Hearts & Minds
Michael Barone on Real Clear Politics:
George W. Bush has proclaimed that we are working to build democracy in Iraq not just for Iraqis, but in order to advance freedom and defeat fanatical Islamist terrorism around the world. Now comes the Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent survey of opinion in six Muslim countries to tell us that progress is being made in achieving that goal.
Minds are being changed, and in the right direction.
Most importantly, support for terrorism in defense of Islam has "declined dramatically," in the Pew report's words, in Muslim countries, except in Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority) and Turkey, where support has remained a low 14 percent. It has fallen in Indonesia (from 27 percent to 15 percent since 2002), Pakistan (from 41 percent to 25 percent since 2004) and Morocco (from 40 percent to 13 percent since 2004), and among Muslims in Lebanon (from 73 percent to 26 percent since 2002).
Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined. The percentage reporting some confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey, and has fallen sharply in Indonesia. . .
This is not to say that everybody in these countries has good things to say about the United States. But we are not engaged in a popularity contest. We're trying to construct a safer world. We are in the long run better off if Muslims around the world turn away from terrorism and move toward democracy, even if we don't like some of the internal policies they choose and even if they don't have much affection for the United States.
I agree with
Dr. Sanity:
This War on Islamofascism is really the anti-Vietnam. In this war, we are winning the battle of hearts and minds. But it won't matter to the Left because--just as in Vietnam--they are firmly on the side of the enemy; and their only goal is the defeat, destruction and humiliation of the greatest, most prosperous, and most free country in the history of the world.
3 comments:
Describing Iraq as Anti-Vietnam is exactly the problem. That opinion is based on the supposed ideals behind the effort rather then the tactical incompetence with which it is carried out.
Vietnam had similar ideals: Stop the spread of Communism. And was carried out in the most inept, underwhelming misfired way imaginable and resulted in a bottomless pit of American casualties. Even on the day we pulled out, stopping Communism was still a good idea, but where did it get us? Is that how the greatest, most prosperous and most free country in the history of the world attempts it?
So now you want to spread Democracy in a country that has been under one oppressive Theocratic regime after another for millennia and this is how we do it? Are we daft? Is this the best we can do? The greatest military in the history of mankind and this is the result?
Measuring the merits of a war based on the merits of the intentions of those that initiated it is fatally flawed. We think its a great war because we think its a great war? What kind of metaphysical masturbation is that?
Name one war in the history of the world where someone was fighting for something they didn't think would make their nation, civilization, religion, and/or the world a better place. In fact, I bet the Taliban used the same logic when staging their coup in Afghanistan.
It must be a good war because we're right! We're sure of it! How typically American.
Go Troops!!!
Anony:
First, I believe and hope you are wrong about the prospects of mid-East nation building. I can't definitively refute; only time will tell. But, three points:
a) We've tried everything else, and it all failed. And if the world was remotely serious about "never again," deposing Saddam surely qualifies.
b) Are you saying the Iraqis are somehow incapable of democracy? Why? How are Arabs different from those already in democratic nations? Are your reasons defensible without being racist?
c) It worked in Shinto-fascist Japan.
Second, America's hardly perfect. But we're not (or only slightly) driven by Empire. Our actions are, and always will be, in America's self-interest; but within those limits, we've tried to help others, and hurt only as a last resort. In that respect, there's no valid equivalence between American foreign policy and the foreign policy of any nation other than Britain. Imperfect still can be better.
Third, you've got Vietnam all wrong. Our exit -- and abandonment despite the North's violation of its obligations -- doomed millions.
In sum, carp on the sidelines if you must. But don't imagine diplomacy without the threat of force is routinely effective or objection without action remotely constructive.
Carl:
You are right that time will tell, so I see no need to rehash the "We are nation building" vs. "We are not" argument. It seems like we agree that it is a risk, we're just betting on opposite sides of the table.
But your other points still ring false with me.
a) Saying we've tried everything else is an attempt to prove a negative. And the most important factor it leaves out is Time. How do you know non-violent options wouldn't have worked and what would it have cost us to persevere? We now know Saddam was far less then the threat he was made out to be. The US was not in danger from Iraq, any more then it is from Syria, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea or Pakistan. And if you're going to revert to the "Spreading Democracy" or "Removing a Tyrant" arguments, let me know when we're attacking China, Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia and any number of African countries in our noble crusade. In the abstract you have a case for the War on the grounds of good intentions. In reality you have no case for the false sense of urgency without resorting to fear-mongering. And if the one shield we are hiding behind is that "We tried everything else" then we are in an even worse position since it is simply not true.
b) I think the idea of a nation, class or ethnic group being "incapable of democracy" is a grotesquely racist notion. Which is why I'm not surprised it gets bandied about in America. The Iraqi's are more then capable of Democracy, but only at their own pace. They're not coming from their current Parliamentarian system, or a representative Oligarchy. It is one nation in a region that has never been under anything but pervasive Theocratic rule. Coming in and telling them to stand up a working Democracy by a pre-determined deadline is as unrealistic as it is counter-productive. What happens when their "elections" result in someone we don't like? What happens if Iran takes the neo-Russian approach of enjoying all of its independent neighbor states as long as they can control the election outcomes from behind the scenes. We kept a blind eye turned for an awfully long time in the Ukraine and still haven't acknowledged any other instance of undue Russo-Electoral influence. Will we do the same in the Middle East? Or will we just re-invade every time we decide its time to remove another tyrant?
Historically any Democratic junta whipped into shape after an oppressive regime typically collapses back to a dictatorship for the sake of stability and then slowly over time (usually a LONG time) morphs and evolves, sorry I mean Intelligently Designs itself, into a working democracy. Look at South America. Look at Africa.
The best example the Iraqis should be reading up on is Mustafa Kernal Ataturk. It would be amazing to see that kind of change happen again in today's world. That's the level of change Iraq needs and that is the caliber of individual it will take. The US State Department's offers of assistance are nothing but interference and prevents a new truly Iraqi nation from forming organically from their own national identity and instead puts an indeliable stamp of Americanlization on any outcome. You don't think their people will come to resent this, even more then they do already? How much would we truly love the Constitution if it was something Britain gave us six months to write and then sat in on the drafting process?
Of course, thinking back to Turkey, the first thing Ataturk needed to do was rally his country around himself and he did it the old fashioned way: Defeating invading nations even though he was outmanned and outgunned. A modern day Dardanelles anyone?
Post a Comment