Replies

I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

I'm extremely conservative, and I know that I'm inviting denials and flames with what I'm about to say. But I've felt since the beginning of this that the W admin. was naive. The way W spoke about democratization of the ME became an almost religious fiat in his mind, a command from "the God of liberty." He actually misused that scriptural phrase in this political context!

How could they NOT know the stiff and constant terrorist resistence we would face? How could they not know we'd face constant losses as long as we were there?

Fighting radical Islam head on is one thing. Staying in Iraq to build schools and repair water lines in the hope that a forced "democracy" will somehow chase terrorism away is, again, hopelessly naive. And it's a waste of American lives.

Exactly. The George W. Bush (candidate) who said he wouldn't waste military resources on stupid nation-building exercises sure knew what the hell he was talking about.

I wonder where that guy went.

Fighting radical Islam head on is one thing. Staying in Iraq to build schools and repair water lines in the hope that a forced "democracy" will somehow chase terrorism away is, again, hopelessly naive.

Terrorism is just that, an "ism". That is to say, it is an ideology, much like communism. The only way to defeat an ideology is to counter it with another ideology. Militant Islam is a form of terrorism, but there are others as well. (At the moment, militant Islam is the main example of terrorism) A military approach alone will not work. To win, we need to engage in a pro-freedom ideological offensive. I think that this is what the administration is trying so convey, although not so effectively. Finally, a "forced" democracy is one thing, using force to stop the proponents of terrorism from denying a people a chance at democracy is another. Which is the case here depends on where the majority of the population stand on this. It is still too early to tell.

The way W spoke about democratization of the ME became an almost religious fiat in his mind, a command from "the God of liberty." He actually misused that scriptural phrase in this political context!

W. is a politician and politicians speak a different language when addressing national audiences. I generally discounted this kind of talk because of it. I still think I'm right, but not quite as much as before.