Jolting Islam Forward
This segment of a larger piece from the American Thinker confirms my pre-3/20/03 beliefs about the Iraq War: a robust, detailed national debate was needed about the pros and cons of military action and occupation before taking the subsequent leap. The reason is simple: full support of the American public would be needed and there was absolutely no turning back; no pulling out when the war began to get messy, no setting firm dates for leaving without certain objectives met, and so on and so forth. The dangers of losing this battle are too great.
Simply put, Iraq has become the focal point of the entire war on terrorism. That's because President Bush's strategy for winning the war, in addition to fighting al Qaeda terrorists wherever we can find them, is to spread democracy itself throughout the Middle East. More precisely, his strategy is to create conditions in that part of the world that will trigger an Islamic revolution whose objective is to jolt Islam itself from the Seventh Century into the Twenty-first Century. In other words, we want Islam to do what Judaism and Christianity did centuries ago: namely, to reconcile with the modern world. If this actually happens in Iraq, the President believes, it will crack political ice throughout the region and trigger a chain reaction that will spread to other countries. And as the President sees it, only if democracy takes root in the Middle East will the threat of terrorism subside and will it be possible to finally end the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Now, you may be among those who believe that the President's strategy is absurd -- that there isn't the slightest possibility of Islam reconciling with the modern world and of democracy taking root in the Middle East. Or, you may believe that the strategy is plausible, but that the President has made an historic mistake by choosing Iraq as the first Mideast country in which to make it work. Or, you may believe that it can be done in Iraq, but that we have gone about it badly, for instance by not putting enough troops on the ground in that country to overcome the Baathists and the non-Iraqi terrorists who are fighting now to prevent the upcoming elections from succeeding.
In the end, history will prove you right -- or wrong. But as of today, we simply don't know how things will turn out in Iraq. Read the last sentence again, slowly, because it really is the heart of the issue. We are in the middle of a war and no one -- absolutely no one -- knows whether we will win or lose it.
What we do know for sure is this: our chances for success in Iraq will be greater if we all pull together to make it work. But if we fail in Iraq, the catastrophe of our defeat will spread beyond the Middle East and around the world. It will be taken as a huge victory for al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and all those who support them, including Iran and North Korea, and the result will be a barrage of terrorist acts the likes of which the world has never seen, and which will place us all in mortal danger.
Tom at Libertarian Leanings was first to call my attention to this.
12 Comments:
While I very much agree that we needed a robust, detailed national debate *prior* to invading Iraq and that subsequent events have proven us right on that point... I question whether the President's claimed strategy of installing Democracy anywhere in the Middle East is rational.
How many examples do we really have thru out human history of an outside nation imposing it's will like that on another?
How many examples do we have of any non-Arab nation imposing it's will on an Arab nation and having it continue even after they've withdrawn?
I'm just very skeptical that Democracy can be imposed on Iraq regardless of whether all Americans or only some American support it. And that's not even getting into the hypocrisy of trying to force freedom on Iraq at gunpoint while playing lip service (at best!) to the plight of the Palestinians.
Let's suppose that we get every last American citizen on the planet to all support the Iraqi Occupation. Does anyone truly believe that the average Ahmed in the street in the Arab world is going to decide that the rank hypocrisy vis-a-vis Iraqis and Palestinians no longer matters since all Americans are now united behind the Iraqi Occupation?
Put yourself in their shoes. If the Soviet Union had somehow managed to occupy the United States for the purposes of helping us learn the great advantages of becoming Communists... would you comply?
I decided I wanted to tackle this subject first before getting to Social Security on PK. So here goes:
How many examples do we really have thru out human history of an outside nation imposing it's will like that on another?Well many, but the question is whether this form of government can succeed, satisfy the wants of the people of Iraq, and subsequently infect the rest of the middle east with a fever for democracy. In the most relevant example, the U.S.' involvement in Vietnam was meant to preserve the democratic regime in Saigon, repel the Communists, and take Hanoi, unifying the country. The chief reason it didn't was, even from the beginning, the chances of meeting all of these objectives were slim. So certainly the calculus of the success of democracy taking hold in Iraq is dependent first on determining whether it even possible to stabilize the country by military force.
Why I believe the Iraq example differs wildly from most instances of government "imposition" is the people of Iraq truly despised their leaders. Most of the Iraqis believed the Baathists themselves imposed an unsuccessful government and social system against the will of the people. Certainly, had either worked for them, they would've had fewer grievances and been less open to another form of government.
Though it may not need pointing out, the use of the word impose itself implies doing something against the will of another. Democracy and representative government empower the individuals of a country (the another) and taps into their will in a way no other devised form of government can. This stands in noted contrast to the example of the eastern bloc being forced into communism without future choice or voice in 1945-6. There is not even an expectation about democracy that it results in the sort of culture associated with the West, only that democracy gives its citizens the opportunity to create whatever society they want--one that is religious, one of strong social order, or what have you.
These reasons alone hardly justify the invasion (I fall under the "historic mistake" group above). However, there is simply not a large enough sample of examples in human history, examples that mirror the circumstances of 2003 Iraq, that would indicate the failure to bring democracy to Iraq is inevitable.
How many examples do we have of any non-Arab nation imposing it's will on an Arab nation and having it continue even after they've withdrawn?Zero. But none were given the choice of democracy. The best ever offered to them was obstentiously beneficient colonial rule.
Does anyone truly believe that the average Ahmed in the street in the Arab world is going to decide that the rank hypocrisy vis-a-vis Iraqis and Palestinians no longer matters since all Americans are now united behind the Iraqi Occupation?I need this one explained a little further. I think I know where you're going with it but want clarification.
Put yourself in their shoes. If the Soviet Union had somehow managed to occupy the United States for the purposes of helping us learn the great advantages of becoming Communists... would you comply?The beauty of democracy is it allows its citizens to actually choose communism if they desire. They find they like it, find it works for them, they then go and vote for communists. Maybe they even end up with a centrally-planned society. If it stops working for them, they can vote the communists out.
The tragedy in my mind is if America became restless with a democratically-elected Iraqi theocracy and moved to undercut it. I don't think we should even be concerned that Iraq may not be an ally of ours going forward, only that they have a society they want. Hopefully they will feel gratitude for beneficial changes in their lives, and importantly in the spiritual sense, and that much of the ill will created during the occupation dissipates.
But herein lies the purpose of my post: I knew all of these tremendous challenges before 3/20/03, knew that they lowered the probability of success closer to 0. I've rendered accountable the leader who desired this strategy and did not vote for him. The majority of the nation did not agree with me. However, we are there now and we need to succeed because the costs of failure are of considerable magnitude. That's why I've been fully behind our success there despite serious misgivings about our initial strategy.
A foundational issue that needs to be addressed here is whether "Theocratic Democracy" is an oxymoron. I think it is.
What I foresee happening in a truly democratic election in Iraq is a majority choosing theocracy over democracy. Sure, it may be given the window dressing of a democracy. But, as we've seen in neighboring Iran, Clerics would weild ultimate authority and it would trump any and all civil authority when, where and why the Clerics see fit.
The beauty of a democracy is that it works wonderfully for those who truly want to live in a democracy. I'm not convinced that a majority of Iraqis want democracy more than they want a theocracy.
No matter how the Iraqi people felt about Saddam's brutal regime, nor how happy they are to be out from under it, it simply does not logically follow that they therefore want to live in a democracy. They understand that this is the hoop they must jump thru to regain sovereign control of their homeland. They're not stupid, after all.
Another foundational issue that must be addressed is that of Israel. Consider the implications of a truly democratic Iraq for Israel. Here we have a President who has acquiesced to the will of Israel at virtually every opportunity. Indeed, he has strong domestic political incentives to continue to do precisely that, considering the theology of his base.
A genuinely democratic political system in overwhelmingly Islamic Iraq would inevitably lead to a vastly more capable Iraqi military. And that could only be perceived as a very grave threat by Israel. Which begs the question of what incentive does Bush have to do that?
Read this excellent essay entitled, "Why Arabs Lose Wars: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
A foundational issue that needs to be addressed here is whether "Theocratic Democracy" is an oxymoron. I think it is.I believe it entirely possible representatives will be elected who best fit voters' notion of what is most "Islamic" and vote them out when a more pious, "better" Muslim runs against them. Why then can not these two co-exist? Simply because this has never happened before?
But, as we've seen in neighboring Iran, Clerics would weild ultimate authority and it would trump any and all civil authority when, where and why the Clerics see fit.And if the representatives who are clerics are voted out? Certainly your concerns are valid, however.
The beauty of a democracy is that it works wonderfully for those who truly want to live in a democracy. I'm not convinced that a majority of Iraqis want democracy more than they want a theocracy.Well this was certainly the risk. Remember this discussion is meant to be taken from a post-3/20/03 rather than pre- perspective. Can you not support the attempts we're making simply because they've never been tried before?
No matter how the Iraqi people felt about Saddam's brutal regime, nor how happy they are to be out from under it, it simply does not logically follow that they therefore want to live in a democracy.I didn't make that conclusion. My point was merely to convey that the example of Iraq 2003 varies strongly from so-called "impositions" of the past.
Here we have a President who has acquiesced to the will of Israel at virtually every opportunity. Indeed, he has strong domestic political incentives to continue to do precisely that, considering the theology of his base.Where are you going with this? I can't fit this into context.
A genuinely democratic political system in overwhelmingly Islamic Iraq would inevitably lead to a vastly more capable Iraqi military. And that could only be perceived as a very grave threat by Israel.We will have far too much at stake in the Arab Middle East to let Israel off our short leash. The times will be a-changin'.
Both of us agree the President and his administration committed a fundamental lapse in judgment 2 years ago. Despite our best efforts, he could not be voted out of office. The larger question now, Kevin, is can you support US efforts in Iraq no matter how treacherous this mountain is to climb? And are there alternatives?
Yeah, it's either all that or it's the oil. Hmmm.
In theory, yes... theocracy and democracy can co-exist. Whether they can in real life... I think is an open question. I'm deeply skeptical that they can. From what I know of history, any time Church and State become intermingled, Church invariably wins out - thus reducing the State to a caricature.
I certainly do understand the national security risks of the Iraq experiment failing. And at the beginning I was of the opinion that regardless of how we got there, that we needed to see it thru. But, I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's doomed to fail for the reasons that I've articulated previously.
Everything that we've seen thus far not only in Iraq, but in the entire Muslim Middle East leads me to conclude that the only clerics which might be democratically voted out would be those aligned with weaker factions. I definitely do not see it as at all likely that clerics aligned with dominant factions would ever be voted out, regardless of what they do.
From what I can see there are two primary power bases in Iraqi society. The extended family/clan, and clerics. Each has fiercly loyal followers and from what I can see there is a nearly 100% overlap between the clan/cleric powerbases. Which is to say that all loyal members of a given clan are also loyal followers of a given cleric, or at least of a given Islamic faction within which there may be competing clerics, but which also has a senior cleric who's pronouncements will almost always be followed by the junion clerics... and thus by the junior cleric's followers.
My point behind bringing Israel into this is to help separate the rhetorical wheat from the rhetorica chaff. While I certainly do agree with you, Scott, that the stakes in the region are higher than those of our relationship with Israel... I do not believe that Bush or his core supporters see it that way. Thus I am inherently skeptical that Bush or his NeoCon backers genuinely want a strong, stable, democratic Iraq because that would be a grave threat to Israel and I don't for a second believe that they want to see that happen.
To sum up... 1., I'm skeptical that Bush's rhetoric about what can be done with Iraq is feasible. And 2., I'm very deeply skeptical that Bush genuinely wants to see the changed Iraq that he claims to want.
It sounds like you want alternatives. By going in other directions, what will this signal to the Arab world about our attempts in Iraq until now? What are the alternatives?
Well, to be perfectly blunt I don't think anything we do will significantly change how we're viewed by the Muslim world until or unless we stop rubberstamping whatever Israel wants to do to the Palestinians. I firmly believe that everything else is viewed by them thru that prism anyway.
For that reason, I don't think that any alternate strategies vis-a-vis Iraq will really change anything as far as the Muslim world is concerned. Whether we stay or leave is almost irrelevant as long as they'll continue to see us as hypocrites for reasons completely unrelated to Iraq.
I'm basing my views here partially on many long talks I had many years ago with a Morrocan Muslim that I used to hang out with when I lived in Europe. He was keen to understand how I, as an American, saw the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Likewise I was keen to understand how he saw it and why. I've never viewed our relations with the Middle East the same since.
This post has been removed by the author.
This is a post-3/20/03, real life question--do we stay or do we leave? If being in Iraq doesn't "change anything" to you, what will leaving Iraq, or whatever your alternative is, do positively and negatively?
Thanks for your post. That and the article from American Thinker inspired me to spend some time putting together a post on my site. Thanks! Dave Marco
http://shininglight.us/mt/archives/2005/01/why_we_have_to.html
If Bush's experiment is doomed to failure, then leaving Iraq could cut our loses.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home