Can Bush be right after all?

[Bozo Erectus]

I saw Condoleez Rice yesterday answering questions over in France, after her speech. She's very persuasive. Heres a crazy thought: What if she and the neocons are right after all? Maybe their attempt to force the ME to become democratic is the right thing to do, and is possible. What if one day, because of their efforts, the ME is peaceful, democratic and free, and future historians view Bush and his team as great visionaries, with the courage and conviction to carry on with their idealistic agenda, even in the face of global condemnation? I havent changed my position about this, but for the first time Im willing to entertain the possibility that they might be right, and Im wrong. Do we on the Left reject their goals in the ME because we've looked at it objectively and come to the conclusion that theyre wrong, or do we automatically reject the message, because we hate the messengers?

 

[Yom]

I just saw a documentary on Saudi Arabia on PBS last night. If you seriously believe that those people can become a secular democracy in even 50 years (without massive purges and re-education, of course), then I think that you are not quite right in the head.

I reject the message because it is infeasible and propaganda, which, in turn, causes me to hate the messenger.

 

[WickedSmurf]

I'll cut my balls off if he's right.

 

[DexterJ]

I dont know how well a foriegn nation can force or push other nations into becoming democracies. it would obviously be a good thing if the middle east became democratic but i dont know if there is the education, tradition and institutions in these nations to support stable democracies. the outcome could be balkanization (the violent break up of states, ethnic cleansing etc.) because some of these states are based on colonial rather than national divisions.
also do the people there always want democracies in the way we mean them? at the moment a lot of states there seem to be run by corrupt, brutal, unrepresentative monarchys but which are quite pro-US but the mass of the people would probably prefer states based on islamic rule. the successor states after elections might result in more extremist regimes more hostile to america.
also some states are (slowly) progressing towards more representative governments such as Iran and Jordan. maybe agressive posturing by the US is not that helpfull in persuading these nations to become more democractic. i am not automaticaly opposed to these initatives as i think previous western governments have been too willing to accept these middle east regimes (in part due to the cold war).

 

[Scuffer]

If Rice had had Rumsfeld's job, it would be going a lot smoother now.

 

[jiml_63]

What difference does it make whether Bush is right or not....as long as peace and stability are achieved....

Seems to me the Bush-haters would rather see the ME stay a shambles rather than have Bush be right...

...and the Bush apologists would rather follow him lock-step regardless of the possible outcome....

I just hope for peace....(as naive as that may be)

 

[storealex]

EVERYTHING might be possible.

 

[Jorge]

Well, let's assume that Iraq will finally become a real democracy and the people there will enjoy freedom and economic prosperity. That's, I think, the best scenario for Bush. Even in that case, what he did was wrong, and with the economic and human cost of this war there are a million of things that you can do to improve other people lifes.

As an example, it is like buying caviar to feed people that are starving. Yes, you are helping people, but with the same money you could help much more people buying rice, for example. If my goverment was trying to convince me that sending caviar to the 3rd world is a good idea, I would think they are either stupid or have some interest in the caviar industry.

 

[joacqin]

Everything is possible and the neo-con policies have worked better than I expected up til now, even if it hasnt worked as good as they were claimed to work. Whether it works or not is really not my reason for viewing it with suspicoun. I am simply wary of any great power going on the offensive, I just dont think it bodes well for the future. Add to this that I view the Bush junta's claim to be the protectors of democracy as highly dubious. They are no reshaping the ME out of the goodness of their hearts but for reasons of their own. The most dangerous in my opinion being to unite the own populace in the face of external threats to be able to do whatever they please as a frightened people accept everything.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I think if Bush and Co succeed in establishing democracy in Iraq then in the rest of the ME, I'll worship him for the rest of my life.

 

[luiz]

There is a real chance that Iraq will become democratic, but I highly doubt that the same will follow in the rest of the ME.

I believe that democracy can be imposed by force, but I don't believe in domino effects.

 

[Longasc]

If there are still people out there that think that this is the right way to

a.) spread democracy
b.) fight terrorism

and not

c.) more paranoia and fear on the US side
d.) more about acquisition of resources
e.) a doctrine of fighting terror and US supremacy that is neither good for the world or the US

they are probably living in a red state.

Any speculations when Bush will bomb the living crap out of Iran? And who will be the next target in the crusade of paranoid stupidity?

 

[Scuffer]

If he can sort Isreal and Palestine out, I shall be deepply impressed.

 

[Verbose]

Being "right" is a whole lot less important than "making it work".

 

[Stapel]

The French position has always been that is was ok (within never discussed margins!!!!!) to try to force democracy into Iraq, but were pissed off to see it was covered in some ridiculous WMD-9/11-safety-craphola.

The French didn't want the US to invade Iraq, but absolutely do not want the US fail in Iraq.

In the ideal scenario, Iraq will grow towards a stable and prosperous democracy. If that happens, it might very well have a positive effect on Syria, Egypt and possibly Saudi Arabia.

 

[Stapel]

Well, let's assume that Iraq will finally become a real democracy and the people there will enjoy freedom and economic prosperity. That's, I think, the best scenario for Bush. Even in that case, what he did was wrong, and with the economic and human cost of this war there are a million of things that you can do to improve other people lifes.

As an example, it is like buying caviar to feed people that are starving. Yes, you are helping people, but with the same money you could help much more people buying rice, for example. If my goverment was trying to convince me that sending caviar to the 3rd world is a good idea, I would think they are either stupid or have some interest in the caviar industry.

We should always question if a goal is worth the risk and the cost.
Yet, I hardly see how democracy can be brought into the ME, without force.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Where I think the neocons are fundamentally wrong is their belief in Democratic Peace Theory, or that democracies don't fight each other. This is their ultimate basis for wanting to spread democracy across the world.

If Democratic Peace Theory is wrong (and I would argue it is), then we are wasting vast amounts of resources, because there is no point in democracizing these areas. Moreover, the occupation required to do so is hurting our ability to police the world. Look at how haughty Iran and North Korea are now that we're bogged down.

 

[Stapel]

Where I think the neocons are fundamentally wrong is their belief in Democratic Peace Theory, or that democracies don't fight each other. This is their ultimate basis for wanting to spread democracy across the world.

If Democratic Peace Theory is wrong (and I would argue it is), then we are wasting vast amounts of resources, because there is no point in democracizing these areas. Moreover, the occupation required to do so is hurting our ability to police the world. Look at how haughty Iran and North Korea are now that we're bogged down.

I can't think of any free democracies that are at war today....
It's no law af nature of course, but I would argue the DPT does have something to it.

 

[Masquerouge]

The French position has always been that is was ok (within never discussed margins!!!!!) to try to force democracy into Iraq, but were pissed off to see it was covered in some ridiculous WMD-9/11-safety-craphola.

The French didn't want the US to invade Iraq, but absolutely do not want the US fail in Iraq.

That's about it

As far as I'm concerned, I think the neocons are wrong about the ME. And people in this thread have already said why.

 

[Winner]

Where I think the neocons are fundamentally wrong is their belief in Democratic Peace Theory, or that democracies don't fight each other. This is their ultimate basis for wanting to spread democracy across the world.

If Democratic Peace Theory is wrong (and I would argue it is), then we are wasting vast amounts of resources, because there is no point in democracizing these areas. Moreover, the occupation required to do so is hurting our ability to police the world. Look at how haughty Iran and North Korea are now that we're bogged down.

Can you give us any relevant example of two true democracies waging war against each other?

From what I know, DPT seems to be right.