More Neocon Ranting
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. It's one thing to say that the long-term security of the U.S. is a democratic Middle East, that the policies of the past have failed, and therefore that U.S. military intervention in the region, for the indeterminate future, is in the interests of the country.
It's quite another to say that the long-term security of the U.S. is a democratic Middle East, that the policies of the past have failed, and therefore that U.S. military intervention in the region, for the indeterminate future, is in the interests of the country, but we're not actually going to raise revenue to offset even a teensy bit of the cost of this enormous, world-transforming adventure. Instead, we're going to borrow every last dime--to the tune of almost half a trillion dollars, and counting.
Maybe that's "idealism." Yeah, like it's idealistic to believe that if you could buy the world a Coke, "perfect harmony," etc., except you run out of quarters real fast. But I can see why that sort of nonsense is better than "low risk" realism. Sure.
Sam has some interesting things to say in comments.
posted by Number Three @ 6:15 AM
3 Comments:
What is all this Democracy ideal BS? It would seem that the first element to a sustainable democracy is the people must want it--no matter how much money the U.S. spends, no matter how much ideal democracy propaganda the U.S. shoves down the throats of people. If the people of ME don't want "democracy", then it won't happen. Not to mention, if the U.S. is supposed to be a beacon of democracy for which the rest of the world should strive towards, then maybe we should do some house cleaning of our own. Until we resolve the hypocrisy inherent in our so-called current democracy, why would anyone else in the world respect our propaganda?
I also think Emery makes a good point about any attempt to draw any conclusions from WWII to the current situation. If people are starving, if people are dying, if people do not have jobs, a house, security or basic needs for survival, then what is the point of having a democracy. A realist low-risk balance of power government where the needs of the people are being met far out weight some silly right to vote. Besides if a person has greater sympathy for the long-term aims of a global democracy and not the realist low-risk balance of power, why attempt to start democratizing the powder keg of the ME? Wouldn't it be better to start with a country that has over one-sixth of world's population? Er China? Of course, that is a stupid idea!! We wouldn't dream about risking the current realist balance of power, not to mention all of our consumer goods, with China for some stupid democracy ideal. Lets be realistic, this blog is censored in China. And that is putting it nicely--when in actuality this blog is blocked in China!!!
So get over the idealistic BS that U.S. wants democracy in the ME--when we all know what we really want from the ME is oil!! After all addicts will lie, cheat and steal to support their addiction.
Mikton, I agree that we've got a lot of democratic housecleaning to do at home. In terms of domestic policy, Bush is the most anti-democracy president in modern history. How else can you describe a guy who fashions himself the President of the right-wing of ther GOP rather than of all America, who thinks he's not accountable to Congress or the law, who won't let you hear him speak unless you've signed an oath of personal loyalty, who ran two of the nastiest and most dishonest campaigns in US history, and who conspired with the Supreme Court to cancel the 2000 election? Then again, Woodrow Wilson, for whom I have some qualified admiration, was a racist (as Bush is not) and initiated the Palmer raids even as he was pushing for the League of Nations. So Bush's hypocrisy is far from unique, and his wretched domestic policies do not necessarily undermine his foreign policy ambitions. His foreign policy team is taking care of that through their incompetence. Still, I blame Rove and Cheney more than Bremmer and Wolfy.
However, I'm not sure it's fair to say that, unlike post-war Germany and Japan, people in the ME don't want democracy and prefer their current despots. First, that overestimates the longing for democracy in J & G, which were more beaten down by war than praying for our victory. Second, it discounts the legitimate possibilities of self-governance in the ME. From an economic standpoint, Iraq 2003 wasn't significantly behind other countries that have successfully pursued democratization, and it had a largely secular history with a substantial middle-class. The factional divisions were certainly daunting, but the fanatics need not have gotten the upper-hand had we paid decent attention to stabilization once we took over. The Iraqis were not well-served by Saddam. I was glad to see him go, as were virtually ALL Kurds and Iraqi Shi'a, and even some Sunni. That doesn't mean they want "democracy," but we had a unique opportunity to shape their future in a positive way that we blew.
Before I close, a clarification. I never supported the Iraq War, because the screw ups were obvious from the start, although I did fully support Afghanistan. But I do see nobility in the desire to help an oppressed people throw off the shackles of despotism. That wasn't Bush's original objective (nor was oil, I think), but it was Wolfowitz's. I also wonder how much easier this might have been if we had simply accepted Saddam's 11th hour offer to step down w/o an invasion.
OK. That's too much for me. Does anyone else remember the time that Mikton said that we should, as a society, strive to be more like ants?
Utah, there is no simple answer for the Middle East. But how do you think that the Iraqi voters would feel about your comment if they read it? And do you think that those voters would prefer to live under the former government of Iraq or a government similar to that of the United States? Even with all of its warts, (and by that, I mean those affixed to Ted Kennedy), our government has never sanctioned abduction and rape by the progeny of its members (even if it has been a lax with regard to the aforementioned Senator).
A final question-- how many democracies have attacked other democracies? None come to mind. Maybe the Iraqis, too, will elect Hamas. But maybe they won't. And if not, won't we be a little closer to peace. You want peace, right, even if it's attached to oil?
As a closing note, Emery's point about finance is an excellent one. We need either to raise taxes or cut domestic spending. Preferrably a little of both.
Post a Comment
<< Home