Debate 1 -- On Democracy and Iraq
This debate grew out of a comment made on John's blog. He had posted this article and I had given this reply. He emailed me, and I emailed back, he said democratizing the middle east would make the region more peaceful, and I replied "Democracy doesn't in any way equal peace. Look at Israel." John chose that sentence as the topic for this debate.
Round 1
John
Yes, look at Israel. Agreed, Israel is not at peace with the PA. If Israel were bordered by democratic governments, I'm confident that it would be. (no two democracies (with democracy being defined as countries that have held successive free elections of their leadership) have EVER declared war on one another.)
Israel does not want this war. Israel has long had the weapons to completely massacre the Palestinians - yet they do not.
Why?
World opinion? (Ha!)
No, because they have a democratic government - most Israelis would never tolerate a holocaust directed at the Palestinians. (they have a painful history with such things).
Yet 70% of Palestinians belive that Israel has NO RIGHT to exist (they have been goaded on in the dumb belief by Palestine's state controlled vicious media).
If the Palestinians had their way, what will happen to the 8 million Israelis who happen to be living in Israel?
Of course Israel has a right to exist. Eight million heavily armed Jews guarentee that right.
Israel has a right to be concerned for its security.
Most Israelis believe that that Palestinians should have their own state - but that it should be a state that treats the terrorists as criminals. Imagine if Canada allowed people to cross our border, blow up busses and cross back into Canada where they would be treated as heroes and not arrested or extradited? We would not be "at peace" with Canada.
That is what Israelis face all the time.
The Palestinians have just held an election and elected a moderate. This is good. However, Arafat was elected - ONCE - as well.
Will Abu Mazen stare down Hamas and Hezbollah? Will he open his state controlled press?
If he does these things, peace might have a chance in the Middle East.
And we should we forget that this chance has come about for three reasons:
- The passing of the profoundly evil Yasser Arafat, the Nobel "Peace" Prize winner whose death makes peace possible. (Unlikely, but possible.)
- George Bush's dogged refusal - over the exasperated objections of all the Middle East sages throughout the world - to negotiate with a thuggish, dishonest government in the Palestinian Territories that was waging a war of intimidation against Israel. (Abu Mazen was one of the only Palestinians who could be considered "moderate" enough to talk to the Bush Administration ("moderate" in Palestine means that he still wants to seize Israel and slaughter its inhabitants, but he wants to get as far as he can using diplomacy)).
- The Israeli construction of a wall that prevents most terrorist attacks - Arafat's primary weapon. This wall has forced Palestinians to explore other avenues -like electing a someone who can talk to America - if they wish their nationalist aspirations to be fulfilled.
Damion
I guess I'm just not as optimistic about human nature as you are. No Democracy has attacked another democracy, at least that I'm aware of, and yes, a democracy is less inclined toward violence, but that's irrelevant for several reasons.
1) Most of the attacks in the middle east that I've heard of come not from the government but from the people -- terrorists.
2) War is inevitable. People are vile, violent creatures. If all the world was democratic, there would still be war. Hell, look at us. We attacked Iraq -- it wasn't a democracy attacking a democracy, but it was a democracy (well, Republic, if you want to get picky) attacking another country for no real reason. We've set a dangerous precedent.
3) There are always multiple reasons for conflict, and often the government has no control over things.
4) Believe it or not, democracy isn't infinite. Governments tend to evolve, as they age. I believe Germany was a democracy before Hitler came along -- he was elected. And the people let him turn the government into what it became.
"If Israel were bordered by democratic governments, I'm confident that it would be."
As my grandmother used to say, "And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass." The fact is, Israel isn't surrounded by democratic governments. Neither is Iraq. And, chances are, they will never be surrounded by other democracies. Not unless there's a concerted effort to ensure they are -- and that would be the very definition of hypocrisy. What would give anyone the right to do so? Many Christians I've spoken with have made comments about how our President is doing God's work in a feeble attempt to justify the actions, but God isn't on the side of democracy -- he's a theocratic monarchy kind of deity.
In an area with conflicts rooted deeply in nationalism and theology, no, democracy won't stop violence.
Round 2
John
The liberal answer is unsatisfying: poverty.
Now I would agree that poverty is a component in some cases, but none of the Sept 11 crew was poor - they were middle class. If poverty was the major driver, West Africa should be a hotbed of terrorists. It isn't (I was once a Peace Corps volunteer there).
Bush is not a brilliant man and he has made some huge mistakes. But he is on to the real cause of terrorism: tyranny.
Where do the terrorists come from?
Turkey, with 80 million Muslims, doesn't have a single person in in the CIA's top 100 wanted terrorists. India (100 million Muslims) doesn't have any either. The terrorists generally hail from the most oppressive governments in the region: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran...
Governments that once made terrorists at a good clip, like Afghanistan, do so much less now that Taliban is marginalized. Look at Indonesia. Since its election, where the corrupt ruling party was thrown out of power, the people have come full circle: the new government was elected on a platform of anti-terror, and the people generally support that.
The pattern in the Middle East is epitom ized by Egypt. Mubarak get $2 billion a year from the US (stupid). Why? Because the US fears the Egyptians, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak uses the money to crack down on these people - his only true opposition - radicalizing them further and alienating his own people (who tend to support the only opposition there is). Rage at Mubarak = rage at the US which supports him. Mohammed Atta was an Egyptian, and so are some of Al Qaeda's top leaders.
The above situation may change soon if Bush decides to start leaning on Mubabrak. $2 billion in aid is a hell of a stick.
This region is unstable and things can change.
What would you do? Ignore the situation in the Middle East and hope for the best? Give more aid to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
In twenty years, there will probably be five Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weaponry. They are all unstable. What will the ME look like in the future in your view?
Damion
That's not my answer. Poverty is a factor -- I'm sure many or most of the suicide bombers are poor, but they aren't the problem. The organizers and financiers are.
Tyranny is a major factor, yes. Oppressed people often feel violence is the only option, and, sadly, sometimes violence ~is~ the only option for oppressed peoples. But, we only call it "terrorism" when they attack us or our allies. Why do they attack ~us~ is the question. It's misdirected anger in most cases, but they have their reasons, and the case can easily be made that the reasons are legitimate -- just use a little empathy. I am not in any way saying I sympathize with these bastards, but I'm saying we're not completely innocent in this mess.
They feel slighted by us. Look at the top dogs in these organizations -- many of them (Osama, for instance) have had intimate ties to America at one time. And we abandoned them. After training them and giving them some weapons, of course. We had a big hand in creating this enemy because we viewed them as expendable and irrelevant.
That would have been a good time to take care of all of this. But, someone -- I won't say who -- beat around the Bush too long and abandoned things too early. (That wasn't clever. I apologize.)
Nuclear weaponry is a terrible thing, and disarmament is rarely an option (North Korea, anyone?). I think the Middle East will look a lot like it does now in the near future -- just as it has for the last couple of millennia. We’ve taken these age old turf wars and oversimplified them. The fact is, in that part of the world, conflict is all but inevitable. It’s a dangerous chess game trying to set them up how you want them. It takes understanding, not brute force, and our Potus is unwilling to say anything but “Fire away!” In this political environment, honestly, I don’t see many things progressing how we want them to.
Round 3
"I guess I'm just not as optimistic about human nature as you are. No Democracy has attacked another democracy, at least that I'm aware of, and yes, a democracy is less inclined toward violence, but that's irrelevant for several reasons.
1) Most of the attacks in the middle east that I've heard of come not from the government but from the people -- terrorists."
The most important question of this age is: what causes terrorism.
The liberal answer is unsatisfying: poverty.
Now I would agree that poverty is a component in some cases, but none of the Sept 11 crew was poor - they were middle class. If poverty was the major driver, West Africa should be a hotbed of terrorists. It isn't (I was once a Peace Corps volunteer there).
Bush is not a brilliant man and he has made some huge mistakes. But he is on to the real cause of terrorism: tyranny.
Where do the terrorists come from?
Turkey, with 80 million Muslims, doesn't have a single person in in the CIA's top 100 wanted terrorists. India (100 million Muslims) doesn't have any either. The terrorists generally hail from the most oppressive governments in the region: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran...
Governments that once made terrorists at a good clip, like Afghanistan, do so much less now that Taliban is marginalized. Look at Indonesia. Since its election, where the corrupt ruling party was thrown out of power, the people have come full circle: the new government was elected on a platform of anti-terror, and the people generally support that.
The pattern in the Middle East is epitom ized by Egypt. Mubarak get $2 billion a year from the US (stupid). Why? Because the US fears the Egyptians, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak uses the money to crack down on these people - his only true opposition - radicalizing them further and alienating his own people (who tend to support the only opposition there is). Rage at Mubarak = rage at the US which supports him. Mohammed Atta was an Egyptian, and so are some of Al Qaeda's top leaders.
The above situation may change soon if Bush decides to start leaning on Mubabrak. $2 billion in aid is a hell of a stick.
"2) War is inevitable. People are vile, violent creatures. If all the world was democratic, there would still be war. Hell, look at us. We attacked Iraq -- it wasn't a democracy attacking a democracy, but it was a democracy (well, Republic, if you want to get picky) attacking another country for no real reason. We've set a dangerous precedent."
Yeah, we have - for dictators. The lesson is: if you go to war with us and we sign a cease fire with you, you better live up to its terms. Saddam did not, and now he is in prison.
"3) There are always multiple reasons for conflict, and often the government has no control over things."
The US government? True, but you might want to elaborate.
"4) Believe it or not, democracy isn't infinite. Governments tend to evolve, as they age. I believe Germany was a democracy before Hitler came along -- he was elected. And the people let him turn the government into what it became."
One election does not make a democracy. Arafat and Milosevic were also elected - ONCE. Iraq is not a democracy, I say, until it has a peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. This is why the election in Indonesia was important.
"As my grandmother used to say, 'And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass.' The fact is, Israel isn't surrounded by democratic governments. Neither is Iraq. And, chances are, they will never be surrounded by other democracies."
Give it time. The situation in Lebanon looks promising. If the Lebanese cast out the Syrian occupiers, they will elected a leader. The Syrians themselves hate Assad. Iran is probably the only country in the world that would have voted for Bush in the last election.
This region is unstable and things can change.
"Many Christians I've spoken with have made comments about how our President is doing God's work in a feeble attempt to justify the actions, but God isn't on the side of democracy -- he's a theocratic monarchy kind of deity."
I think discussions about God are irrelevant here.
"In an area with conflicts rooted deeply in nationalism and theology, no, democracy won't stop violence."
Not entirely. But it is our best bet.
What would you do? Ignore the situation in the Middle East and hope for the best? Give more aid to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
In twenty years, there will probably be five Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weaponry. They are all unstable. What will the ME look like in the future in your view?
Damion
"The liberal answer is unsatisfying: poverty."
Tyranny is a major factor, yes. Oppressed people often feel violence is the only option, and, sadly, sometimes violence ~is~ the only option for oppressed peoples. But, we only call it "terrorism" when they attack us or our allies. Why do they attack ~us~ is the question. It's misdirected anger in most cases, but they have their reasons, and the case can easily be made that the reasons are legitimate -- just use a little empathy. I am not in any way saying I sympathize with these bastards, but I'm saying we're not completely innocent in this mess.
They feel slighted by us. Look at the top dogs in these organizations -- many of them (Osama, for instance) have had intimate ties to America at one time. And we abandoned them. After training them and giving them some weapons, of course. We had a big hand in creating this enemy because we viewed them as expendable and irrelevant.
That would have been a good time to take care of all of this. But, someone -- I won't say who -- beat around the Bush too long and abandoned things too early. (That wasn't clever. I apologize.)
"The lesson is: if you go to war with us and we sign a cease fire with you, you better live up to its terms. Saddam did not, and now he is in prisonI have a hard time remember what those violations were. Whatever they were, they were a very small reason for this war. Remember the rhetoric -- WMD, WMD, WMD, terrorismfreedomyaddayadda, WMD.
"The US government? True, but you might want to elaborate."Any government. When a people is attacked, for one, the government must retaliate. I support the invasion of Afghanistan for this very reason. And the Israel/Palestine situation is a good example of war gone wrong -- cease fire after cease fire and someone from either side will take things into their own hands and fuck it all up. And despite what many try to imply, Israel isn't innocent there.
“One election does make a democracy. Arafat and Milosevic were also elected - ONCE. Iraq is not a democracy, I say, until it has a peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. This is why the election in Indonesia was important.”I’m pretty sure Germany had a few elections. But, my memory’s fuzzy, so I looked it up, and it seems to be so -- here, this has a great bit about the rise to totalitarianism (coughpatriotactcoughcough), and here’s some information on… pssh. All kinds of stuff. It’s a bitch to wade through, but it’s informative. 1) Friedrich Ebert was elected president, then 2) Paul von Hindenburg was elected (twice -- here for details) and then, I’ll give this a number for no real reason, 3) Hitler wrestled control of the country. Three elections. Or four. Or something. Anyway, sorry for the hair splitting, on with the show…
“This region is unstable and things can change.”Instability rarely leads toward democracy. Example: the entire continent of Africa. There’s promise, but I ran out of hope a long time ago.
“I think discussions about God are irrelevant here.”Absolutely right. I have a tendency to rant. Feel free to steer me back on course from time to time.
"Not entirely. But it is our best bet. What would you do? Ignore the situation in the Middle East and hope for the best? Give more aid to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? In twenty years, there will probably be five Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weaponry. They are all unstable. What will the ME look like in the future in your view?”Heh. I’m a poor decision maker. But, I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t have done -- attacked Iraq. I would have made ~Afghanistan~ the shining beacon of democracy. If they were attacked, I’d have assisted them in their defense -- as one ally should do with another. We had the world’s support at one time, if you’ll remember. I wouldn’t have squandered that so frivolously.
Nuclear weaponry is a terrible thing, and disarmament is rarely an option (North Korea, anyone?). I think the Middle East will look a lot like it does now in the near future -- just as it has for the last couple of millennia. We’ve taken these age old turf wars and oversimplified them. The fact is, in that part of the world, conflict is all but inevitable. It’s a dangerous chess game trying to set them up how you want them. It takes understanding, not brute force, and our Potus is unwilling to say anything but “Fire away!” In this political environment, honestly, I don’t see many things progressing how we want them to.
John
"It's misdirected anger in most cases, but they have their reasons, and the case can easily be made that the reasons are legitimate -- just use a little empathy."
Please make the case.
"They feel slighted by us. Look at the top dogs in these organizations -- many of them (Osama, for instance) have had intimate ties to America at one time. And we abandoned them. After training them and giving them some weapons, of course. We had a big hand in creating this enemy because we viewed them as expendable and irrelevant."And crazy. Yes, they had their purpose in the Cold War (and I would help them again to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan). Besides, every enemy we the United States has fought in the last 80 years was once our friend. People who make this case (Osama was once our ally!) reveal far more about their understanding of history than they do about the stupidness of the US foreign policy.
"That would have been a good time to take care of all of this. But, someone -- I won't say who -- beat around the Bush too long and abandoned things too early. (That wasn't clever. I apologize.)"I really don't what you are saying here. How - with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight would you have done anything differently. My impression was that both Bush and Clinton had bigger fish to fry in the early 90's.
"'The lesson is: if you go to war with us and we sign a cease fire with you, you better live up to its terms. Saddam did not, and now he is in prison.'
I have a hard time remember what those violations were. Whatever they were, they were a very small reason for this war. Remember the rhetoric -- WMD, WMD, WMD, terrorismfreedomyaddayadda, WMD."
Saddam was required to give inspectors "full and unfettered" access to all his facilities.
He did not.
He was required not to fire on plane in the "no fly" zones.
He shot anyway.
And Christ, he was starving his own people.
If a twice convicted bank robber and a murderer walks into a bank and implies he has gun by keeping his hand under his vest, do you assume he has weapon or do you know he's bluffing? We assumed he had a weapon.
I would do the same thing again. No regrets.
Israel is a better choice than the PA is. For right now.
Africa is not.
I'll let someone else -- here. Now, I'll say that I disagree with 99% of what's said here, trying to paint the 9-11 hijackers as heroes and all that -- they were cowards, and Afghanistan, though tragic, as any war is, was the smart thing to do. But he makes the case for attack very well, and shows some of the logic of those who attacked us. They aren't all just fighting out of blind hatred. Their anger has roots. If we try to understand this, it'll be easier to work toward peace.
Democracy isn't impossible in the middle east. It isn't impossible anywhere. But when you attack blindly and without cause, you aren't fixing the problem -- you're making it worse.
Have something to say? Wade in! Give your vote for the winner, point out flawed logic, correct anything you see that needs correction. Hell, even "u guys r la,e" is appreciated.
He did not.
He was required not to fire on plane in the "no fly" zones.
He shot anyway.
And Christ, he was starving his own people.
If a twice convicted bank robber and a murderer walks into a bank and implies he has gun by keeping his hand under his vest, do you assume he has weapon or do you know he's bluffing? We assumed he had a weapon.
I would do the same thing again. No regrets.
"And despite what many try to imply, Israel isn't innocent there."I didn't try to imply that. In all wars, you don't have a choice between perfect good and perfect evil. You usually have a choice between bad and worse.
Israel is a better choice than the PA is. For right now.
"Instability rarely leads toward democracy. Example: the entire continent of Africa."If you want to debate how democracy takes root, feel free. One of the best predictors is per capita GDP. Most of the Middle East is close.
Africa is not.
"Heh. I’m a poor decision maker. But, I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t have done -- attacked Iraq. I would have made ~Afghanistan~ the shining beacon ofAttacking a democratizing Iraq (which is Arab) will have more ramifications than Afghanistan.
democracy. If they were attacked, I’d have assisted them in their defense -- as on eally should do with another"
"We had the world’s support at one time, if you’ll remember. I wouldn’t have squandered that so frivolously."That's bullshit. It's a liberal fiction. Where did we have the world's support? Trade? Environment? Military cooperation? If you want to debate that things were all hunky dory during the 90's with the world, you will lose.
"It takes understanding, not brute force, and our Potus is unwilling to say anything but 'Fire away!' In this political environment, honestly, I don’t see many things progressing how we want them to."
Feel free to elaborate what you would have done differently. With specifics. Start with Iraq. Let's go back to what we knew in 2000: Saddam was trying to get UN sanctions lifted and only Britain and US were keeping them in force. He was starving his own people, with many human rights organizations saying 5000 people were dying a month. The human rights community was pressuring to have sanctions lifted. Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. He declared its was Iraq's right to pursue whatever weapons it wanted. Oil and weaponry were being smuggled across the Jordanian and Syrrian borders. Us planes were being fired on routinely in the No Fly zones. The Oil For Food program was clearly not working, and Saddam's psychopathic sons were being set up take power from Saddam. Iraq's economy was in the toilet.
I think under current policy, well have an Iraq that is much better than that in 2008. The best I think you could reasonably hope for in 2008 under your policy is about what we had in 2000 -- maybe worse.
Damion
"Please make the case."
I'll let someone else -- here. Now, I'll say that I disagree with 99% of what's said here, trying to paint the 9-11 hijackers as heroes and all that -- they were cowards, and Afghanistan, though tragic, as any war is, was the smart thing to do. But he makes the case for attack very well, and shows some of the logic of those who attacked us. They aren't all just fighting out of blind hatred. Their anger has roots. If we try to understand this, it'll be easier to work toward peace.
"People who make this case (Osama was once our ally!) reveal far more about their understanding of history than they do about the stupidness of the US foreign policy."Yes. How dare I bring up the reason for his anger. That'll solve nothing! Understanding?! Balderdash! Guns and violence, that's what those savages understand. Shock and awe, shock and awe!
"My impression was that both Bush and Clinton had bigger fish to fry in the early 90's."We have bigger fish to fry, too. North Korea has been screaming "We have nukes!" since the war started, and we've known since then that Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. With everyone who knew anything saying Iraq was a bigger threat to itself, the Bush regime shrugged their shoulders, took some pictures of vans and started screaming about protection, freedom, danger, paranoia.
"And Chirst, he was starving his own people."Damn straight. He was a horrible, horrible man. We've ignored a lot of horrible men, and are still doing so. Why attack this bad man and not the others?
"We assumed he had a weapon."No. We knew he was bluffing. And we attacked anyway. Countless Iraqi's -- many completely innocent -- have died. Nearly 2,000 Americans have died. The ends don't justify the means.
"One of the best predictors is per capita GDP. Most of the Middle East is close. ... Africa is not."Poverty isn't an excuse for the appearance of terrorism, but it's an excuse for democratic failure? I fail to see the logic there.
"That's bullshit. It's a liberal fiction."Really? I just imagined the global coverage expressing the sympathies of foreign nations? I just invented the White House pointing to them while making their case for war? The world wept with us. And we flipped them the bird, told them America was tough enough to go it alone, hop on the wagon or get left in the dust, yer with us or agin us. I have such a very active imagination.
"Feel free to elaborate what you would have done differently. With specifics."I would have started by acknowledging the intelligence I was receiving, not deciding what I wanted the intelligence to tell me. I would have tightened Iraq's diplomatic leash, increased sanctions, worked with the surrounding nations -- the stuff we're trying to do with Iran and North Korea. I would have focused entirely on making Afghanistan a powerful and free nation. I would have left the focus on the people who attacked us, the people who were dangerous to us -- the terrorists. I would have done more to Saudi royals than smoke cigars. I would have worked with the UN more. I would have focused on nations that actually posed a threat. There was once a time when America was a sleeping giant. I would have held on to those ideals.
Democracy isn't impossible in the middle east. It isn't impossible anywhere. But when you attack blindly and without cause, you aren't fixing the problem -- you're making it worse.
Have something to say? Wade in! Give your vote for the winner, point out flawed logic, correct anything you see that needs correction. Hell, even "u guys r la,e" is appreciated.
posted by Damion at 12:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home