BarkellWH -> RE: Is Logic Necessary To Win an Argument. (Feb. 7 2015 21:22:18)
|
quote:
McClellan says Bush's decision to invade Iraq was one of his gut decisions. His motive was to spread democracy.....Then she said, "Isn't there anyone in the government who can tell them about the Middle East?" It is ironic (given later events) that in Bush's debates with Gore in 2000, Bush made a point of saying the United States should not engage in "nation-building." Would that he had stuck with that approach regarding Iraq. Invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, as well as encouraging elections that inevitably led to Shiites in power, simply opened the door for Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East. Say what you will about Saddam, he provided a bulwark against Iranian influence in the region. With Saddam gone and Shiites in power, Iran now has much greater influence in Iraq, in Syria, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and no doubt with the Houthi Shiites who have taken over in Yemen. And the Islamic State has demonstrated it is ready to exploit any vacuum. I have always identified with the Realist school of foreign policy, as opposed to the Idealist school. In general, Realist geo-strategic thinkers and practitioners have always placed the national interest of the country they represent paramount. They were instrumental in making the Concert of Europe and the European Balance of Power operate effectively for 100 years, from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 until it broke down in 1914. Realists generally do not think it is their job to attempt to establish "democracy" in countries unready for it, nor do they think it is their job to hector others over human rights, female genital mutilation, and other unsavory practices, awful though some are. As a result, Realists have often been described as "amoral," a term that I don't consider pejorative when applied to international relations. Foreign policy Idealists, on the other hand, think it is their job to spread democracy, hector others over human rights, and generally "make the world a better place." The problem is, democracy, human rights, and other notions that we can agree are good cannot be implanted by the United States, Europe, or other countries. Countries will reject authoritarian government and develop into democracies only when their populations reach a certain critical mass consisting of: income level, size of middle class, level of education, and (very important) social capital. Until that critical mass is reached and a population begins to act as its own agent, nothing we can do will help. Our efforts failed in Vietnam, and they have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as such attempts to graft democracy and its institutions onto authoritarian countries always fail when attempted by outside forces. And it is important to recognize that one or two elections do not a democracy make. It takes a whole set of institutions: rule of law, judicial reform, good governance, etc. to create a viable democracy. Only the people themselves can force that change by becoming their own agents. We cannot do it for them. To engage in "nation-building" is a fool's errand. The old dictum comes to mind: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." God save us from "good intentions." Bush in Iraq is not the only recent example, of course. President Obama has not absorbed the lesson either. Witness Obama's engaging NATO in assisting the rebels in Libya with air power and bombing raids to oust Muammar Ghaddafi. Yup, we ousted Ghaddafi. Problem is, no one thought about what or who might replace him. Or that Libyans had never had the slightest experience with democracy. What have we wrought? Another failed state with militias controlling various geographic areas and cities, and a central government that cannot even control all of the capital, Tripoli. And, of course, Obama's "red lines" in Syria, which were never followed up on (thankfully) just made us look feckless. Why we should want Bashar al-Assad's ouster is beyond me. If you like post-Ghaddafi Libya, I'm sure you would love post-Assad Syria. We have managed our interests quite well in the Middle East for 40 years with the Assad family in power. I don't see any U.S. interest (or that of our closest allies) served by instigating regime-change in Syria. Perhaps John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under President Monroe, said it best: "The United States is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." Wise words then, wise words now. Bill
|
|
|
|