"Israel will be in deep trouble if Hamas wins the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council or if it scores a significant achievement," [Shin Bet Director Yuval] Diskin said."They will penetrate [Palestinian] government offices, and bolster their grip on the territory," he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Committee Chairman MK Yuval Steinitz said.
Diskin had painted a bleak picture of substantial gains in strength for Hamas, a fact that, Steinitz said, bodes poorly for Israel. If Diskin's predictions hold, Steinitz added, Israel will be facing an entirely new situation, in which a terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel will be an equal partner in controlling the Palestinian parliament.
What's that George Bush and his followers are so fond of saying about the Middle East? Oh, that's right: "Freedom is on the march!" It certainly is - it's the freedom to elect the most anti-American regimes possible, ones which will be close allies with the merchants of terror. And it looks like that freedom is being exercised enthusiastically. Freedom is on the march.
What a great strategy we have embarked upon. When do we start replacing Mubarrak with the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Musharraf with the radical Islamist parties in Pakistan? We want to make sure that by the time George Bush leaves office, every country in the Middle East is ruled by people who hate us. That will make us much safer, just like the war in Iraq has.
UPDATE: Anyone who believes that simply exporting democracy to trouble spots around the world is some sort of tonic to all of our woes should (in addition to realizing that dictators can be and sometimes are elected democratically) read this post by Julian Sanchez, one of the guest posters on Andrew Sullivan's blog, and in particular should read Sanchez's "short squib" in Reason which is linked in this post:
PERPETUAL PEACE?: I see Cato is hosting (and streaming over the Web) an interesting looking event next week with Columbia's Jack Snyder and U Penn's Edward Mansfield about their new book Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. I spoke briefly to Snyder, after reading a chunk of his previous book on this topic, about a year back while working on a short squib on the rather more radical ideas of Princeton political scientist Joanne Gowa, a skeptic of the democratic peace hypothesis.
Without going so far as to endorse Gowa's critique in all its particulars, she and Snyder are a useful antidote to the assumption that, from the point of view of promoting stability and security, "spreading democracy" (in the formal sense of popular elections) is some kind of silver bullet. What would likely be effective to that end is the spread of liberal democracy—which entails cultivating a whole complex of mores and institutions. It is, of course, much easier to focus on flashier, more photogenic milestones like lines of purple-fingered voters outside polling stations. But as Snyder and Mansfield make clear, it may also be dangerous.
As I've argued many times -- both before the Iraqi elections and immediately after -- what matters for America's foreign policy is not how a leader is elected, but what qualities that leader has. A democratic election in another country is not an inherently favorable event for the U.S., particularly where they are occurring in countries brimming over with hostility towards the United States and which are entirely devoid of the underlying values necessary to sustain basic precepts of liberty. After Iraq, how many more examples of this do we need to see?
Freedom is God's gift to man. . . . haven't you heard? They can elect Osama bin Laden and it's still good. We're doing God's work there. That's what matters.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know how Israel feels about Iran's being on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and a close ally of Iran's about to take over Iraq and Hamas about to rule the PA.
ReplyDeleteThey're not going to sit by and idly let this happen are they? And as much as the neocons have dictated American foreign policy, doesn't the Middle East look a lot worse for Israel than it did 4 years ago before we got off on our invading scheme?
I'm so tired of hearing that the State of Israel is 'threatened' by a rag tag group of "terrorists" who are virtually without weapons. Israel has every weapon in the U.S. arsenal and has shown over and over that it is willing to use them. You reap what you sow and 80 years of Israeli expansionism naturally doesn't bring peace.
ReplyDeleteIsrael might actually seek peace if Iran had a nuclear weapon and some good missiles.
Hey michael s - which is it, socialist or Buchanan nazi?
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't noticed, countries or even groups which have far fewer weapons than you have can still do damage to you. Check out 9/11 for one example, and all of the suicide bombs in Israel for another.
And if you think that Iran having some nice nuclear weapons and missles would be a good thing in deterring Israel, does that mean you think the U.S. should actively work to make that happen?
Good question, Craig-SF. That is why Israel was uncharacteristically mum during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Israel was perfectly fine with Iraq and Iran keeping each other in check. Saddam was an American obsession much more than Israeli.
ReplyDeleteSo Glenn should I take it from this post and some of your previous posts that you are in favor of the US supporting dictators?
ReplyDeleteI think the U.S. should have a foreign policy which seeks to promote U.S. interests, like we've had for the past 50 years under both Democrat and Republican Administrations alike.
Sending our citizens to die in wars and having our resources drained away -- all to install governments in far away lands which hate the U.S. and will work against us -- strikes me as rather self-destructive. It doesn't make it any better that the governments which work against us are being installed democratically.
If you really believe in this exporting democracy fetish, it must mean that you favor the overthrow of the Saudi royal family and letting a democratically elected government - which is almost certain to be a puppet of Osama bin Laden - take over the world's largest oil fields, right?
Is that going to make us safer, too?
Its always so refreshing to see the Hate America First Crowd on the left rooting for defeat and bad things. Glenn is showing himself more and more lately.
ReplyDeleteSays the "Dog"
Its always so refreshing to see the Hate America First Crowd on the left rooting for defeat and bad things. Glenn is showing himself more and more lately.
ReplyDeleteYou understand, don't you, that the policy I am advocating is the one that was in existence under the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations, among others? Were they all part of the Hate America First Crowd?
And we still have a policy of supporting pro-U.S. dictators -- in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, to name but a few of our most important allies.
How does it possibly mean that you "hate America" to be in favor of supporting foreign governments which are American ALLIES, or be opposed to installing governments which are HOSTILE to America?
If anyone "hates America," isn't it those who want to install foreign Governments which will be hostile to U.S. interests?
Some people have come to think that anything opposed to George Bush is "liberal." But George Bush doesn't define conservativism. In many instances, including in foreign policy, he contradicts it.
I am not in favor of supporting despots. Unfortunately, most dictators ARE despots. There you go, you gotto dance with the one that brung ya; the Saudis, Musharref, Mubarak, and on and on and on.
ReplyDeleteAt least when Saddamn was king of Iraq we didn't have to work about Wahabi terrorism or so much about the Iranian mullahs. Now it seems we got the worst of all worlds. An anitpathetic government in Iraq allied with the Iranians.
It's amazing how often getting what you wish for turns out to be bad news.
For the radical right, getting Bush re-elected comes to mind.
Jake
Now a simple yes or no answer to my original question would be great.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to answer your original question "yes" or "no" because I don't necessarily favor "supporting" dictators in all cases. But in some cases, sure - for instance, I think it's vitally important that we keep the Saudi royal family in power because the alternative with democratic elections would be a disaster of unparalelled magnitude.
I think it's equally important in Pakistan - I'm not really interested in seeing the many nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the radical Islamist parties there, and it won't make me feel any better if they get their hands on those weapons via democratic elections.
But in most cases, I don't support supporting or undermining dictators - simply dealing with them in a way that promotes U.S. interests, like we (try to) do with the Chinese dictatorship.
It's very naive to think that we can run around the world overthrowing every insufficiently democratic government and replace it with a democratic government. And worse than naive, it's also suicidal, on every level.
While I certainly agree that George Bush does not define conservtism -- indeed, I don't regard him as conservative at all -- I do not fault his having deposed Saddam Hussein. It would be very nice if Iraq ends up a stable democracy operating under an enlightened rule of law (and that rule of law thingie is a sine qua non of a decent democracy), but even if it does not, it was in our interest to topple the Hussein dictatorship. (It is simply too soon for either total optimism or pessimism regarding the ultimate fate of iraq.)
ReplyDeleteHussein was a belligerent who plotted to harm America, and did in fact harbor terroists, even if not all of the AQ variety. He attempted to murder Bush 41. It was well, well past time for a nation that commits such acts to be stomped on hard by the United States.
Pragmatism will preclude our reacting that way in all instances. Kim Jong Il has nuclear weapons, so we cannot simply attack him. But Saddam had to go, and I fully support that George Bush finally did that did. It is a lesson I hope other nations who wish us ill learn well.
Pragmatism will preclude our reacting that way in all instances. Kim Jong Il has nuclear weapons, so we cannot simply attack him. But Saddam had to go, and I fully support that George Bush finally did that did. It is a lesson I hope other nations who wish us ill learn well.
ReplyDeleteRe-read this paragraph of yours - espeically the second sentence about why we can't attack N. Korea - and you will see the "lesson" which other countries have learned from our invasion of Iraq. It's this:
They better get nuclear weapons, because if they do, we won't be able to do to them what we did to Iraq, as you just pointed out. Don't you think Iran understands that lesson? Our invasion of Iraq has incentivized every country on the planet to acquire nuclear weapons for the reason you just pointed out.
Focusing on "democracy" to the exclusion of the other very important half of the equation -- i.e., enshrined civil liberties, stable and transparent governmental and economic institutions, culture of liberty, etc. -- is painfully, and probably fatally, inadequate.
ReplyDeleteBut, for the Muslim Middle East, the process of joining the modern democratric world will be long and slow. This is just the beginning of a story that will long outlast our military involvement. It is also probably impossible to manage, let alone predict. There may still be wars, revolutions, and armed rebellions. Between their unreformed religion and their incompatible-with-modernity culture, the Muslims have a lot of work to do before they make progress.
The question of democracy in Iraq and Palestine is a gamble. Sticking with the pro-American dictator is the old formula, but there's a strong case to be made that it's the wrong formula. Perhaps Egypt is a ticking time bomb. Perhaps when Mubarak goes, so also goes the peace with Israel. Then what? A war between Israel and Egypt, both of whom are stocked with American weaponry. So is it really better to have Mubarak over a (flawed) democracy?
"Democracy" may fail. The Arabs haven't accomplished anything worthwhile in centuries. The Israelis certainly aren't betting on success. But is it a worthwhile gamble? That's really the question. And what's the alternative? Install a pro-American Iraqi dictator? It's fairly certain that this dictator will be hated by one or more of the three major Iraqi groups. Would there be peace and happiness then? More or less hatred of America?
Uh, huh. Those "installed governments in far away lands" include Japan and Germany. Japan, of course, was considered impossible to establish a democracy in, due to the culture.
ReplyDeleteWe did initally struggle in Germany to get the democracy going, but it has seemed to work.
Our fight against terrorists and the people that support them, must continue. Places like Iraq had to be taken care of. Freedom is on the move. Sure, we still have other countries to deal with, but at least we are doing something. We have started to drain the swamp of terrorist activity, and we must continue. Other countries understand that the empty rhetoric of Clinton has been replaced by George W and the will to DO SOMETHING. Negotiations will be a little more honest due to our will to back up threats.
The constant complaining and harping about our current anti terrorist policy is completely tiresome. When asked for a workable alternative to Iran or N Korea, the silence is deafening. Taking the UN approach of wringing hands and talking about it, doesn't solve anything.
It seems the hate Bush crowd manufactures anything to attack him with...even siding with the terrorists. Get a clue. The anti war stance that the Dems currently are taking will destroy the party. We must protect ourselves, even if it means to go on the offensive in other countries. We sat back and "hoped for the best" in the past, and that did not work. Ignoring these people only emboldens them. They have only one mission.. to destroy us. So we must destroy them first. They will not negotiate.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteIts your unreasonable post to which these comments are appended that seem to gleefully root for failure of Bush's innovative vision of spreading freedom for people's who haven't been free that provoked my Hate America First Comment.
Your conclusion or deduction that Iraq is about to form a shia theocracy tied to and aligned politically with Iran is not supported by the facts, and appears to therefore be wishful thinking. Wishes that are against the interests of the USA quite obviously.
It is silly and simplistic to think that the Shia in Iraq want to submit to the rule of some whacko mullahs in Iran. In fact the Imam Ali Sistani outranks the mullah's in Iran on a shia religious level, and he is definitely not going to support being subservient to Iranian mullahs. The people of Iraq do not want a crazed mullah ruled government. They have seen how badly that has worked in Iran. Heck the Iranians don't want a crazy mullah ruled government any longer, but the mullah's have a very effective secret police organization to keep dissenters in line enough to prevent their overthrow. That won’t last forever however, and eventually Iran will become a more free democracy and JOIN Iraq in that regard. The opposite of what you write wistfully about today.
Further, there is no comparison between Iraq and the PLA electing Hamas in some cities. PLA has lived and developed under different circumstances than Iraq. PLA is never going to be pro American, however Iraq will be a grateful and more trustworthy friend than Saudi Arabia in the future.
So its your knee jerk reaction to assume and prognosticate and gloat over the worst happening that makes this post of yours and many on the left to fall into the Hate America First camp. Perhaps for some its just a symptom of Bush derangement syndrome (BDS).
Bush is trying something new and bold and different. He's trying freedom for oppressed people. He is certainly right to try, because obviously the lame policies of the state department bureaucracy of the Clinton years and prior have not produced any trustworthy friends for the USA in that region.
Bush's policies on the other hand have made a friend out of Pakistan, stopped Pakistan's nuclear scientists from spreading nuclear bomb technology to radical Islamic states, has cause Libya to give up its nuclear program and to reveal Libya was hiding Iraq's nuclear program within its borders. That's a heck of a lot more than the don't rock the bureaucrat approach you claim to support has ever produced.
Says the "Dog"
the "Dogs'" comment above has been cross posted to www.junkyardlawdogs.com
ReplyDeletehere
Says the "Dog"
Dog,
ReplyDeleteWhile I think Glenn's conclusion is incorrect, it is certainly lausible to speculate that a Shia theocracy is what we will have wrought.
Cassandra really didn't want to be right, and Glenn isn't hoping for an anti-US theocracy.
I don't think that invading Iraq was some sort of act of ultimate evil or stupidity, and I don't think the decision to invade can or should be reduced to the accusation that "Bush lied." There were some serious and legitimate arguments in favor of doing it, and the question of what to do about the Middle East generally is as vexing as it is pressing. A good (but ultimately unpersuasive) case could be made that we had to try something fundamentally different.
ReplyDeleteBut the neoconservative theory of invading other countries in order to install democracy there -- and thereby transform the region into something that is more peaceful, stable and pro-Western -- was a huge gamble, and I think the harms will come to clearly outweigh the benefits.
How it makes someone "anti-American" to observe that is quite mystifying. As lc scotty points out, to describe that something isn't working isn't the same as hoping it doesn't work. That ought to go without saying.
As imperfect as our real politic policy of the last five decades has been, Brent Scowcroft is basically correct that it has largely preserved the peace - not perfectly, not entirely, but better than the alternatives.