Will contemporary history credit him for having torn down the wall of tyranny there, as Reagan gets credit for toppling the Soviet Union?
You can betcha that Sarah Palin will.
GW's Democracy Doctrine
GW's Democracy Doctrine
Does Dubya get credit for fanning the flames of democracy in the Middle East?
Will contemporary history credit him for having torn down the wall of tyranny there, as Reagan gets credit for toppling the Soviet Union?
You can betcha that Sarah Palin will.
Will contemporary history credit him for having torn down the wall of tyranny there, as Reagan gets credit for toppling the Soviet Union?
You can betcha that Sarah Palin will.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
If protests keep going in Iraq I doubt it.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Nope I think GW's fate to be known as the worse ever president, and quite possibly the worse thing that ever happened to the USA/the world, has long been signed sealed and delivered.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Well, that may be a tad over the top....quite possibly the worse thing that ever happened to the USA/the world
After all there was that thing called The Plague that wiped out half the population of Europe....
But to answer BSG's tongue-in-cheek question:
I should think that highly unlikely. While GWB's Second Inaugural Address, ( Not to be mistaken for Lincoln's) was a fine speech, probably the best of his Presidency...(and the high point of his second term....you know you're in trouble when the high point of your second term is your inaugural address...in the event, it was pretty much all down hill from there) there's simply no way that anyone could draw direct and clear cause and effect lines from Bush's policies, (as opposed to his rhetoric) to the events currently unfolding in the Mid East, in the way that can clearly be done with the Gipper's policies and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I can't see respected historians giving GWB the sort of credit that they have (justifiably) given to Mr. Reagan.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
I don't think there's much doubt that Bush43 was the greatest modern-day proponent of "democracy" in the Middle East, but given that much of the culture is locked into seventh century mind-numbing stupidity, the jury is still out on whether democracy is a good idea in those venues.
"Democracy" was the best thing that ever happened to Hamas, and it was a popular uprising that brought the Ayatolla Komeini to power in Iran. In Iraq, "democracy" is likely to substitute one despotic regime for another, and the same will likely occur in Egypt.
Democracy cannot work to benefit a society in which the population feels justified in fighting with arms to reject the results of an election that goes against them (e.g., Wisconsin), or where the most organized factions are coincidentally the most regressive (e.g., the Islamic Brotherhood).
No one in the next 50 years at least will get any credit for bringing "democracy" to Islamic stronghold countries in the Middle East, because their version of democracy will be a disaster for everyone else. And unfortunately, the ROW relies on the oil produced in these hell-holes so we can't just nuke the lot of them and be done with it.
"Democracy" was the best thing that ever happened to Hamas, and it was a popular uprising that brought the Ayatolla Komeini to power in Iran. In Iraq, "democracy" is likely to substitute one despotic regime for another, and the same will likely occur in Egypt.
Democracy cannot work to benefit a society in which the population feels justified in fighting with arms to reject the results of an election that goes against them (e.g., Wisconsin), or where the most organized factions are coincidentally the most regressive (e.g., the Islamic Brotherhood).
No one in the next 50 years at least will get any credit for bringing "democracy" to Islamic stronghold countries in the Middle East, because their version of democracy will be a disaster for everyone else. And unfortunately, the ROW relies on the oil produced in these hell-holes so we can't just nuke the lot of them and be done with it.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
You would think there would come a time when you'd stop being surpriesed by Dave mind boggleing stupid statements thinking alright he can't top that, but, it still happens without fail.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
I've been following the dramatic events in the Mid East fairly closely, and I'm convinced there's good reason to be very hopeful about how this could ultimately play out.
In the first place, there's absolutely no evidence of widespread Anti-American or pro-Islamicist sentiment playing any significant role in this. We're not hearing "death to America" or seeing American flags being burned, or protesters carrying pictures of Iran's Ayatollah Khameni.... (One of the things that has struck me in the most recent pictures from Libya, for example, is how small a percentage of the men in the crowds even have beards) while there are Islamicist elements present in each of these countries, and the danger of course exists that they could exploit the situations that are developing, there's no evidence that they have any widespread popular support.
(Just to give one example, a CNN reporter who got into Benghazi described the reception he got as being like what it must have felt to be one of the first Americans arriving in liberated Paris....the footage he provided backed him up.)
While the internal contexts for each of these uprisings are different, the motivations and goals of the vast majority of the courageous folks who have risen up are universal; in each case the goal is clearly to toss off the yoke of an oppressive autocrat and establish a genuine, pluralistic, representative democracy.
In Egypt, it's true that at the moment the best organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood; but all the polling indicates that they would get no more than 20% of the vote in an election, (they've already announced they won't even be fielding a candidate for President) and by the time the elections are held they won't be the only organized opposition.
In Libya, there's been a lot of fear that the country could become a failed state; broken up along tribal lines; a sort of "Somalia with oil".
But in fact the tribal leaders, acting in committees also made up of educated professional class Libyans, have already managed to co-ordinate in a sufficiently unified fashion to agree upon a provisional government, (headed by a former Libyan Justice Minister) that has proven itself capable of establishing order and delivering basic services in at least the half of the country that they now control.
If we play our cards right, there are very low cost ways that we in the US and the rest of the West can play a very constructive role, in a lot of creative ways just as we did in Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union collapsed. Not just the governments, but also a wide range of NGO's; providing constitutional law, judiciary and parliamentary experts, providing help on how to organize political parties and developing a free and independent press, providing expertise in developing professional non-politicized police forces, are just a few examples.
If we do these things, we will go a long way towards building long term goodwill with these countries, while simultaneously helping them construct the sorts of stable institutions that minimize the chances of radicals exploiting a chaotic situation. It's a win-win-win for all concerned.
There are some additional things I'd like to see us do right now with Libya. Ghaddai is definitely going to be gone, the only question is how many people is he going to be able to slaughter on the way out...If we stand by and do nothing while this process unfolds, I think this could badly damage our relations with the new Libya.
Obviously we don't want to send in ground troops, but there are a lot of things we could do short of that that would help save lives and build up goodwill. A no fly zone seems like a no brainer to me at this point. It's highly unlikely that any Libyan pilot at this point would even challenge it, but seeing Western jets flying overhead protecting them from air attacks would be a very welcome sight to these folks. The leadership that has emerged from the rebellion have requested this, and interviews with ordinary Libyans back this up.
There are some other things we might want to consider; like recognizing the provisional government, and providing it with some material aid.
We need to be creative, we need to be engaged, and we need to nimble so that we can respond appropriately as rapid moving events unfold.
There are plenty of potential pitfalls ahead, but all in all I think the crepe hanging and doom and gloom hand wringing I've seen expressed in some quarters is unwarranted. Personally, I see the flowering of the drive for liberty currently taking place in the Arab world to be a beautiful and inspiring thing to behold.
In the first place, there's absolutely no evidence of widespread Anti-American or pro-Islamicist sentiment playing any significant role in this. We're not hearing "death to America" or seeing American flags being burned, or protesters carrying pictures of Iran's Ayatollah Khameni.... (One of the things that has struck me in the most recent pictures from Libya, for example, is how small a percentage of the men in the crowds even have beards) while there are Islamicist elements present in each of these countries, and the danger of course exists that they could exploit the situations that are developing, there's no evidence that they have any widespread popular support.
(Just to give one example, a CNN reporter who got into Benghazi described the reception he got as being like what it must have felt to be one of the first Americans arriving in liberated Paris....the footage he provided backed him up.)
While the internal contexts for each of these uprisings are different, the motivations and goals of the vast majority of the courageous folks who have risen up are universal; in each case the goal is clearly to toss off the yoke of an oppressive autocrat and establish a genuine, pluralistic, representative democracy.
In Egypt, it's true that at the moment the best organized opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood; but all the polling indicates that they would get no more than 20% of the vote in an election, (they've already announced they won't even be fielding a candidate for President) and by the time the elections are held they won't be the only organized opposition.
In Libya, there's been a lot of fear that the country could become a failed state; broken up along tribal lines; a sort of "Somalia with oil".
But in fact the tribal leaders, acting in committees also made up of educated professional class Libyans, have already managed to co-ordinate in a sufficiently unified fashion to agree upon a provisional government, (headed by a former Libyan Justice Minister) that has proven itself capable of establishing order and delivering basic services in at least the half of the country that they now control.
If we play our cards right, there are very low cost ways that we in the US and the rest of the West can play a very constructive role, in a lot of creative ways just as we did in Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union collapsed. Not just the governments, but also a wide range of NGO's; providing constitutional law, judiciary and parliamentary experts, providing help on how to organize political parties and developing a free and independent press, providing expertise in developing professional non-politicized police forces, are just a few examples.
If we do these things, we will go a long way towards building long term goodwill with these countries, while simultaneously helping them construct the sorts of stable institutions that minimize the chances of radicals exploiting a chaotic situation. It's a win-win-win for all concerned.
There are some additional things I'd like to see us do right now with Libya. Ghaddai is definitely going to be gone, the only question is how many people is he going to be able to slaughter on the way out...If we stand by and do nothing while this process unfolds, I think this could badly damage our relations with the new Libya.
Obviously we don't want to send in ground troops, but there are a lot of things we could do short of that that would help save lives and build up goodwill. A no fly zone seems like a no brainer to me at this point. It's highly unlikely that any Libyan pilot at this point would even challenge it, but seeing Western jets flying overhead protecting them from air attacks would be a very welcome sight to these folks. The leadership that has emerged from the rebellion have requested this, and interviews with ordinary Libyans back this up.
There are some other things we might want to consider; like recognizing the provisional government, and providing it with some material aid.
We need to be creative, we need to be engaged, and we need to nimble so that we can respond appropriately as rapid moving events unfold.
There are plenty of potential pitfalls ahead, but all in all I think the crepe hanging and doom and gloom hand wringing I've seen expressed in some quarters is unwarranted. Personally, I see the flowering of the drive for liberty currently taking place in the Arab world to be a beautiful and inspiring thing to behold.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
No more than creditng Nixon with the PRC/US trade disparity...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Jim--while I generally agree with your assessment, a lot of it depends on how much we have learned as well. Democracies are fairly hard to deal with, especially if the people have different ideas on who their leaders should be than our government does. It's far easier to deal with a corruptible dictator, and our policies have fostered that again and again in "allied" countries throughout. I would hope we learned how to deal with democracies and differences of opinion, but I'm not all that optimistic.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
I would hope we learned how to deal with democracies and differences of opinion, but I'm not all that optimistic.
Big RR, most of the countries we deal with successfully day in day out are democracies....
The entire NATO alliance is comprised of democracies; we've worked successfully with them for decades...Ditto the EU....
Most of Latin America is now comprised of democracies, but we're able to work successfully with them, even if we have some ideological differences with some of them. (like Brazil) The only two countries that we don't work well with in Latin America are Venezuela and Cuba; one a totalitarian dictatorship and the other well on the road to becoming one...
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Israel....
I'm sure I've left out a bunch...
All vibrant democracies with a wide variety of opinion....
All countries we work with quite easily in a whole host of ways....
I don't know where you got the idea you expressed. I find it puzzling.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
I guess it depends on how you define "democracy"; something which assures the same people will remain in power year after year is not a democracy. And while some of the countries you mention are full fledged democracies, and others are fledging ones, IMHO it remains to be seen which will remain so. Let's not forget how many dictators we put into power (from the shah to Pinochet), even inspite of democratic opposition to them, or how many left leaning fledging democracies we have tried to (and often did) destablize.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
The problems with "Governments" in Africa/Mideast in general is "Tribal" differences.
That and for the greater part of many of these "countries" early development they were under colonial rule.
"Civilized" countries try to help younger nations develop governments are are "good" for us.
Vietnam would not have been Vietnam had we (the US) helped Ho as he pleaded for us to do.
Some lessons will never be learned...
That and for the greater part of many of these "countries" early development they were under colonial rule.
"Civilized" countries try to help younger nations develop governments are are "good" for us.
Vietnam would not have been Vietnam had we (the US) helped Ho as he pleaded for us to do.
Some lessons will never be learned...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Nice assessment Jim, I live in hope you are correct.
My travels in the Middle East and North Africa would lead me to concur with Keld, it's going to come down to tribal fealty, we in the west have no real idea / concept of how deep the tribal issue affects people there.
My travels in the Middle East and North Africa would lead me to concur with Keld, it's going to come down to tribal fealty, we in the west have no real idea / concept of how deep the tribal issue affects people there.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has told the BBC he is loved by all his people and has denied there have been any protests in Tripoli.
Col Gaddafi said that his people would die to protect him.
He laughed at the suggestion he would leave Libya and said that he felt betrayed by the world leaders who had urged him to quit.
US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the interview showed Col Gaddafi was "delusional" and "unfit to lead".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12603259
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
For those who care to check it, Dr. Thomas Sowell has an excellent article on this subject in today's Townhall.com.
Basically, home-grown despots tend to be replaced, after "popular" overthrows, by even more repressive regimes (Cuba, Iran, Russia).
Basically, home-grown despots tend to be replaced, after "popular" overthrows, by even more repressive regimes (Cuba, Iran, Russia).
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
(I posted this over at Re-boot in response to a question from Alice. I thought I would add it to the conversation here.)
As Victor Hugo so insightful observed, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." One might add that today the truth of this is magnified many times by the modern communication and information sharing modalities that lie within the grasp of folks living in even the most isolated and oppressive conditions.
There was in Libya for many, many years (as there is in all dictatorships) a simmering desire of the people to cast off the yoke of oppression and strive to establish a free society. The desire for liberty is a natural, universal, human impulse. It can be twisted through propaganda, it can be held down by a sense of hopelessness, but it cannot be extinguished.
What happened here, is that when they saw the people of Tunis, and especially the people of Egypt, rise up and take their destinies into their own hands, the people of Libya finally felt empowered to act on that impulse. "If they can do it, why can't we?" became the driving catalyst.
This was further helped by the modern communication systems that I mentioned. I believe it was Plato who observed that in order to maintain a tyranny, it was essential to make every one of your subjects that might oppose you feel isolated in their opposition. So long as they felt that they were alone, they would not act. The availability of things like satellite television, cell phone images, twitter, Facebook, all the resources of the internet in general, etc. broke this sense of isolation down and further strengthened the people's sense of empowerment to act.
One more point. One thing that the inspiring drama we have been watching unfold over the past few weeks has completely demolished is the condescending culturalist notion, (held by some on both the left and the right) that some "peoples" or societies simply "don't want" or "don't care about" living in freedom. We now have example after example playing out before us of people who live in countries that have never enjoyed the blessings of liberty and have no historic experience with it whatsoever, men and women, young and old, educated and uneducated, poor and comfortable, willing to brave machine gun fire in order to achieve it.
As Victor Hugo so insightful observed, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." One might add that today the truth of this is magnified many times by the modern communication and information sharing modalities that lie within the grasp of folks living in even the most isolated and oppressive conditions.
There was in Libya for many, many years (as there is in all dictatorships) a simmering desire of the people to cast off the yoke of oppression and strive to establish a free society. The desire for liberty is a natural, universal, human impulse. It can be twisted through propaganda, it can be held down by a sense of hopelessness, but it cannot be extinguished.
What happened here, is that when they saw the people of Tunis, and especially the people of Egypt, rise up and take their destinies into their own hands, the people of Libya finally felt empowered to act on that impulse. "If they can do it, why can't we?" became the driving catalyst.
This was further helped by the modern communication systems that I mentioned. I believe it was Plato who observed that in order to maintain a tyranny, it was essential to make every one of your subjects that might oppose you feel isolated in their opposition. So long as they felt that they were alone, they would not act. The availability of things like satellite television, cell phone images, twitter, Facebook, all the resources of the internet in general, etc. broke this sense of isolation down and further strengthened the people's sense of empowerment to act.
One more point. One thing that the inspiring drama we have been watching unfold over the past few weeks has completely demolished is the condescending culturalist notion, (held by some on both the left and the right) that some "peoples" or societies simply "don't want" or "don't care about" living in freedom. We now have example after example playing out before us of people who live in countries that have never enjoyed the blessings of liberty and have no historic experience with it whatsoever, men and women, young and old, educated and uneducated, poor and comfortable, willing to brave machine gun fire in order to achieve it.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Per your last point Jim, let's not forget how many people in democracies embraced totalitarian dictatorships with rousing cheers and excitement. IMHO, it's not a question of freedom/democracy for many people, it's whether the government suits their needs; if it does they can wink at the excesses of those in power, if not, they want to tear it down. We've seen this over and over again, from the Germans who embraced Hitler, the Spanish, many of whom gladly exchanged the republic for Franco's rule, etc. I think a fairly benevolent dictator could remain in power indefinitely. Sure, there might be some who decry the status quo and point out where dictatorship can lead, but the apologists will point out agin and again that it hasn't happened and will not (at least to the "good" people). Many would prefer economic and physical security to freedom.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Two key factors are (1) to what extent is the general population dependent on government, and (2) what is the literacy rate?
Will the educated, literate, insightful people who are getting the press right now be able to form the eventual government? Or will unscrupulous charlatans be able to sway the Masses with phony promises, scare tactics, and threats?
There are two predominant motivating forces in Middle-Eastern culture: Islam, and hatred of Israel. Not a very promising foundation for a New Beginning.
Will the educated, literate, insightful people who are getting the press right now be able to form the eventual government? Or will unscrupulous charlatans be able to sway the Masses with phony promises, scare tactics, and threats?
There are two predominant motivating forces in Middle-Eastern culture: Islam, and hatred of Israel. Not a very promising foundation for a New Beginning.
Re: GW's Democracy Doctrine
Well, that's good news on the No Fly Zone....it appears that as he has become more desperate, Ghaddafi has stepped up his bombing of civilians.AL-UQAYLA, Libya (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi struck at rebel control of a key Libyan coastal road for a second day on Thursday but received a warning he would be held to account at The Hague for suspected crimes by his security forces.
Arab states weighed a plan to end the turmoil in the world's 12th largest oil exporting nation, but a leader of the uprising against Gaddafi's 41-year-old rule said he would reject any proposal for talks with Gaddafi to end the conflict.
In Paris, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said France and Britain would support the idea of setting up a no-fly zone over Libya if Gaddafi's forces continued to attack civilians.
As for trying to get the rebels to enter into negociations with the dictator...I suspect it's way too late for that....I can't see them letting him slip off the hook at this point....
I seriously doubt that the Colonel will ever see the inside of the Hague....(nor do I think he should...we don't need another A list butcher dying of old age in a dutch jail at that no death penalty, dispenser of glacially slow justice, ala Slobodon Milosevic.)
Unless he skedaddles, (and it's not at all clear who would have him...The Saudi's have a long tradition of granting sanctuary to any deposed dictator who calls himself a Muslim...they even took in Idi Amin...but they've got their own problems at the moment, and really don't need the headache....There was some talk about him going to Venezuela when this whole thing started, so I guess that's a possibility...Cuba comes to mind as another...) I suspect that after what he's done to try to cling to power, that if he's captured in the morning he'll be tried in the afternoon and be hanging from his heels in a public square ala Il Duce by dinner time....Hell, his own security people may turn on him, in the hopes that doing so might get them a reprieve from retribution.