest risk to the West itself, and to its values, is therefore the accumulation of failed democracies. That in turn will cause deep under-currents of stress, if not conflict, among societies. It is essential, in the West?s own interest, to admit to itself that democracy is as fragile as any other form of human governance.

the truth of precedent is that our Global Democratic Revolution is, even if it doesn't consume us first, bound to fail awfully in most cases.

there are, of course, books written on the topic.

|10.28.04 @ 10:04PM|#

Global Democratic Revolution, should actually be called the Global Democratic Invasion

|10.28.04 @ 10:14PM|#

well isn't this bunch ready to roll over and play dead! the sonofabitch had ta go! HADTA!!

|10.28.04 @ 11:09PM|#

thoreau,

Something other than social engineering at gunpoint might be nice.

Only bitter experience will teach the social engineering hawks how wrong they are.

|10.28.04 @ 11:26PM|#

Michael Young has some company; the conservative German newspaper Bild has endorsed Bush. To quote:

"With Bush, we know what to expect. With John Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for, what he stands against, and where he wants to lead America and the world."

http://www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/2004/10/27/us__wahl__pro__bush/us__wahlkampf__empfehlung__pro__bush.html

Apparently endorsing candidates is an unusual thing to do for a German paper.

|10.28.04 @ 11:33PM|#

The Bild article also apparently states that a Bush win means that the U.S. will fight alone taking all the casualties and avoiding the same for German soldiers. Apparently it is felt that Kerry would generate more pressure to deploy German soldiers into Iraq.

|10.28.04 @ 11:37PM|#

Always interesting to see who'd prefer wholesale nuclear genocide to the reciprocal altruism of trying a different, difficult and possible failing route of assisting those under the heel of tyrrany first.

Screw the Sufis in the ME, screw the majority of Shiites and Sunnis that don't support the Wahabiist nutbags, screw the jews and christians in the ME, screw the foreign workers, screw anyone hit with nuclear fallout, screw the political fallout, screw the economic fallout of loss of significant portion of the world's oil, screw the millions that will starve in the aftermath worldwide, screw the millions that will freeze worldwide. Just make it quick and let me get back to my football and beer and twins.

What? there's still a problem with whabiism in the south pacific, and north africa, and russia, and europe and detroit and nyc? So what, we have more nukes. Plus, I hate Jeter and the Yankees anyway, where's the problem? Where's the remote?

I fell of my bike once and it hurt, but mom said I never had to try again.

|10.29.04 @ 12:22AM|#

Bush and any other US government doesn't want democracy in Iraq. They want stability. If they wanted democracy they'd have to risk; a map change to the middle east; civil war; sharia law; the rise of anti-US elected officials; a request to get out of their country; a weaker and unreliable central government.

The liberterian voice inside me says if democracy is really going to grow Iraq needs mayors not presidents. They need local control and the right to decide if they really want to even have a one country. Ultimately, much of this will be decided by civil war. I don't think we're prepared for that. We want a safe friendly central government, that wants us to keep a troop presence in the region, and has enough power to keep the factions together to prevent a kurdistan, a bigger Iran, and a uprising in Saudi Arabia.

Democracy is a word for campaigners. Stability is what we're really pushing for.

Any guesses as to whether even that is attainable?

I do agree that it's a good thing Saddam's gone, and it has the added benefit that pre-emptive arguements will have to clear some real hurdles in the future.

Four years of full time campaigning is making me cranky. Someday the administration will be forced to admit that they rationalized all day long, but at bottom they really just wanted to replace Saddam.

|10.29.04 @ 12:33AM|#

Michael:

Let's not pretend that the Iraq war was about democracy. It became the focus only when the pack of lies of the Bush administration collapsed. So you are either naive or disengenuous.

Here is what your democracy looks like:

"Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm)

|10.29.04 @ 1:09AM|#

Oh, here is more democracy news from a middle eastern ally of the US. Ben Ali of Tunisia just won the 'election' with 95% of the votes. I guess that is progress since last time he won 99%. He is only been in office for 17 years. Who knows, may be when he serves the ME-standard quarter of a century his numbers might be down to a more believable figure.

|10.29.04 @ 1:29AM|#

Tunisia is in North Africa, not the Middle East. Sea Monkeys take longer than your attention span seems to allow. Yes, no?

|10.29.04 @ 2:31AM|#

Excellent Post Gaius Marius !
I think a lot of the people supporting Bush (including Michael Young) believe that tyranny is caused by bad men getting into power. Their solution is to get rid of these bad men. Unfortunately their argument is the exact same argument in favor of the war on drugs, just get rid of the evil drug dealers and the drug addicts will revert to their original lives of wholesome goodness.
In the Soviet Union, the bad men were taken out of power, and.... replaced with more bad men. Despite their elections, democracy has not been achieved in the former Soviet Union.
Cato has an excellent article on the subject:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-25-03.html
Also the excellent book "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria has some very good chapters on preconditions needed for a successful, long-term democracy.

|10.29.04 @ 2:44AM|#

In the situation of drug lords, the users make an individual choice to use.

In the situation of tyrannts, those under the fist of tyranny don't.

The analogy doesn't seem to hold. But if we must...

Why lock away rapists when there will only be more?

|10.29.04 @ 3:47AM|#

chthus
Look at it this way, the reason the US has a war on drugs is because a majority of people support it. The reason Putin has been able to seize power is because a mojority of Russians support him. Sadaam was able to stay is power, not only because of his ruthlessness, but also because he kept order, kept the electricity more or less on, etc...
I think it was the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" where the author wrote about living in Beirut. After many years of civil war, a local thug had seized power. The author was surprised how pleased people were. Even though they were well aware this guy was a thug, they were happy that he had stopped the widespread bloodshed.
Tyranny happens when a majority of people support athoritarian leaders.
Just getting rid of the bad men is not the solution, just as getting rid of the drug dealers is not the solution. The drug addicts will just turn to alchohol, glue sniffing, gasoline sniffing, etc... So the illegal drugs go, but the addition and associated problems stay.
In "The Future of Freedom", Zakaria argues that viable democracy is not possible unless power becomes decentralized (usually through free enterprise). This decentralization of power causes cultural changes (see "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism") that eventually lead to democracy.

|10.29.04 @ 6:15AM|#

Imposing secular democracy on a place that doesn't want secularism and doesn't have a shred of democratic institutions already culturally embedded, is a dangerous and stupid idea. And it's never been done. Period.

What the Bush administration did was look at our foreign policy and see the endless string of attempts to militarily democracize a region followed by the inevitable compromise of installing a pseudo-tyrant (but at least he's *our* tyrant) followed by said tyrant breaking off his US ties or having a coup break off tyrant's head and region being worse off than it started (with the extra bonus of being able to blame us for it).

...so Bush & Co. looked at this sorry history, and their conclusion? If we had just gone "all the way" with the military end of it (complete with some imaginary unprecedented "follow-through" where military occupation turns into democracy and children flying kites) it would work.

"We just never used enough force. That was the problem. It'll be different this time, we promise!"

I can just see Bush and friends screaming that as they're dragged away in straight-jackets on Nov. 2nd.

|10.29.04 @ 7:55AM|#

"Another good prescription might be 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.'"

This sounds suspiciously like isolationism to me.

Anyway, this is water under the bridge. The U.S. is in Iraq now. What would be your prescription for dealing with the situation as it is? Pull out now? Stay on until some sort of functioning democratic system can be installed?

|10.29.04 @ 9:15AM|#

Chris,

Did the majority blacks in South Africa support apartheid? Or was it a minority of whites with the majority of firepower?

Saddam's rule was marked constantly with the violent control of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south (as well as lower level violence amongst Sunnis, his own tribe, and even his own family). They did not support him, they feared him. As for electricity, he may have kept it on in Central Baghdad, but after damning up the water and shutting off the life's blood of the mud flat Shiites, he didn't give them electricity. The first time a number of towns in that area saw electricity was after the coalition invasion. Of course, this meant for a time that the folks in Baghdad went without for parts of the day.

Il Duce made the trains run on time, but the sure as shit kicked his head around town when they had the chance.

|10.29.04 @ 9:23AM|#

Pavel. Japan. Course that took a hell of a lot more fire power.

"And it's never been done. Period."

With that type of attitude I don't expect to see you down at the patent office anytime soon.

And should BushCo lose the election, they don't actually drag them away until January.

|10.29.04 @ 9:44AM|#

chthus:

"Tunisia is in North Africa, not the Middle East. Sea Monkeys take longer than your attention span seems to allow."

How about Egypt, Libya, Mr. know-it-all? are they in the ME or North Africa?

|10.29.04 @ 10:06AM|#

Libya lies squarely in North Africa. Egypt lies mostly in North Africa, but the Sinai Peninsula, the area east of the Gulf/Canal of Suez lies in the Middle East. Because of this, it can go either way and you'll often find it geographically placed with one, the other or both.

It's not a matter of knowing it all, merely looking at an atlas.

|10.29.04 @ 10:29AM|#

The Middle East is the standard generic term for the Arab countries plus Iran and Israel. That would include North Africa.

drf|10.29.04 @ 10:49AM|#

JB:

der spiegel made recommendations about us elections before. the tv (state run) news tends to avoid them, but it's not that uncommon, i'd say. profil also is fairly active in making recommendations. and you're not going to a prestigous source here :)
cheers!
drf

|10.29.04 @ 11:16AM|#

Middle East is a flexible term, but it has a fairly standard range of flexibility. Here's a listing of Arab countries from Arab Gateway,
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/maps/maps.htm
and just below you'll see a link to their map of the middle east.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east98.jpg
Egypt is there, most of it anyway. A tiny slice of Libya can be seen off too the left. Other North African arab countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, are not.

I'm not saying you'll never find a definition of the Middle East containing Libya, or even Tunisia or Morocco; but this isn't usually the case.

Here's more fun, is Sudan in the Middle East? Djibouti? Somalia?

|10.29.04 @ 12:00PM|#

"I'm not saying you'll never find a definition of the Middle East containing Libya, or even Tunisia or Morocco;"

Exactly the point of my question. The ME does not have some rigid boundaries. So if you recognize this, then why did you act like I started to talking about a completely different region when I mentioned Tunisia?

Any how, whether Tunisia is in the Middle East or not is not the point. Bush cuddles Ben Ali who is been ruling for 17 years and who just won a 95% election and at the same breath talks about spreading democracy in the Middle East (Arab world, if you like). Stop funding dictators (Ben Ali, Mubarak, etc.) BEFORE you start waging war on other dictators.

|10.29.04 @ 12:19PM|#

I started talking about a different region because Tunisia is generally considered to be in a different region. Even the Arab gateway doesn't consider Tunisia to be part of the ME. As for my disclaimer that you nicely clipped from my post, it was an acknowledgement that some obscure definition will include it, lest some one retort that middleeastisall.com says it's included.

I agree with you that Ben Ali is a dictator and the election is fraud. But I also resist the urge in this fast food nation to expect everything NOW, NOW, NOW or walk away. Change takes time, process. "Stop funding dictators (Ben Ali, Mubarak, etc.) BEFORE you start waging war on other dictators." This sounds great, but will it work to evoke change. I doubt it. Placating rather than alienating lesser dictators while tackling more problematic ones doesn't sound as nice, but it is more effective. Since I don't yet know about a newer version of Godwin's law that refers to Cold War references, I'll go ahead and say it: Domino effect.

|10.29.04 @ 12:20PM|#

Forcing "democracy" upon the rest of the world? Neocon bastard. Any libertarian worth their salt would realize that the free exchange of goods and services (ideas) across borders is the surest way to security and peace. Why is it that we were able to stand toe to toe with the Soviets for 50 years, and wait until that "evil empire" was brought down because of ideas spread among the populace, but we just can't bear the threat that the Middle East poses? Neocon Bastard.

|10.29.04 @ 1:03PM|#

We could wait out the Soviets (well, aside from proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, etc.) because MAD was effective (scary, but effective). No such luck here. The enemy is not a specifically targetable nation, but a widespread network that is supported underhandedly and sometimes unwittingly by friend and foe alike. We could pull back and let free minds and markets do their thing. But we'll never build enough walls to keep them out and region is such a cesspool of lack of freedom that it would very likely take centuries. And in that time we would continue to take casualties, whenever and wherever they could get them. Given advancements in travel and weapons, that they didn't come up with but sure as hell take advantage of, we don't have the luxury of waiting. So what to do? Accelerate it, force it. Will it work? Don't know, we'll have to see, but what are the other options?

INITIATE no harm. We aren't doing it for them, we are doing it for us. The benefit many will get is just a by-product, just as is the carnage that will occur in the short term.

|10.29.04 @ 1:08PM|#

I think you vastly underestimate how much of the cesspool's contents are our own leavings.

And you're remarkably confident, given the available evidence, that Iraq-style Wars of Liberation with lower the level of sewage, rather than raise it.

|10.29.04 @ 1:35PM|#

Joe,

I don't underestimate it, the lines themselves are the fault of the west. But I do discount it's current major relevance.

As for being confident, this is what I said on that note, "Will it work? Don't know, we'll have to see, but what are the other options?"

I'm not at all positive it will work, but I am convinced it's possible. I just don't see another better option. Not in the sense that "Bush has the perfect plan", but just that the approach he has chosen is in the realm of the best of four general approaches.

1) Complete withdrawl
2) Soft diplomacy that we had been trying for several decades
3) Hard diplomacy that we are trying now
4) Total War

I'm sure you've got other ideas, some of which I've probably considered and grouped into one of those areas, and some I may not have. Unlike many I am still willing to listen.

|10.29.04 @ 1:47PM|#

chthus makes a good point, I think. What we should do from here is limited by realities that yield few options. I don't see Kerry offering an alternative plan that's an improvement on Bush's stance.

|10.29.04 @ 2:16PM|#

I'm giving up on arguing this point. I'll just let the irony of the phrase "liberalization at gunpoint" speak for itself.

|10.29.04 @ 2:24PM|#

Thoreau,

I thought irony died on 9/11. Don't tell me it came back and no one told me. I always miss this shit ;)

|10.29.04 @ 2:45PM|#

"2) Soft diplomacy that we had been trying for several decades
3) Hard diplomacy that we are trying now"

I don't believe that America has even made the attempt to use soft diplomacy to promote democracy in the Middle East. To keep oil prices low, sure. To prevent regimes from cozying up to the Soviets, you bet. To encourage them to make nice with Israel, you betcha. But to actually promote democracy, I don't see it.

Quite the opposite - we overthrew Mossedegh after his election in favor of a monarch; we backed Saddam vs. Iran; we legitimized Arafat's rule in an attempt to get a peace deal; we got snuggly with King Hussein and even Assad fils for the same purpose; we restored the Kuwaiti royal family no strings attached; we sold armaments to the Sauds; we made kissey-face with Libya when they turned over their nuke materials (people don't kill people, weapons kill people, apparently); and on and on and on.

Now, some of these moves may be defensible - I, for one, think treating with Arafat was worth a shot. But I can't think of a single diplomatic effort the US undertook since the end of World War Two that aimed to promoting democracy in the region, in contrast to the numerous examples I gave above of democracy being ignored or actively undermined. And frankly, while there is quite a bit of hard diplomacy going on now, I fail to see where any of it is aimed at democracy promotion.

I'm not against having a foreign policy that puts the promotion of democracy and liberalization at the top of our priorities for the Middle East. Bush gets his rhetoric right here, if not his policies. What I'm against is an expensive, bloody, counterproductive effort to implement that vision.

|10.29.04 @ 3:55PM|#

drf,

Do you have anything to say about the article itself?

|10.29.04 @ 3:56PM|#

chthus says:

1) Complete withdrawl
2) Soft diplomacy that we had been trying for several decades
3) Hard diplomacy that we are trying now
4) Total War

There is also the libertarian solution: free trade with iraq (for more than just oil). This is the approach the US is taking with China (you remember the other evil empire). And lo and behold China is liberalizing.
Remember South Africa gave blacks more rights because of an international boycott. This was possible because of extensive trade with South Africa . Note South Africa was never invaded.

|10.29.04 @ 4:03PM|#

The sins of the past are indeed myriad, but I still don't find them extremely relevent to the issues at hand other than lessons learned and realizing that they paint much of the anti-west sentiment that we currently must deal with. Oil, the cold war, and Israel have been the guide posts of our decision making for a long time. Our soft diplomacy wasn't at all geared towards democracy in the region, it was geared towards stability. After the cold war ended, we were left with two motivating factors, and the gulf war was undertaken for the protection of both.

At that point, stability became the name of the game. Keeping troops in Saudi, maintianing no fly zones, Israel/Palestine negotiations, and payoffs and suck ups to various dictators all served as soft diplomatic measures to maintain stability. While it kept oil prices relatively stable, it failed in the place of Israel. It was worth a try, yes, though it was foolish to think a tiger like Arafat would change his stripes. In addition to failing to maintain one of of the two key foci, it also became increasingly apparent, and unavoidably so on 9/11, that it wasn't even keeping us safe. There can be major blame here heft on our failure to do any follow-up in Afghanistan after the Russians left, but that's neither here nor there now.

Soft diplomacy was a strategy that failed in even maintianing the objective of stability, and now that the result of failure wasn't just Israel/Palestine unrest, but attacks on the US abroad and at home, it was time for a change. I don't think that Clinton or his predecessors, nor BushII pre-9/11 ever considered seriously the spread of democracy as an objective. But when it was decided to go that way, given the threat we now knew, the old strategy of soft diplomacy was going to be too slow at best and another failure at worst.

Here's where I see the approach of hard diplomacy as the best option. Soft had failed and the other two are far worse and should only be considered as a last resort. I suppose we could have retooled our soft diplomacy for a slightly faster result, but I don't see quite how that could have been done with any realistic expectation of making a major change in 50+ years. Here's where I'm open to suggestion, but all that I've seen don't even seem likely to work much less minimize the physical threat to the US in the interim. [This assessment of threat, though, is a point of disagreement that I find I have with many people with whom I've discussed this at length. Just something to note and look for if we continue this for a while, as it's always helpful to find key points of disagreement.]

As for whether it can work, I think that it has begun to, though certainly at a cost of life and money. I don't really consider the invasion of Afghanistan as being part of this approach as it served a much more immediate threat elimination. The rebuilding of Afghanistan was part of this approach though (hard diplomacy including soft as a subset). While I can understand the complaint that we should have done more faster, I think so far we have been moving in the right direction, though not without setbacks. Here details can cetrtainly be argued, but I think only minor ones. As for Iraq, it served several purposes from aspects of threat elimination (uhoh WMDs tangent) to aspects of democracy spread. Will it work? I don't know, but I think we will certainly have a better sense of it after January.

Here I sense that many have a problem moving the focus back and forth between the smaller day-to-day picture (necessary) and the larger long term picture (also necessary). I spent several hours the other day sitting on a couch at the bookstore flipping through a WWII book that devoted a page of headlines, stories and pictures to each and every day of that war. The big events I knew, but the smaller events, especially the screw-ups, were the most enlightening. Allies accidentally bombing a schoolhouse in Denmark, the US accidentally bombing England, the BRITISH accidentally bombing England. Not trying to draw a direct analogy between wars here, but there were some lessons to be drawn about setbacks.

A bit tired of typing now, but still have a bit more to say. back later.

|10.29.04 @ 4:10PM|#

Chris,

I would say that this falls under soft diplomacy (trade being another form of it). But as I responded to Dave above (not far, just scroll), it'd be great, but we don't have the time and there's a cost to waiting. This is the real world, not the drawing board, as many variables must be considered as is possible.

|10.29.04 @ 4:23PM|#

I think it was the book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" where the author wrote about living in Beirut. After many years of civil war, a local thug had seized power. The author was surprised how pleased people were. Even though they were well aware this guy was a thug, they were happy that he had stopped the widespread bloodshed.
Tyranny happens when a majority of people support athoritarian leaders.

this is an excellent observation, mr chris. what bush & co don't seem to grasp fully is that dictatorship is the most expedient solution to a problem -- people often WANT it when they get it.

that isn't true in all cases. but it is almost always true in failing democracies, which historically become very chaotic.

fwiw, i think the polarization of the american public and the rise of crime and unrest in spite of massively increased policing over the last 80 years is entirely symptomatic of that decline in civility which eventually gives rise to dictatorship. but that's just me specualting, of course...

|10.29.04 @ 4:30PM|#

chthus, presenting soft diplomacy and hard diplomacy as different strategies is a false dilemma. You can't have one without the other.

The real choice is war vs. diplomacy as your means of promoting democracy. My point was that, contrary to your assertion, we HAVEN'T tried diplomacy, soft or hard, as a tool to spread democracy in the region (at least not with any great degree of commitment or conviction, and not at all until very recently), so it shouldn't be written of as unworkable.

Even George Bush says war should be a last resort. A strategy of democracy promotion should not adopt war as its primary tactic if there are other credible options to be pursued.

|10.29.04 @ 4:45PM|#

soft diplomacy... it wasn't even keeping us safe.

i'd argue that the "hard diplomacy" tromping our undersized armies around the middle east dramatically accelerates the probability of terrorist attacks here.

why do you think, mr chthus, al-qaeda fights us and the fundamentalists resent us? it isn't religious -- that's propaganda for simpleminds, theirs and ours. they hate us because of our years of diplomacy -- the shah, the house of saud, all the oppressors we maintained, all the armies we placed in arabia. al-qaeda is an insurgency against indirect american misrule, real and perceived. this is key to understanding their motivation.

now, how does landing an army and conquering iraq and afghanistan and invading (de facto) north pakistan quell those insurgent concerns? -- and quelling the concerns is PARAMOUNT, as it is known to be the only effective way to control an insurgency.

it doesn't. instead it aggravates them. which is why the united states has gone from bad to worse, is getting no help from arabs or europeans, and is facing an uprising that is already expanding into the home of america's most valuable puppet government, saudi arabia.

what the united states needs is not "hard diplomacy" or the limited war of Global Democratic Revolution -- such militaristic forays serve only to undermine the pro-western muslim liberals who agitate for reform and empower the fundamentalists who oppose them, feeding fuel to the enemy's furnace.

what is needs is *better* diplomacy -- addressing the insurgency's base for sympathy among the muslim masses by rectifying their complaints while we still can on our terms.

this all falls on deaf ears, i know, in my arrogant, simpleminded america. but it's extremely important for us to understand that 9/11 is blowback for our sins, and the more sins we commit to aggravate these people the more blowback we're going to end up having crammed down our throats. bush's response, in that context, is an american nightmare -- virtually the worst possible response.