posted
Afghanistan, just recently one of the most oppressive countries in the world, is now a functioning democracy.
Iraq, once ruled by one of the most depraved despots in the world, is now a functioning democracy. There are still terrorists trying to turn back the clock, and while some sick minds are sympathetic to their goals, they have been unsuccessful in derailing the democratic process.
Syria is being ousted from Lebanon by massive public demonstrations reminiscent of Ukraine's orange revolution.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both starting to initiate democratic reforms (very small ones, granted, but democratic nonetheless.)
Of course, I am only repeating what has been stated in many editorials and articles in many newspapers for the past couple weeks, but I'd thought I'd throw this out for Hatrack to chew on. Does anyone actually think that Bush's foreign policy was not largely responsible for this new wave of democracy that is revolutionizing the middle-east? Is anyone going to suggest that it is a bad thing?
quote: Afghanistan, just recently one of the most oppressive countries in the world, is now a functioning democracy.
Iraq, once ruled by one of the most depraved despots in the world, is now a functioning democracy. There are still terrorists trying to turn back the clock, and while some sick minds are sympathetic to their goals, they have been unsuccessful in derailing the democratic process.
Both of these statements, while I'd love for them to someday be true, are a bit premature for most values of "functioning."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a "functioning democracy" yet.
I do think both are on their way to becoming so, and I think Bush's policies were the primary impetus for each.
I think the third transfer of power between elected governments is the true test of a democracy. Each is on their first, or nearly so (I'll count the interim Iraqi government as a government, once it's actually chosen).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in all fairness, I think it's needlessly cynical to say that the election in Iraq was "at the barrel of a gun." That was certainly the case in Afghanistan, of course, but let's face it: we don't care a whit about Afghanistan.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give Bush credit for sticking with Iraq even when the war has become increasingly unpopular at home. In fact, Bush's willingness to stay in Iraq regardless of public opinion is one of the few things I liked about him.
However, I believe Bush was misleading about the real reason we went to war with Iraq. Our national debate over Iraq was centered on WMDs and terrorist threats, not democracy in Iraq. Should we support the expansion of democracy abroad at the cost of weakening our own democratic institutions at home?
quote:Afghanistan, just recently one of the most oppressive countries in the world, is now a functioning democracy.
Today, Afghanistan is still one giant mess:
quote:More than three years after a pro-U.S. government was installed, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is "on the verge of becoming a narcotics state," a presidential report said Friday. CNN
Bush deserves neither praise nor censure for Afghanistan. The war against Afghanistan had strong bipartisan support and I don't know if another president would have done a better job in Afghanistan.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the worth of democracy from the barrel of a gun?
Well, of course everyone knows America attained its democracy by going to old King George III and singing "Kumbaya". But I guess that doesn't work for everyone.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if the American Revolution is the best analogy here. Our founding fathers asked for French intervention. We didn't get the same kind of open invitation from the people of Iraq.
quote:Did the population themSELVES go for it? Did they start a revolution? No. It was forced at from the end of our gun barrels.
I'm sure most Iraqis dislike the American occupation. However, I think the majority of them are happy at the chance for democracy.
[ March 07, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democracy from the barrel of a gun speaks, I think in this case, to Democracy brought to a people by an outside force.
However, if we really want to know, perhaps we should ask the decent number (approaching dozens, I think, especially if you count repeat cases) of instances where a democracy either collapsed because it was brought in to early, or where it was intentionally deposed by authoritarian forces supported by, oh, say, the united states.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen, fugu. The US role in Latin American "democritization" was touted as a grand victory for democracy as well. Looking back, that sentiment is seen as a load of horse pucky. What will we see when we look back at Iraq and Afghanistan?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with foundling and fugu. Our US government loves democracies--unless the people in foreign lands elect someone we disagree with, like the Socialist/Communist Allende in Chile, or Ortega and the Sandanistas in Nicaragua.
ASFAIK, both were freely elected. Allende nationalized industry, which threatened US investments in Chile. I'm not sure what the Sandanistas did specifically against US interests. I don't know much about our campaign against the Sandanistas beyond the Iran/Contra scandal.
Allende was overthrown in a violent coup September 11, 1973 with covert US backing through the CIA. This is well-documented. We then embraced his succesor, General Pinochet, with open arms, even though he was very tyrannical:
quote: Peter Kornbluh: U.S. economic policy changed 100 percent once Pinochet took power. This is ironic, because Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger claimed after the coup that covert operations in Chile were designed to support democratic opposition, democratic institutions. And yet the moment that General Pinochet took power and outlawed political parties, closed down the Chilean congress, ordered a wave of repression that was unparalleled in the Southern Cone up until that point, the Nixon administration and the Ford Administration embraced him and turned back on the spigots of economic aid and military aid to Chile.
from the Allende link above. ecerpts from The Lawless State, a book describing the CIA's campaign against Allende.
Google "US CIA foreign intervention" or a similar phrase and you'll find a long, bloody list of similar interventions, often supporting dictators like the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet or others who actively and brutally opposed any democratic reform. Sorry for the history lesson, many of you know most of this already. Morbo
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To adress dh's original point, it remains to be seen how democratic Iraq or Afghanistan will be, it's too early to tell. Iraq hasn't even written it's constitution yet. But there is the hope of democracy in both countries, and Bush's policies are the cause of that.
The long-overdue Syrian pullout from Lebanon was driven by events that had little or nothing to do with the US beyond some recent diplomatic pressure, so you can't give Bush much credit there. I suppose you could argue that the Iraq war has made Syria nervous and defensive, etc.
quote: Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both starting to initiate democratic reforms (very small ones, granted, but democratic nonetheless.)
I'm not sure what's behind these, as you say, very limited reforms. Perhaps reform is in the air, a zing in the zeitgeist, and Bush has helped it along, or been an instrument of that spirit. Morbo
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why stop there? Let's get rid of all the politicians who supported sending troops to Iraq, Republican, Democrat, Greenie alike!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I applaud the nascent moves toward democratic processes and reforms in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are looking really good to me because the leadership is taking this task on without (or rather before) the bloodshed. It may become something that represents actual democracy someday. I think the Palestinian Authority is a potential bright spot too, after Arafat died.
And I will applaud Bush for supplying a lever in the region.
I think Iraq and Afghanistan are a bit worrisome still. Unless the life of the average person there is demonstrably better in real terms, not abstract things like "freedom" but in terms of full bellies, engaged minds, and meaningful work -- unless the vast majority are free first from fear and deprivation...truly, then I think what we really have is an experiment in government overlayed on a powder keg.
The fact that more "average citizens" died since we arrived in Iraq than under the previous regime has not gone unnoticed. That's a side effect of war that many of us were talking about from day one of this adventure. With a bit of foresight, it's not impossible to see where that kind of experience could lead average Iraqis to turn away from us in heart and mind, even if we see ourselves as their rescuers. At least those who lost innocent loved ones may have a special reason to support our enemies in the future.
In Afghanistan, the practice of opium growing is growing and the government is not able to suppress it mainly because doing so would create a massive hardship for the farmers. I'm not entirely sure that this uptick in the dependence on drug creation won't come back to haunt the US in a number of ways as well. Also foreseeable in advance.
I'm impressed by the elections and willing to say that maybe Bush had a solution to the problems. I still maintain, however, that he didn't have THE solution to the problems and that we will be reaping the long-term consequences of this whole thing for many generations.
It's a worry that I think Colin Powell expressed in the early days before he learned to toe the line in the Administration. I felt it was a valid concern then and I haven't seen anything to make me think that the problem is going to resolve itself.
And, in part, because of that, I'm still not glad we went to war in Iraq.
There's also the vaguer sense of not wanting us as a nation to think that the ends justify the means. It should never be forgotten that our President et al made up a story that they wanted to believe and wanted us to believe that gave them initial justification for this war. They snookered Congress and the American people with faked or misinterpreted intelligence and got what they wanted.
I daresay that had we and they taken more time to review all the facts we might still have gone to war, but it is the nature of our Presidency in general that delays mean no second terms and wars usually mean a second term. I would like to see us change the mix of incentives as a means of decreasing our reliance on luck and increasing our reliance on sober assessment and discussion.
I doubt that's really rising much in the National consciousness. But that bugs me too. I've never felt so out of step with my fellow Americans as I have in the last year or so.
And the feeling is getting worse.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BookWyrm, was democracy imposed on these states at gunpoint? Or did guns allow it to arise? I think there's a distinction between people who don't give a rip about democracy (not that I know of any such personally--most people seem to want a say in their government's affairs) and people who want democracy but are under the jackbooted heels of thugs too powerful for them to overthrow.
Morbo, back in the 70s and early 80s, wasn't there a real danger that countries with Communist governments would be coopted by the Soviets or the Chinese? In that case it doesn't seem that it would matter whether said government was elected or not. I believe the saying (from Africa) is "One man, one vote--one time."
I also question whether failed democracies really fail because it is "too early" for democracy there, or due more to chance and local conditions. The system implemented may be flawed, or in preventable conflict with local traditions. Alternatively, almost any system is vulnerable in the early stages; one problem official can set the tone for everything thereafter. (Imagine if our first president had been an incompetent like Grant, or a manipulator like Nixon.)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Point of clarification: Ortega came to power with the aid of a terrorist campaign against his own people to keep them away from the polls. He then lost his bid for reelection and two more bids for the presidency since. While in power, he modeled much of his government's policies after Castro's in Cuba. His government suppressed political dissent and violated human rights. The Nicaraguan constitution was suspended, and freedom of the press was curtailed.
Not your best example, perhaps.
EDIT TO ADD: Exchanging a right wing dictator for a left wing dictator != democracy
posted
"That no one was ever able to escape and come to this country or others and get with governmental authorities to get help in starting a coup?"
Again, in all fairness, quite a LOT of people "escaped" Iraq and came to this country -- and Britain -- to live in exile while attempting to persuade us to invade. Many of these people were installed as part of the provisional government once Saddam was ousted. That's not uncommon.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
How do all smiles in the face of danger with people thanking us as they show off their purple finger for their new right not? I for one am very proud
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The premise of that article is ridiculous. The success of the UIA isn't giving the finger to the U.S., nor is their desire for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
posted
I don't know how much I credit Bush for any success.
Iraq is a mess, part of a stable functioning democracy is safety, which they don't have, and the political situation there is so fragile it could burst apart at any moment.
Afghanistan's opium production is back up to pre war levels, warlords roam and control half the country, and Karzai needs a platoon of secret service agents to protect him.
Syria/Lebanon has little or nothing to do with Bush, unless he ordered Hariri's assassination. Those were events totally beyond his control.
Palestinian elections only came about because Arafat died, also not having a single thing to do with Bush, again, unless he ordered Arafat's death.
Saudi Arabia/Egypt can hardly be called a major move. Both are offering limited elections, Saudi Arabia still restricts the rights of women and promotes wahabi state funded terror schools. And we've still yet to see if these elections aren't corrupted by the officials running them.
Positive steps in the right direction? Yes. Glory be to the Bush Doctrine? I think not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, thanks for the correction about the Sandanistas, I wasn't up on all the facts. I didn't know there was a terror campaign pre-election.
quote: Morbo, back in the 70s and early 80s, wasn't there a real danger that countries with Communist governments would be coopted by the Soviets or the Chinese? In that case it doesn't seem that it would matter whether said government was elected or not. I believe the saying (from Africa) is "One man, one vote--one time."
Mabus Yes, and to fight this possible danger we supported vicious thugocracies world-wide, as long as they weren't Communist.
Better facists than Communists, eh? Good thing we got that straightened out after WWII instead of before.
Mabus, it might not matter to many Americans or our leaders whether the governments were legitimate or not, but I am sure it matters to the Chileans who suffered under General Pinochet, and other people who dealt with tyrants we supported in other countries.
I have no idea what that African saying means.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Original poster is missing the point entirely. Bush is not the president of the world. He is the president of the United States. His primary responsibility is to protect the United States, a country he is currently in the process of destroying.
Actually, I think you're the one who's missed the point entirely. I wasn't talking about what your president should be doing or what his primary responsibility or jurisdiction is. I wasn't talking about domestic policy. I am asserting that this sudden wave of democratic reforms in the middle-east is both directly and indirectly caused by Bush's foreign policy there. Whether or not you agree with that foreign policy is beside the aforementioned point.
In the past couple weeks, several prominent Arab leaders (both legal and otherwise) have stated that a change is taking place in the mentality there (sorry for no link, but it's hard to link to a printed newspaper ). People are seeing what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they want the same thing in their own countries (democracy, not war.) I don't know if the people of Lebanon would have dared to defy their occupiers so firmly without that kind of encouragement. Of course, it's still a very young process. But something is definitely changing for the better there.
I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would point out which point you think I'm missing.
posted
On the subject of imposed democracies, how about Germany and Japan? While it's true that these had more of a democratic tradition before WWII than Iraq did before the occupation, they still work pretty well now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also spent far more time and resources in those locations than we are spending in either afghanistan or iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if in afghanistan, and maybe even Iraq, we were spending less than a tenth as much per capita in real dollars.
Also, both japan and germany were relatively modern industrial states. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is anything close.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. Both Germany and Japan were shattered - between atomic bombs on one and the absolute shredding of Berlin, neither country had much by way of being intact.
Iraq was, for the most part, spared any attempt to reduce it's cities to rubble and ruin.
2. Neither Japan nor Germany had close neighbors similarly beholden to this government form.
Iraq risks becoming an anomaly in the region and in the eyes of its people - which may very well lead to the democratic election of a theocracy.
quote:I don't know if the people of Lebanon would have dared to defy their occupiers so firmly without that kind of encouragement.
There's a lot more to the Syrian involvement in Lebanon than what's getting play in the media at the moment. Lebanon would still be embroiled in civil war if it wasn't for Syria. It isn't a simple matter of occupation, and Lebanon has a massively complex history because there are about ten jillion factions that are constantly warring for power.
That's one of the big reasons I generally oppose the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy -- its hamfistedness shows an apalling lack of understanding of the region and its history.
And to touch, tangentially, on an issue that I refuse to discuss here anymore, there is a much more long-standing and far more oppressive occupation happening south of Lebanon that the Bush Administration does not appear to be interested in sabre-rattling about. That double standard is always going to make them look like liars to Arabs.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen! There is also a great deal of evidence that the insugencey (in Iraq) has lost its momentum. Softer targets, kidnapping for funds and a seeming cap on operations, more poorly trained operatives all point to a dwindling ability to function.
In short, it looks like Rush Lumaugh called another one right. Makes you folks on the left want to cry don't it... hee hee
posted
dh, I'm afraid I can't agree with all you are saying.
Afghanistan is a great example of what needed to be done, and what was done. A tyranny forced thier way of life on a powerless people, and sought to export it. We came in and helped those people to freedom by destroying that tyranny and helping them take the first steps to a democratic government...
yet much of the country is not free, but in the hands of drug trafficking warlords that we don't have the troops to face at the moment.
In Iraq a vote was taken, and there have been lots of promises that this has finally broken the back of the insurgents. Yet the attacks continue and the deaths, both Iraqi and American/Coalition increase. There are places throughout the country where people fear to walk.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are doing a lot of talking about how Democratic they are getting. For that matter Russia is talking about how democratic they are, and they seem to be going backwards. In one of Card's books he commented that a truly Peaceful society has no word for peace, because they do not know war. Similarly, the louder they scream about peace, the more warlike they may be. So to, the louder these countries hype their minor steps toward democracy, the farther they really have to go.
Finally there is Lebanon, who's supporters are protesting for the removal of Syrian troops.
I am really upset that President Bush is taking credit for this.
He spoke yesterday of the great democratic spring welling up in Syria, but didn't mention that the Syrian backed terrorist group HezBullah (sp?) had 500,000 protesters marching in the streets at the same time, demanding Syria stay in Lebanon, and the rest of the world stay out.
You can argue in this thread that President Bush was right about Democracy blossoming in the Middle East. But you can not argue that he was wrong about the WMD being in Iraq, or that Hussein had connections with Al Queda. Two out of three aint great.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, Hezbollah is considerably more than a terrorist group. It is also a political party and a charity organization. It plays a major role in Lebanese politics.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Riiight, BC, megadittos. The insurgency has lost its momentum? A seeming cap on operations, more poorly trained operatives? Suicide Bomb Kills at Least 115 in Iraq
posted
In any case, how the resistance is going is irrelevant. This is the essence of a strawman: saying that the resistance dying down is evidence that Rush Limbaugh was right is attempting to pin those of us who think this war was a mistake undertaken under false pretenses into the corner of having to root for the insurgents in order to be able to say "I told you so." How preposterous. We do not think this war was wrong because we don't think we can win. We have the mightiest military on Earth, or so they say. We should be able to win in Iraq, neh? Our reasons for opposing this action include the immorality of legitimizing a preemptive strike doctrine, the false intelligence and apparent lies used to dupe the American people into it, and the questionable appropriateness of taking it upon ourselves and ourselves alone (D'oh! I forgot Poland!) to judge which governments should be allowed to remain in power. And yeah, I suppose some people were worried about being embroiled in a police action in a country where the people are against us and willingly conspire with the guerrillas to hide them from us.
The effectiveness or lack thereof of the insurgency has only a little bit to do with whether or not this war is right.
I hope we succeed in our military objectives there and set up a shining democracy in Iraq.
But I still think the way we went to war there was wrong.
posted
Large groups of civilians are soft targets, anybody can blow up a bunch of school kids or a marketplace, or a bunch of unarmed recruits on leave big deal... you do not make friends that way, you do not win the hearts and minds of the people. Vaporize a car? Again big deal, just the gasoline in a car will almost do that. The problem is that we are dealing from two seperate sets of values. Speaking two different languages and therefore you are not able to understand. I however will not hold you in contempt for that.
quote: Vaporize a car? Again big deal, just the gasoline in a car will almost do that.
Ummm, no, it won't. Gasoline is not a very good explosive. Do you get most of your demolition knowledge from action movies?
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am really upset that President Bush is taking credit for this.
He's not taking it, I'm giving it to him. I didn't say that he is solely responsible for what is happening, I said he was largely responsible. I know quite well that the Middle-East in general, and every country, region, and ethnic group there in particular, have very complex histories, and that there are alot of factors at work. However, Bush's policy in the Middle-East has definitely set alot of stones rolling. Even where he does not intervene directly, there are repercussions from more direct actions, and it would seem (at least so far) that alot of positive change is in the air because of that.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict yet another increase in Republican numbers. The reason is that the more Democrats open their mouths, the more they sound Anti-American and Anti-Democracy. I believe that a majority of Americans find that distasteful.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict the opposite, if only because the Shrub is sure to do something else idiotic before 2008.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). People are seeing what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they want the same thing in their own countries (democracy, not war.) I don't know if the people of Lebanon would have dared to defy their occupiers so firmly without that kind of encouragement. Of course, it's still a very young process. But something is definitely changing for the better there.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
