The Belgravia Dispatch: Democratization Watch...

February 20, 2006

Democratization Watch...

Let me take this opportunity to say something about what we've just been through, because I'm reading a lot in the papers these days about how -- "Well, you know, you made this mistake, you thought democracy could take hold in the Middle East, you supported elections and what have you done? You've supported elections that brought to power Islamists or extremists or in the case of Hamas, a group that you consider a terrorist group. Aren't you sorry that you supported these democratic processes?"
Absolutely not. It was the only thing to do. It was -- first of all, from the point of view of the United States, the only moral thing to do. The idea that somehow, it is better for people to lack the means and the chance to express themselves, that it's better to support that and to, therefore, support dictatorship or oppression or authoritarianism where people don't have a voice -- it's, I think, morally reprehensible. People have to have a way to express themselves or, if they don't have a legitimate way to express themselves, they express themselves through extremism.

Secondly, there is an assumption, somehow, that the Middle East was somehow a stable paradise; that the United States' policies disturbed, and if we had just not insisted on the overthrow of dictatorship in Iraq or that Syrian forces leave Lebanon or that the Palestinian people have an opportunity to express themselves, everything would have been fine. But of course, that's not the Middle East as it existed three or four years ago. The Middle East was a place that you had such a great freedom deficit that people were expressing themselves by flying airplanes into buildings. That was a lesson we had to learn, that the 60 years of turning our backs on democracy in the Middle East and favoring "stability" in the Middle East had given us neither stability nor democracy.

And the problem is that after 60 years, it's perhaps not surprising that civil society is not very strong. It's not surprising that parties that express the need for compromise, the need for overcoming differences are weak. Those parties have to be built and it's going to take a while to build them. And perhaps it's true that the most organized parties, in some cases -- they're the most organized entities, in some cases, were more extreme. But I firmly believe that this is a transitional matter, because in politics, you have to deliver for the people, particularly if you have to stand for election by the people, particularly if you have to stand for the people to reaffirm you in elections.

So, what the world community should do is not turn back from democracy in the Middle East; not say, "Oh, my goodness, we got a glimpse of democracy and it's rather scary what can happen with it." That's not the right approach. The right approach is to continue to encourage reform and democracy and openness, to work to establish parties that are moderate in their views, to work to establish civil society, to work to establish the institutions, to say to any who have been elected in these processes and comes from the extremes, "You now have a obligation, however, a responsibility, to work for the aspirations of your people. And your people, as far as we can see, don't want to turn their children into suicide bombers. They don't want to spend their lives trying to destroy Israel and therefore, living in circumstances as the Palestinians do."

And so, the international community has to stand firm for the principle that however you came to power by election, you have responsibilities and one of the responsibilities of democracy is that you cannot have one foot in terrorism and one foot in politics. And it has to be the international community that has to insist on that standard. Now, for anybody who gets into power through election, that's a standard we have to insist upon.

So, while we are building institutions of democracy, we can't let those who have been elected through democratic processes govern undemocratically. We cannot let those who have been elected to processes through democracy keep one foot in terror and one foot in politics.

But it would be a tragedy if we turned back from the insistence that people ought to have a right to choose their leaders. That would be a tragedy and it would be -- for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in countries where we have that right, I think it would be morally reprehensible for us to turn our backs on those who don't yet have that right.

And, somewhat related, Fukuyama again:

The final area that needs rethinking, and the one that will be the most contested in the coming months and years, is the place of democracy promotion in American foreign policy. The worst legacy that could come from the Iraq war would be an anti-neoconservative backlash that coupled a sharp turn toward isolation with a cynical realist policy aligning the United States with friendly authoritarians. Good governance, which involves not just democracy but also the rule of law and economic development, is critical to a host of outcomes we desire, from alleviating poverty to dealing with pandemics to controlling violent conflicts. A Wilsonian policy that pays attention to how rulers treat their citizens is therefore right, but it needs to be informed by a certain realism that was missing from the thinking of the Bush administration in its first term and of its neoconservative allies.
We need in the first instance to understand that promoting democracy and modernization in the Middle East is not a solution to the problem of jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it will make the short-term problem worse, as we have seen in the case of the Palestinian election bringing Hamas to power. Radical Islamism is a byproduct of modernization itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. It is no accident that so many recent terrorists, from Sept. 11's Mohamed Atta to the murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democratic Europe and intimately familiar with all of democracy's blessings. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and — yes, unfortunately — terrorism.

But greater political participation by Islamist groups is very likely to occur whatever we do, and it will be the only way that the poison of radical Islamism can ultimately work its way through the body politic of Muslim communities around the world. The age is long since gone when friendly authoritarians could rule over passive populations and produce stability indefinitely. New social actors are mobilizing everywhere, from Bolivia and Venezuela to South Africa and the Persian Gulf. A durable Israeli-Palestinian peace could not be built upon a corrupt, illegitimate Fatah that constantly had to worry about Hamas challenging its authority. Peace might emerge, sometime down the road, from a Palestine run by a formerly radical terrorist group that had been forced to deal with the realities of governing. [my emphasis]

More soon.

Posted by Gregory at February 20, 2006 06:48 AM | TrackBack (2)

Comments

More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and — yes, unfortunately — terrorism.

In the short term, that may very well be true. In the long term, it's the only hope. As technology advances, and weapons of mass destruction proliferate, a long-term solution is desperately needed. The logical solution proffered by the Administration is to hold the line on terrorism (with particular emphasis on state sponsors) while working for "freedom and reform in the broader Middle East." Obviously that won't happen overnight, but it's no reason to start cozying up to dictators and theocrats in the misguided pursuit of stability.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at February 20, 2006 01:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

So, while we are building institutions of democracy, we can't let those who have been elected through democratic processes govern undemocratically. We cannot let those who have been elected to processes through democracy keep one foot in terror and one foot in politics.

What utter hypocrisy!

And yet, it was nobly worded. If we could live up to the good part for even three years, it would be a big improvement.

Oh well. Last I heard, 10% of the palestinian legislators were in israeli jails, and others couldn't get israeli internal passports to attend sessions. And when israel does more airstrikes and terrorists respond, we'll punish all the palestinians because Hamas failed to prevent it. Same old same old. Back in the days when palestinians had some hope for the PLO, we paid for the PA to have a police force. Our major intent was that they stop terrorist attacks on israel. But when the PA police put dissidents in jail, the israeli army attacked the police stations and killed police, so they could get the terrorists themselves. And then they blamed the PLO for not stopping terrorism!

It will surely be different in detail this time around, but will those details matter? We can hope.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 20, 2006 03:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

Democracy in the short run is never easy and in the long run better than the alternatives.

Posted by: sbw at February 20, 2006 03:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

If Fukuyama's biggest worry is that neo-isolationists will find some friendly authoritarians to support I think we neoconservatives are in pretty good shape. Who are these pro-US cheerleaders out there? Somosa? The Shah?, Mobuto? The opponents of our current policy should face reality -- there is no atrocity unforgivable by the international left or the third world other than openly admiring the United States.

Posted by: wks at February 20, 2006 04:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Can't let" them? Really? How do we stop them? Invading their undemocratic democracy and replacing it with a Coalition Provisional Authority?

Does Rice have any clue what she's talking about?

Posted by: Anderson at February 20, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

anderson: i agree the rhetoric was somewhat uneven. i still don't see a coherent policy here....

Posted by: greg at February 20, 2006 04:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

Democracy without individual freedom is impractical, even harmful. Islam is incompatible with individual freedom. Ataturk knew this ninety years ago. Why is it so difficult to understand?

Posted by: Robert Speirs at February 20, 2006 04:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

I am sure the citizens of Arab monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan) are happy Bush is pushing democratic reforms in their nations. That must be why Al-Queda finds most of its financial support in these democracies of authoritarianism.

Posted by: NeoDude at February 20, 2006 05:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

Being a "cup is half full" type of guy, I strongly agree with the above quotations and I also agree with Greg's comment that they do not articulate a coherent policy. There is no question that the tension between the Islamists and the more secular elements will remain for a long time and there is no reliable way to predict the outcome of that tension. We discuss this dichotomy in terms of groups, as I have just done, as if groups are somehow animated in the mass and move as internally coherent forces, one against the other.

There are those that will look at history that way and at current political trends in the same fashion. However, there is such a thing as leadership and what awaits the judgment of history is the emergence of leaders in these troubled areas who rise about the current fray and have the vision to rise above their own need for aggrandizement and unselfishly champion the great needs of their people and their societies. I am reading Doris Goodwin’s biography of Lincoln which I commend to all as extremely well written and very scholarly as well. (I have about 100 Lincoln books in my library and this is far and away the best.) Unquestionably, Lincoln had this remarkable quality of unselfish leadership and an almost deific perception of what was needed to cement together the American nation. Both America and the world are vastly better off because of him.

In Iraq, Sistini evidences that same quality. He has a vision for the country that is largely secular and encompassing and understands that the imposition of a theocracy would throw Iraq back into the dark ages much like Iran. Contrast that with Sadr, who is motivated solely by a lust for power. He is the Al Sharpton of Iraq.

Fatah was driven by the personal ambitions of Arafat and those around him. They could not resist the opportunity to accumulate personal wealth and power at the expense of their people and skillfully stoked the controversy with Israel to perpetuate their control. I remember their demand to be the “sole and only legitimate spokesmen” for the Palestinian people. Hamas was on the outside and its legitimacy could only be achieved by upping their anti-Israel credentials. I believed that it was only a matter of time before the corruption of Fatah would so alienate their purported constituency that when the opportunity for an election was presented, that constituency voted “anyone but Fatah” and there is probably a combined sense of relief and apprehension within the Palestinian electorate. The secular-Islamic tensions were not eliminated by that election.

It remains to be seen what will happen. Will a secular, practical minded leader emerge who will be able to coalesce public opinion around the inevitability of a two state solution or will the radical elements take control and impose still another autocracy using the common enemy as the rallying point? The Palestinians have great expectations as evidenced from the wide public support for Hamas and their participation in the election. Are these expectations that their lives will be enhanced, that there will be economic development, that the water and sewers will operate better, that they will have better health care and schooling, or it is the expectation that Hamas will drive Israel to the sea? We don’t know and we have no choice but to wait and see.

That does not mean that we should not exert diplomatic and economic pressure, measured and carefully targeted. That does not mean that we should not utilize “carrot and stick” diplomacy. That does not mean that we should not reward behaviors that advance the notion of peace in the region. And that does not mean that there should be any toleration of suicide bombings and terrorism against Israel or elsewhere. But it does mean that we must have patience and the understanding that democracy is a messy system and that the supportive institutions take time to develop. Any student of American history with any degree of perceptivity knows that it was not until after the American Civil War that the institutions that support our democracy had matured to the point where political stability was possible. I counsel patience and I urge those who are consumed by their hatred of the current administration to step back and consider both the good with the bad as I think any objective observer would concede progress to date.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Pecherer at February 20, 2006 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Jeez, I'm not in the rabid Condi-for-President crowd, but she really has a gift for explaining the complex concept in an understandable way. It'd be a shame to see her vanish back _strictly_ into the academy instead of being in places where she is translating those ideas to people more broadly.

Posted by: Sanjay Krishnaswamy at February 20, 2006 06:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Interesting post, shall have to read closely to digest.

Nevertheless, whatever the past sins of the Bush Admin against competence and clear thinking, there are interesting signs from Rice that a bit of clear thinking has penetrated. The Messianic idiocy that characterised their Iraq project seems to have worn off. Pity it took several years and thousands dead, but there you have it. Whether their competence improves is an open question.

"Democracy without individual freedom is impractical, even harmful. Islam is incompatible with individual freedom. Ataturk knew this ninety years ago. Why is it so difficult to understand?

Because it is an absurd over-generalisation.

Attaturk understood 90 yrs ago that he had to quickly build a nation-state out of the ruins of a non-national Empire. Inspired by rather illiberal then-current European thought and nationalist currents (that gave rise to fascism one may note), he took that route. Attaturk's decision had fuck all to do with a supposed 'understanding' that Islam qua Islam was incompatible with anything in particular, and everything to do with Attaturk's attraction to the then current anti-Liberal European models of building a nation-state.

This aside, Islam is no more incompatabile with individual freedoms than Xianity or whatever. As a religion it has, as Xianity, innumerable on-the-ground variations and practices and has generated everything from simple Republics to imperial governments.

Hand wavingly "declaring" the Wogs as unfit for democracy has as much analytical clarity and basis as the exact same declarations made with respect to Confucian thought, etc. in Asia.

Certainly natively grown and developed democratic systems in the Arab MENA region are probably not going to look like Western European ones, but empty (and essentially ignorant) 'declarations' such as the one above are merely boring.

As to the question supra re 'what' illiberal friends in region: I would point to Mr Rumsfeld's recent cozying up to the Algerian regime. And the Tunisians as well. At least the Tunisian regime of Ben Ali is competent and delivers on real economic growth consistently (although there are disturbing negative trends emerging re corruption - regime I think is nearing the end of its useful life in its current form); the Algerian regime seems only to be competent in engaging in political massacres and protecting the Sonatrach state-within-a-state (the hydrocarbons monopoly).

For reasons of realism I would say playing ball with Tunisia makes sense (like tolerating Jordan's illiberalism), although one should be looking for new players. Algeria - that is cosying up to false-stability. Rather like cosying up to Mubarek, a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: collounsbury at February 20, 2006 06:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Unlike Greg, I do think Sec. Rice articulates the basis for a coherent policy. I just don't think it's a realistic one, for three reasons.

One involves time: how long are we supposed to wait for Arab states -- it is Arab states, along with (possibly) Iran with which the administration seems principally concerned -- to become able to sustain something resembling liberal democracy? I don't doubt the worthiness of the objective; it may indeed be the only practical one in the long term. But the long term is most likely a period of many years, perhaps decades. That "long, twilight struggle" against Soviet Communism involved the fate of Western civilization, indeed (at least potentially) of life on the planet. This made its length and the sacrifices it involved acceptable to the American public, which is liable to be less accepting of a decades-long commitment to transform the political culture of Syria or Libya.

A second reason involves resources: how much money and how many lives is America prepared to stake on the gamble that democracy in the Arab world is attainable and will have a worthwhile payoff in terms of American interests? It is actually the money that is the more significant constraint at this point in our history, because the lives that America spends are (mostly) America's own; all the money -- every last cent of it -- is being borrowed. This makes so little difference to most of our aspiring geostrategists that they never bother to mention it. It is likely to matter to the American public a long time before we witness the full flowering of freedom in the Arab Middle East.

The final reason involves priorities: is cultural transformation of the Arab states really the most important thing for American foreign policy to attempt in the coming years? It is not. Our relations with China are more important. Our relations with India and Japan are more important. So too our relations with Latin America, with Russia, with the rest of Europe. What price does Sec. Rice suggest it is worth paying in these areas to further the cause of freedom against the currents of Arab culture? She doesn't mention one. That does not mean there is no price to be paid. America will face challenges in any one of these areas more central to the great issues of its future than it ever will in all the Arab countries put together. Thanks to the Bush administration policy Sec. Rice has articulated-- a policy that in this respect has been challenged only very weakly from either the left or the right -- America now faces these challenges while carrying the burden of an expensive crusade of indeterminate duration after a difficult objective, the attainment of which is not finally within our control nor its benefit to us anything but speculative, in an area of secondary importance.

Posted by: Zathras at February 20, 2006 08:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

I realize this is an extremely complex issue, but I think Dr. Rice has vastly oversimplified it.

The right approach is to continue to encourage reform and democracy and openness, to work to establish parties that are moderate in their views, to work to establish civil society, to work to establish the institutions, to say to any who have been elected in these processes and comes from the extremes, "You now have a obligation, however, a responsibility, to work for the aspirations of your people. And your people, as far as we can see, don't want to turn their children into suicide bombers. They don't want to spend their lives trying to destroy Israel and therefore, living in circumstances as the Palestinians do."

Think for a moment of our election in 2004 as an example.

You had a campaign by certain British citizens to effect the election outcomes in one particular county (Clark County Ohio).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326033,00.html

Ring a bell anyone? Anyone recall the US reaction? Especially from Bush supporters?

Rice makes the same mistake that, IMO, the entire administration not only made, but continues to make.

It's not up to us to "work to establish" all of those nice institutions, parties, candidates, etc. It's up to the country itself. And the situation is complicated when the citizens of those countries look around and notice that while we are busy "working to establish" various things they should be handling themselves, we are ignoring the same negative qualities in other countries while declaring them allies in both security and economic activity.

Beyond the issue of nationalism which happens to be strongly held by those countries we are hoping to nudge in the right direction, there is a sense of "why us and not them?".

We should continue, as we have for over 40 years, working to spread democracy. And once democracy springs to life we should continue to observe and offer praise as well as criticism when applicable.

Posted by: Davebo at February 20, 2006 08:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

First Davebo hits on a very important point.

As you may know, I live (normally, when not exiled back to the West for stupid chemotherapy) in region, and do business.

The issue of "interference by foreigners" is something I have seen come up again and agian.

Taking the example of Jordan where I have business interests and extensive contacts, one never ceases to hear bitter, xenophobic comments about USAID running the country. Even from pro-Western Xian types, to take an example. Even from the pro-business community.

As a general matter, as a businessman, I think USAID's advice and influence has been fairly positive for Jordan in terms of focusing on the private sector and enabling improved, growth-oriented policies. Policies that have helped the Palestinian origin population. However, few people like the idea of foreigners running things (look at the idiocy in the USA re the DPW acquisition of UK firm P&O).

The issue of perverse side-effects and backlash is generally over-looked by Right and Left.

That being said, US and Uk, and Euro, assistance in building institutions (if one is not naive) esp. in re neutral policy making contexts I think is not money wasted. Political party work and the like is pure whanking idiocy in my opinion, but work tied to economic development is useful.

Posted by: collounsbury at February 20, 2006 08:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

It would be far easier to take Rice and her ilk seriously were it not for US support of terror in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatamala, Chile, Cuba etc. etc. etc. when there are people running those countries that we don't like (or fighting revolutions against despots we do like.)

Indeed, it would be a hell of a lot easier to take Rice seriously if she was making an effort to work with Chavez in Venezuela to find ways to improve the lives of poor people of Venezuela and the entire region --- rather than encouraging wealthy oligarchs to forment rebellion and terror aimed against the democratically elected Chavez regime.

This kind of hypocrisy is nothing new for the USA --- but in the past, before the US was going around invading nations based on false pretenses because they had lots of oil --- most nations were willing to give the USA the benefit of the doubt. Now, they just treat Condi like the clown that she is....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 20, 2006 09:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Who are these pro-US cheerleaders out there? Somosa? The Shah?, Mobuto?

Musharraf? Mubarak? The Sauds?

Posted by: Doug H. at February 20, 2006 10:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Lukasiak

The eternal original sin of the USA?

Rubbish.

While there is perhaps a whiff of hypocrisy with respect to pious posturing on the use of violence, I defy anyone to cite a major power that is not forced by reality to engage in less than pure actions.

That is pragmatic reality.

While I would grant readily that the US lept into anti-Communist action against some who did not deserve it, that does not mean this was entirely undeserved.

Bah, in short, you would take Rice more seriously is she converted to hard Left positions.

The US should not get into the business of trying to overthrow Chavez, but his regime is also not something the US should assist either.

Saw away on the violin, there is no reason to take this type of criticism seriosly.

collounsbury
aqoul.com

Posted by: collounsbury at February 20, 2006 10:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

collounsbury

Let me be clear that I wasn't referring to work done by USAID or the various NGO's. Obviously economic development is one of the most important affects we can bring to bear on problem countries.

And it's perfectly acceptable for the US to express dissatisfaction with say political or foreign policy moves by these countries. Just as we do with China, Pakistan and the former Soviet Republics (though not enough IMO).

My point is that the US should steer clear of the local politics for the most part. An excellent example was the plan floated, then discounted, to spend US tax dollars to support certain candidates in Iraq's elections. What a brain dead idea!

Encourage democracy? You bet! A very good thing! Then let them vote. Once they've voted, respect the decisions of the electorate.

And I would add that our methods of encouraging democracy should probably no longer include invasion and occupation.

Live and learn eh?

Posted by: Davebo at February 20, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Encourage democracy? You bet! A very good thing! Then let them vote. Once they've voted, respect the decisions of the electorate.

Why? We respect the decisions of our electorate, not theirs. If Palestinians want to elect a bunch of bomb-throwers, they can expect to get caught in the crossfire (which is one reason democracies tend not to persist in such folly--and a good reason to promote it).

Posted by: Cecil Turner at February 21, 2006 01:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

Cecil Turner, that's a very good point. I will expand on it.

Why? We respect the decisions of our electorate, not theirs.

Well stated! So OK, we are the last superpower. Unless another one arises. The only superpower unless that happens.

It used to be we ran various small satrapies as dictatorships. It looked bad but we had the excuse that we had to do whatever it took to stop the USSR, and they looked worse. It was easy to deal with a dictator we supported. Tell him what to do, watch him do it, and let him get plenty of money and local status. The population put up with it because if there was anything that looked like it might turn into a successful revolt we'd say they were communists and invade. And however bad the dictator and his soldiers were, the US Marines were worse.

And when americans said it was a bad thing, we could point to eastern europe. Worse.

But now we're the only superpower and it isn't obvious that we have to do awful things to win against the bad guys. There's no evidence the current bad guys know how to organise anything particularly complicated. Al Qaeda showed they could organise something very much like a Marine regiment with no artillery or air support, but that's about it. So why do we have to support dictators? Better to give them democracy.

We of course have a few crusty old military realists who say that democracy is for americans and not the rest of the world, it will only cause trouble. But nobody listens to them. Which is just as well since if significant numbers paid attention they'd feel obliged to shut up.

So the new plan is, we give them democracy, they have elections, and if they don't do what we want then we invade them and give them democracy all over again until they get it right. Once the public in each satrapy is clear they have to vote for the right guys who have to do the right things, they'll understand their place in the world and they'll stop causing trouble. And we can tell the US citizens that it's all democracies that are getting along *just fine*.

When local governments don't do what we want we can't call them communists any more. So it looks like we'll call them terrorists instead. Works just as well.

You said it a lot shorter, but there's the chance that some people may have missed the implications. Thank you!

Posted by: J Thomas at February 21, 2006 02:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

Daveb

I could not agree more.

Posted by: collounsbury at February 21, 2006 06:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

When will the radical right-wingers understand that democracy is not an exportable commodity such as Coca-Cola?

Democracy needs solid institutions, and building solid institutions takes time, effort, patience, and education.

You cannot just go into a country, depose its tyrannical despot, and install democracy overnight. Anyone who believes that you can is an idiot. That makes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Wolfowitz, and Perle -- to cite the most egregious cases -- idiots.

Guess who is paying for the rampant idiocy? The U.S. taxpayer...

Posted by: Evil Progressive at February 21, 2006 02:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Oh well. Last I heard, 10% of the palestinian legislators were in israeli jails, and others couldn't get israeli internal passports to attend sessions."

So youre saying that if someone commits an act of terror, but then gets elected to something, they should have a get out of jail free card?

" And when israel does more airstrikes and terrorists respond, we'll punish all the palestinians because Hamas failed to prevent it"

Except Israel doesnt do airstrikes out of nowhere. And terrorists dont attack Israel specifically in response to air strikes.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 21, 2006 06:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

"So the new plan is, we give them democracy, they have elections, and if they don't do what we want then we invade them and give them democracy all over again until they get it right. Once the public in each satrapy is clear they have to vote for the right guys who have to do the right things, they'll understand their place in the world and they'll stop causing trouble. And we can tell the US citizens that it's all democracies that are getting along *just fine*."

Only countries the US has invaded lately were IRaq and Afghanistan, and they were hardly democracies.

But yes, if someone elects a leadership that supports acts of aggression against us or our allies, including acts of terror, we will have every right to invade them, and let them know what the consequence of electing such folks are. Worked pretty well with Germany.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 21, 2006 06:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

" It is no accident that so many recent terrorists, from Sept. 11's Mohamed Atta to the murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democratic Europe and intimately familiar with all of democracy's blessings. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and — yes, unfortunately — terrorism."

But the Bernard Lewis thesis, which this seems a response to, never said that there was some kind of linear relation between the extent of democracy a muslim lived under and his chances of becoming a terrorist. Rather that the failure of Islamic civilization overall, was humiliating to muslims wherever they lived. IE in order to solve the issue of muslim radicals in London and Amsterdam, you have to do something about the Islamic world.

Now Lewis may be right or he may be wrong - and as others have pointed out, there are also issues in time and opportunity cost. But to argue against Lewis by misspecifying his argument, as Fukuyama seems to be doing, makes it difficult to truely test it.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 21, 2006 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

But yes, if someone elects a leadership that supports acts of aggression against us or our allies, including acts of terror, we will have every right to invade them

I know this sounds flippant so forgive me. But you are working within a pre 9/11/2004 mindset.

Now this mindset obviously worked in the post 9/11/2001 - pre 9/11/2004 mindest, but it's no longer in effect.

In the current mindset a country's leadership can talk about aggression all they want. And if they are supporting acts of terror, you'd better have DNA, fingerprint and audio tape evidence.

This is not a good situation to be in, but it's the situation we are in now. And there's no turning back the old "mindset clock" now.

Posted by: Davebo at February 21, 2006 07:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

Davebo, you didn't mention the loophole.

If *we* want to commit acts of terror against *them* then they need extremely solid evidence or we won't believe them.

It works both ways.

Posted by: J Thomas at February 21, 2006 10:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

I did not address standards of proof, so lets not get pulled to that.

In the case of Hamas, its past support of terror is clear. Its refusal to renounce terror as a weapon (as opposed to declaring temporary truces) continues to be the case. All the things we want hamas to do - accept Oslo, recognize Israel, and renounce terror - are things they can do in public - we dont need CIA files, or UN agencies to verify. Sheesh.

Now if they do all those things, and then support terror, we can discuss whose evidence we believe.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 21, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

LIberalhawk, israel and palestine are negotiating from radically unequal positions. Naturally we demand that palestinians give up their main bargaining points before we will start negotiating with them.

So anyway, in the general case --

But yes, if someone elects a leadership that supports acts of aggression against us or our allies, including acts of terror, we will have every right to invade them.

By this standard nicaragua had every right to invade the USA over the Contra business. But luckily they didn't try.

And how much support did we give to the coup against Chavez? Does venezuela have every right to invade us?

Clearly iraq has every right to invade us.

And iran? Soon after the invasion we started getting little news snippets that iraqi kurds were taking US (and israeli) teams into iran, they ran sensors looking for nukes and did sabotage. An act of war, right? Iran has every right to invade us?

Well, but that's all unreal. We believe we are a superpower and they do not believe they are superpowers. We're the only one that's going to be doing any invading. (Well, israel might invade somebody or other, but mostly it's us.) Back in the days when the USSR regularly supported acts of aggression against our allies we didn't talk about invading them; they were a superpower too.

It's unreal for us too, though. We're stumbling around like the last dinosaur, acting like we won. When it's just possible the ecology has changed and there isn't room for dinosaurs any more....

Posted by: J Thomas at February 22, 2006 02:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Ladies and Gentleman:

I haven't the time to red all the comments. Notalbe, however,are the recent comments AND "cartoons" from HAMAS

"The terrorist wing of the new Palestinian majority party Hamas has placed on its website a graphic depicting Israel's symbol, the Star of David, enveloped in a nuclear blast"...The atomic destruction scene repeats every few seconds.

A leader of a planned attack told WorldNetDaily yesterday his group will soon launch a rocket war against the Jewish state, threatening to fire missiles at Israel's international airport and warning his group's rockets will soon "bring hell" to Israelis.

The lives of Israeli citizens will turn to hell very soon," Abu Abir said. Abu Abir warned his group has stockpiles of rockets in the West Bank ready to launch at Jewish cities.

"Jerusalem, Ben Gurion International Airport, Tel Aviv and every Israeli point can be part of our goals. Whenever it is needed rockets will be fired against every Israeli settlement, city or neighborhood. ...We know that Israeli central cities are more sensitive targets and they contain more sensitive targets, but we will not hesitate to fire rockets everywhere against the Zionist enemy, " Abu Abir said

Consiering he above, has not HAMAS, the government of Palestine declared war on Israel?

What is Israel waitng for? Death? Annihilate them, and all those who voted for them. NOW.

Posted by: tim at February 22, 2006 02:47 AM | Permalink to this comment

"LIberalhawk, israel and palestine are negotiating from radically unequal positions. Naturally we demand that palestinians give up their main bargaining points before we will start negotiating with them."

No. Oslo does not require the Pals to give up the right to return, any particular boundaries, or to concede an end to the conflict. Which is why Israel negotiated vigourously under Oslo. It only requires them to concede Israels right to exist and to renounce terrorism. I dont see how Israel can accept anything less as a basis for a peace process. Of course youve indicated hostility to Zionism, so I guess you dont want Israel to exist.

"But yes, if someone elects a leadership that supports acts of aggression against us or our allies, including acts of terror, we will have every right to invade them."

"By this standard nicaragua had every right to invade the USA over the Contra business."

Or first to invade Honduras and Costa Rica. Yup, not every time you have a right to invade someone, does it make strategic sense to do so. Kinda like why we're not invading Pakistan. And why Israel probably wont reoccupy the Pal territories, but will take actions short of that.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 22, 2006 04:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

Liberalhawk, the Oslo agreements are dead.

It only requires them to concede Israels right to exist and to renounce terrorism.

OK, how about israel concedes a palestinian nation's right to exist and renounces terrorism and military action. Wouldn't that be fair?

The palestinians can't exactly renounce military action since they don't have a military -- no, wait a minute, they can renounce it anyway. OK.

Let's require both nations to conce the other's right to exist, and require both nations to renounce both terrorism and military action against the other, as a prelude to negotiation.

Sound good?

Posted by: J Thomas at February 22, 2006 04:50 PM | Permalink to this comment