Spreading Democracy With the Help of the Undemocratic

Proud Bush-hater Jonathan Chait conducts a buzz-harsh on Bush's stirring rhetoric of democracy promotion:

There are two problems with Bush's policy of fostering democracy everywhere. The first is that it's not his actual policy. Bush's closest allies include a rogues gallery of thugs and other democracy-haters. He not only stood by but actively blessed efforts by Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan to snuff out opposition parties (in Pakistan's case, even secular ones).

With Uzbekistan, Bush initiated a strategic partnership in 2002 that was supposed to be conditioned upon human rights improvements, but he waived the requirement for each of the last two years.

In Pakistan, Bush's State Department blessed an "election" that even the feckless European Union pointed out was rigged. Bush has abandoned even token pressure for democracy in places such as Russia and China.

As Chait goes on to say, this is perfectly explainable, given the more urgent goals of combating terrorism and fighting tangible wars (which requires, among many other things, deals with the devilish border states).

It's true, criticism of realpolitik can be a convenient excuse for terminal inaction, but I think it's also true (though I'm eager to be shown otherwise) that the democracy-spreading project of neo-conservatism has not produced a concomitant concern that Bush's policy of taking the offensive abroad necessitates compromise with anti-democratic nasties who incubate, well, terrorists.

Comments

[joe]

A"s Chait goes on to say, this is perfectly explainable, given the more urgent goals of combating terrorism and fighting tangible wars..."

Well, it would be explainable, if Bush didn't go to such great lengths to distinguish himself from Kerry by arguing that Kerry wants merely to "combat terrorim and fight tangible wars," without promoting democracy and changing the culture of tyranny in the Muslim world.

Bush has based his foreign policy position (the one he describes on the stump, anyone) around the idea that blowing up terrorists is not enough, that we have to promote democracy. He does not, then, get to turn around and say he cannot promote democracy because he's too busy blowing up terrorists!

[PapayaSF]

concern that Bush's policy of taking the offensive abroad necessitates compromise with anti-democratic nasties who incubate, well, terrorists.

As opposed to what? The blissfully terrorist-free country of Saddam's Iraq?

Come on, now: wars are messy and long, and this one ("terror", not just Iraq) is likely to be quite long. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good, and try to get a realistic sense of the long-term problems here. It's especially difficult because Bush, not known for rhetorical fluency, simply can't speak publicly about a lot of what's going on. He can't say, for example, that his support of Musharraf is due to realpolitik, while we fry bigger fish. Same thing with the Saudis: in many ways they are the root of this problem, but for strategic reasons we are dealing with them later. We didn't invade Japan or Germany in 1942, either.

So, Matt and Joe, patience: we can't take on every terrorist nest all at once and promote democracy everywhere all at the same time. In terms of major public actions, Afghanistan was step one, Iraq step two. Afghanistan has already had elections, and Iraq will in January. That seems pretty darn quick to me. I believe it took much longer to hold nation-wide elections in Japan and Germany after 1945.

[Matt Welch]

PapayaSF -- So you have more confidence that we will "deal with" Saudi Arabia under a Bush presidency, than under Kerry (who has, unlike Bush, campaigned against the relationship between the U.S. & Saudi Arabia)? Do you have anything to base that on, other than your perception of Bush being more likely to go on the offense in the Long War?

[c]

Chait's problems with these "undemocratic" allies we're making seems ignorant of history .... allies of convenience are made in all sorts of conflicts. Like that guy who helpfully took our side against the Ayatollah. And also that plucky fellow who helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I mean, where would we be without them?

Whatever happened to those guys, anyhow?

[Brett]

PapayaSF - I agree that the Saudis are in large part to blame for the spread of fundamentalist Islam, but I disagree that a 2nd Bush campaign will do anything about that. And this is from somebody who will be voting for him.

15 of the 19, and to this day has he even uttered a single critical word towards the Saudis? At least Kerry mentions Saudi Arabia on the stump, although I doubt he'll take any action beyond the usual meetings and conferences.

[joe]

PapayaSF, what Bush did i/r/t China, Uzbekistan, and Russia wasn't just a failure to promote democracy; it was a step backwards in the promotion of democracy in the Islamic world. (Chechnya and western China are Muslim). He isn't just failing to further his objective, but taking actions that set back that objective.

[rob]

And what about that nice acne-ridden gentleman that helped us keep the peace in Panama? Whatever happened to him...

[raymond]

I feel an Orwellian moment coming on.

Enslave for Freedom!

Tyrannize for Democracy!

Kill for Life!

Bush for President!

ewwwwwwww

[Morat]

Yes indeed. It makes much sense that we would buddy up with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (noted home of terrorists that DO target America) to target Iraq, noted home of...well, no terrorists that threaten the US.

Until now, of course.

I suppose we should applaud Bush's foresight. How clever of the man to insert 130,000 US troops into a country right before the entire country became very pissed at America and started attracting people keenly interested in attacking Americans in Iraq.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

PapayaSF -- So you have more confidence that we will "deal with" Saudi Arabia under a Bush presidency, than under Kerry (who has, unlike Bush, campaigned against the relationship between the U.S. & Saudi Arabia)?

I got two similar comments removed from BlogsForBush the other day, both of which mentioned that Bandar Bush article. Details.

Perhaps Bush has some grand strategery to deal with the Saudis, or perhaps he just has a blind spot. Are you willing to bet on it?

Here's what Kerry/Biden say about the Saudis: Kerry would fight terrorism better

Maybe Bush is for real and his way is more subtle and more effective. Or, maybe not. I really don't know, but I do find the links between the Bush family and the Saudis a great contributing factor to my doubts.

[Jason Bourne]

PapayaSF,

He can't say, for example, that his support of Musharraf is due to realpolitik, while we fry bigger fish. Same thing with the Saudis: in many ways they are the root of this problem, but for strategic reasons we are dealing with them later.

Are we? How do you know that we are dealing with them later? What source do you have that will demonstrate this? Did you talk to Bush personally about this? This seems like a heck of a lot of wishful thinking on your part.

We didn't invade Japan or Germany in 1942, either.>/i>

Actually, the American general staff wanted to invade France in 1942. British footdragging and insistence on invading North Africa and southern Italy kept the invasion off until 1944.

rob,

He's in prison and Panama is run by a different group of corrupt oligarchs.

[PapayaSF]

Matt, I see Kerry as a windbag who wouldn't even vote to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, when we had close to the whole darn UN lined up with us. His talk about the Saudis is just a way of attacking Bush. If Bush had invaded Saudi Arabia instead, Kerry would be whining about the threat of Saddam right now.

Joe, I can't and won't defend every such action or non-action, except to say again we can't do everything everywhere all at once. We'd like China's help regarding North Korea, for example, and so aren't pressing the issue of Muslims in China. A lot of war and diplomacy is two steps forward, one step back.

Jason, I'm just going by Bush's public statements, various things I've read, and thinking logically about it all. We're fighting a different kind of war, with some military invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) which not-coincidentally help to create successful diplomatic efforts (e.g. Libya). With bases in Iraq, we are now next to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. This has not escaped the notice of the rulers of those countries, but it's yet another thing Bush can't talk about. Imagine the brouhaha if he said: "We invaded Iraq partly so that we could put pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia." And yet this should be obvious to anyone with a map and a little knowledge of history. My not-unreasonable guess is that there is lots of secret diplomacy going on, backed by some Special Forces ops and the threat of all-out invasion if we don't get them to clean up their acts.

And Jason: if we had invaded France in '42, I'll bet it would have been a huge disaster. The Army needed North Africa and Italy to get even partly as good as the Wehrmacht. (Rommel once said, of the American army, something like: "I've never seen an army so badly trained or one that learned so fast.") D-Day was possible in '44 because the Germans had been drained by North Africa, Italy, the Balkans, the Russian Front and Allied bombing, and even then it was a close-run thing. If those Panzers hadn't been held back because his aides didn't want to wake Hitler, we might have been pushed back into the sea.

[a]

Papaya:
"With bases in Iraq,"

But I thought the whole Iraq adventure was to democritize Iraq, not to build bases. How do you know that a freely-elected Iraqi government will allow the US to have bases in Iraq?

[PapayaSF]

A: For pretty much the same reasons that freely-elected governments in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, etc. have wanted US bases in their countries since 1945.

[Jason Bourne]

PapayaSF,

Jason, I'm just going by Bush's public statements, various things I've read...

Sources? In other words, yours is a guess. Well please, stop acting like your guesses are the gospel truth, thankyou.

We're fighting a different kind of war...

No we are not. We are fighting the same kind of war that we fought during the Cold War.

...with some military invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq)...

Or Grenada and Viet Nam during the Cold War.

...which not-coincidentally help to create successful diplomatic efforts (e.g. Libya).

That's fairly arguable.

With bases in Iraq, we are now next to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

We've had military personnel next to Iran since the first Gulf War (in Kuwait); and we had military personnel and bases in Saudi Arabia since the first Gulf War.

This has not escaped the notice of the rulers of those countries...

Iran is so fearful of the U.S. that it continues to push forward its nuclear weapons program. Talk about something being completely ineffectual.

...but it's yet another thing Bush can't talk about.

After a while you start to sound like a conspiracy nut. There is no evidence that you're ideas are true, but the fact that Bush doesn't talk about them confirms your ideas? What the hell?

And Jason: if we had invaded France in '42, I'll bet it would have been a huge disaster.

There is no evidence of that.

The Army needed North Africa and Italy to get even partly as good as the Wehrmacht.

Most of the individuals involved in invading Normandy fought in neither place. Neither North Africa nor Italy was a proving ground for Normandy for the front-line soldiers involved. Some knowledge of WWII would be helpful on your part.

D-Day was possible in '44 because the Germans had been drained by North Africa, Italy, the Balkans, the Russian Front and Allied bombing, and even then it was a close-run thing.

No, D-Day was never a close thing. And the Germans used very little in the way of men or material in either Italy or North Africa. And Germany had as many men and resources committed to the Russian front (percentage wise) in 1942 as in 1944. Furthermore, two more years gave the Germans time to build up their defenses in France.

No, the American general staff was right; we should have invaded France in 1942 or 1943; waiting until 1944 was an absolute waste, especially given the phyrric victories it earned us in Italy (see the Battle for Rome for example).

[PapayaSF]

Well please, stop acting like your guesses are the gospel truth, thankyou.

I never wrote or thought any such thing. Relax. Imagine all my statements prefaced by "In my humble opinion" if that helps.

We are fighting the same kind of war that we fought during the Cold War.

Hardly. The enemy in this one is rather more decentralized: no equivalent of Moscow.

We've had military personnel next to Iran since the first Gulf War (in Kuwait); and we had military personnel and bases in Saudi Arabia since the first Gulf War.

True, but Kuwait is tiny, we weren't going to attack Saudi Arabia from bases there, and everyone knows the US hornet's nest has been kicked, so I think the situation is clearly different.

Iran is so fearful of the U.S. that it continues to push forward its nuclear weapons program. Talk about something being completely ineffectual.

Well, we'll see how that goes, won't we? I just think that the Bush approach has a better chance of working out than the Kerry/Clinton approach.

After a while you start to sound like a conspiracy nut. There is no evidence that you're ideas are true, but the fact that Bush doesn't talk about them confirms your ideas? What the hell?

Ease off on the coffee, man. All anyone out of the loop can do is speculate about strategies. That's true in any war. I never said Bush confirmed my ideas, just that my ideas fit what he's said publicly. I'm just trying to make reasonable guesses about this stuff.

[Me] And Jason: if we had invaded France in '42, I'll bet it would have been a huge disaster.

There is no evidence of that.

Two words: Dieppe raid.

[Me] The Army needed North Africa and Italy to get even partly as good as the Wehrmacht.

Most of the individuals involved in invading Normandy fought in neither place. Neither North Africa nor Italy was a proving ground for Normandy for the front-line soldiers involved. Some knowledge of WWII would be helpful on your part.

Smartypants, armies don't learn things simply because the individual grunts learn things, the institution as a whole learns and grows.

No, D-Day was never a close thing.

Eisenhower didn't think so: he prepared a message for release if the invasion failed. True, it wasn't a 50/50 thing, but it wasn't a slam-dunk. I wish I could pull Stephen Ambrose out the way Woody Allen did with Marshall McLuhan, but alas....

And Germany had as many men and resources committed to the Russian front (percentage wise) in 1942 as in 1944.

Well, maybe percentage wise, but so what? In those two years they lost entire divisions of men and equipment.

No, the American general staff was right; we should have invaded France in 1942 or 1943; waiting until 1944 was an absolute waste, especially given the phyrric victories it earned us in Italy (see the Battle for Rome for example).

This is obviously way off topic, but in short: in '42 we didn't have many troops in England, we didn't have air superiority over France, we didn't have thousands of bombers hitting Germany and France day and night, we didn't control the Channel, the U-boats were still a huge threat, we didn't have hundreds of landing craft, the Germans hadn't lost entire divisions in the East, etc., etc.

[tommy]

It's true, criticism of realpolitik can be a convenient excuse for terminal inaction, but I think it's also true (though I'm eager to be shown otherwise) that the democracy-spreading project of neo-conservatism has not produced a concomitant concern that Bush's policy of taking the offensive abroad necessitates compromise with anti-democratic nasties who incubate, well, terrorists.

I suspect there's a more efficient way to write this sentence.

[Jason Bourne]

PapayaSF,

I never wrote or thought any such thing. Relax. Imagine all my statements prefaced by "In my humble opinion" if that helps.

You're original statements offered up some claims that were treated as absolutes. Don't go spineless on us.

Hardly. The enemy in this one is rather more decentralized: no equivalent of Moscow.

The enemy was never fully centralized in the Cold War either. And the tactics and strategy are very similar. Suggesting that this is something "new" is just a way to avoid analysis of the issue. There is nothing new about what we are doing, either for the U.S., or in the history of human civilization either.

True, but Kuwait is tiny, we weren't going to attack Saudi Arabia from bases there, and everyone knows the US hornet's nest has been kicked, so I think the situation is clearly different.

This is just your disingenuous way of ignoring the falsehood which was your original statement. And the "hornet's nest" was kicked long before the second Gulf War. What? Do you think 9/11 came up out of the fucking blue or something?

Well, we'll see how that goes, won't we?

We know how it is going right now, and that's who we make judgements. You're willingness to fob off or deny any criticism as based on the inability to see some progonosticated future, points to a rampant case of true believersim on your part.

I never said Bush confirmed my ideas, just that my ideas fit what he's said publicly.

Sources?

Two words: Dieppe raid.

Dieppe was undermanned and undersupplied because of the things that the American general staff didn't want to do; throw men and material into North Africa and Italy. What you have here is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the American general staff stated that the British strategy would strip the allies of the ability to invade France in 1942, and Dieppe merely proved that point. Again, read up on WWII.

Smartypants, armies don't learn things simply because the individual grunts learn things, the institution as a whole learns and grows.

Actually, both do, moron. Bur your original comments did not speak of "institutions," you were discussing the training of soldiers and their growth in skill during frontline fighting. By incorporating Rommel's remark, you reinforced this fact (because this is exactly what Rommel was talking about).

Eisenhower didn't think so: he prepared a message for release if the invasion failed.

What Ike thought the invasion would be like vs. what it was actually like are two entirely different things. Please, at least provide on point evidence for your claims in the future.

I wish I could pull Stephen Ambrose...

Don't put your faith in hack pseudo-historians. BTW, I could have predicted from your statements that you were an Ambrose reader.

Well, maybe percentage wise, but so what? In those two years they lost entire divisions of men and equipment.

A late summer-time invasion of Germany in 1942 with all the forces that the Allies had to bear would have been a blessed event, given how over-extended the Germans were in Russia at the time. Sorry, it is not remotely clear that such an invasion - as opposed to the undermanned raid on Dieppe - would have been a failure.

in '42 we didn't have many troops in England

Because they were in North Africa obviously.

...we didn't have air superiority over France...

Actually, air superiority over the Channel and northern France had been won by 1942 and even more of Western Europe by 1943.

...we didn't have thousands of bombers hitting Germany and France day and night...

That hardly counts as a reason against invasion.

...we didn't control the Channel...

Actually, we did; the Battle of Britain provided for air and sea supriority in the channel. Your ignorance astounds me!

...the U-boats were still a huge threat...

And they remained so in 1944.

...we didn't have hundreds of landing craft

Because they were stuck in North Africa dipshit. You are rather dense, aren't you?

...the Germans hadn't lost entire divisions in the East, etc., etc.

They didn't need to; they were tied up in Russia, whether they were "lost" or not.

Aslo, note that none of your remarks argue against invading in 1943, which must mean that you concede that point. That would have - of course - curtailed any effort to invade Italy in that year.

[chester]

_...we didn't have thousands of bombers hitting Germany and France day and night..._

JB: That hardly counts as a reason against invasion.

_...we didn't control the Channel..._

JB: Actually, we did; the Battle of Britain provided for air and sea supriority in the channel
------

Why does that *hardly* count as a reason against invasion, you military genius? don't believe in softening the enemy before the invasion?

Battle of Britain did not provide air and sea superiority in the channel, you asshole! your stupidity astounds me!

It merely denied the Germans control; it took a lot of pounding the luftwaffe, U-Boat bases, etc. to gain reasonable superiority for the invasion.

(I don't know if you really are an asshole; but since name calling seems to be a part of your posts, I thought I 'd oblige)

[Jason Bourne]

PapayaSF,

If you would like, I could suggest a few books on WWII to alleviate you of your ignorance.

[Jason Bourne]

Chester,

Why does that *hardly* count as a reason against invasion, you military genius? don't believe in softening the enemy before the invasion?

Because, that bombing is only knocking down German industry, and not knocking it out (the Germans did a superb job getting their factories in the Ruhr up and running after attacks). You need to take and seize those factories to silence them.

Battle of Britain did not provide air and sea superiority in the channel...

Sure it did. And even if it didn't, such air superiority was achieved by 1942 (the year which PapayaSF states that air superiority had not been achieved in France). A cross-channel invasion could been supported by massive air power in 1942, and this was even more true in 1943.

[raymond]

Since everybody is posting such long things, here's something from my blog.
---------

A qui profite le crime?

If I were IRAN...

...George W. Bush would be my candidate.

1. Bush has eliminated Iran's most formidable enemy.

Sunni Saddam, supported by the US in the Iran-Iraq war.

Democracy - if it comes - will result in a Shia Iraq more likely to be an ally of Iran.

If democracy does not come, (a continuation of the) civil war in Iraq is almost certain.

Iraqi Kurds are contained.

2. Bush's actions have contributed to the recent dramatic rise in petroleum prices.

On 1 April 2002, oil was $18.58/barrel.

On 1 March 2003, with war looming, $29.03.

The US invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003.

On 18 October 2004, a barrel of oil cost $55.33.

It is estimated that prices will be about $60 by the end of this year.

Bush's war has resulted in what amounts to an Iranian tax on the American people.

Petroleum has become too valuable for Iran to burn to produce electricity. Nuclear power is cheaper. It makes sense economically.

3. Bush's troops are spread thin and are no threat.

In its quest for nuclear weapons (camouflaged under the economic necessity of cheap electricity), Iran has nothing to fear from American bluster.

With a price of $60/barrel, the world cannot afford to impose sanctions on Iran.

And besides, look at Pakistan.

4. Bush has allowed the Israel-Palestine conflict to fester.

The US cannot afford to alienate its chief ally in the region. Sharon can therefore continue with impunity policies which are widely regarded in the region as anti-Muslim.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The most steadfast enemy of Israel is Iran.

5. The US has lost moral standing.

abu Ghraib

Guantanamo

"Surgical strikes", with their civilian casualties

After the tremendous outpouring of sympathy resulting from 9/11, America has created fertile ground for terrorists - better known in the region as "freedom fighters" - in Iraq.

In the region, Iran is not the "state sponsor of terrorism". The US is.

6. Bush is easy to manipulate.

On the flimsiest of "evidence", George W. Bush invaded Iraq and has thus realized more of Iran's goals than Khamenei could ever have dreamed possible.

A qui profite le crime? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be theorizing right now that Iran was behind much of the documentation which convinced Bush to invade Iraq.

I'm not, though. So I think Iran just got lucky. If Khamenei's luck holds, the American people will re-elect Bush in November.

[joe]

Jason, the argument about Africa vs. France 1942 is phoney. That isn't the choice at all. You're thinking too small. There is no way the force that invaded North Africa could have succeeded in invading the Reich.

The convoy routes weren't secure in 1942 - we were still in a position that we might have lost that battle that year. We couldn't sustain operations in Europe under those circumstances.

Also, in 1942, the German army was in a position that they could have transferred army-sized units from the Eastern front to stop an allied invasion. In 1944, he needed every troop there to fight for his life, or the Reich would be overrun by the Red Army - which is pretty much how our side won the war, if you recall.

Our forces were also much smaller and weaker than an invading force would have to be.

Our biggest intelligence breakthroughs hadn't yet come to fruition, so we wouldn't have had the advantages of that - like the FUSAG ruse.

In many other ways, our strategic position towards Germany was much weaker in 1942 than two years later.

The US could have overcome these obstacles, most likely. But it would have required making an invasion of northern France the primary objective of the entire US military, and putting the Pacific on the back burner. This, and not some scheme to pull off Torch a few hundred miles from Berlin, is the real decision if you want to do a counterfactual about a 1942 European invasion. But then, you'd be on this thread complaining about whatever Torch-sized operation America had carried out against Japan!

In any event, there was no way America was going to declare an invasion of the Reich a more immediate priority than pushing Japan away from our shores. Had we put the resources we'd have needed to invade Europe in the ETO in 1942, we might not have had enough in the PTO to stop a determined Japan from shelling the west coast, if they'd so chosen. And if we hadn't had those forces there, they very well might have so chosen.

[PapayaSF]

Thanks for the backup, Joe. And extra credit for no name-calling.

Let me step back from WWII history for a moment and rephrase my original point. On Hit and Run and elsewhere, I find a lot of complaining that Bush made a mistake in Iraq, he has no plans, doesn't know what he's doing, hasn't explained his plans, etc. No doubt there's at least some truth to the complaints, in the sense there's usually some truth to any complaint on the geopolitical level: things are messy there.

However, I find it odd and depressing that so many otherwise smart people are so willing to jump to conclusions about all this. A week or so ago, some "administration official" was quoted as saying there would be no big offensives in Iraq until after the election. The Hit and Run thread was quickly filled with complaints about the disgusting partisanship of it all, blah blah blah. But within about 48 hours, we launched major offensives in Iraq. Gee, you don't think that "leak" could have been a little disinformation to get the bad guys off their guard, huh? Maybe, just maybe, Bush and the Pentagon aren't completely stupid after all!

I'm not reading minds, pushing conspiracy theories, claiming the administration is infallible, and have no inside info. All I'm saying is that 1) it's rather unfair for any of us bystanders to attack them as ignorant fools simply because they haven't laid out a step-by-step explanation of their diplomatic and military plans to win this over the coming years, and 2) the way we've dealt with Iraq, Pakistan, etc. makes sense to me because (IMHO) it seems like the early stages of a long-term plan, one I think I can discern, based on public statements, common sense, a no-doubt incomplete knowledge of history, and a belief that the administration is not filled with evil cretins. Maybe I'm wrong, but we probably won't know for years.

[Matt]

Color me idealist, but framing democracy promotion as the best explanation for war and then applying it selectively seems not to be working. US policy in the past fifty years (starting roughly with the CIA overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran) has enabled us to usurp the role of the hated European imperialist in the Middle East. Most of this policy, alas, stemmed from our hardline Cold War reality. Unfortunately, as the Cold War ended, our foreign policy goals didn't adjust.

Terrorism must be understood as a grass roots movement- it isn't always fomented by rogue states. In the absence of a major state enemy such as the Soviet Union, the US foreign policy should have shifted to an emphasis on democratization in the 1990s and a steady program of demilitarization.

Think I'm just a dove? Well, thinking that South Koreans, Japanese, and Germans like the presence of so many American troops on their soil ignores the truth. Many South Koreans want the US out- likewise many Japanese still outraged over incidents such as the Okinawa rape.

We became an empire during the Cold War due to the necessity of containing Soviet power. When the Soviet empire collapsed, we should have reformed our foreign policy priorities. We did not and continued not to. It's costing us.