Your posts are the closest I come to comic books. Do you realize (I'm still absorbing this) that you actually argued that Reagan won the cold war by riding his horse!
Posted on 11/20/2003 1:00:56 PM PST by freedom44
The most controversial part of George W. Bush’s vision of the war against terrorism is his insistence that this is a war against tyranny, and that we will not be able to win the war until we have helped democratic revolutions succeed in the key countries, those that provide the terrorists with much of their vital wherewithal. It’s controversial for varying reasons, depending on the critic. Some say that countries are marginal in the terror universe; it’s transnational organisations like al-Qa’eda which we must defeat. Others are upset because they think the President is declaring war on any country, anywhere, that helps the terrorists, and they ask where the money and the troops will come from. Still others are critical of Bush’s belief that the Middle East can be successfully democratised at all, and wish that the United States would either give up this crazy dream, or get serious about building an empire and find proper viceroys, etc.
A bit over a year ago I published a book that argued precisely this thesis (The War Against the Terror Masters), and my main complaint about the coalition’s performance thus far is that we have been too cautious, too slow, and, above all, that we have failed to support the democratic opposition forces which threaten the countries that sponsor terror and are primarily responsible for the terror war we now face in Iraq (and which I predicted many months before the liberation of Iraq).
Our enemies in Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh are all tyrants, which is their common denominator. Note that our enemies are not, as is commonly presumed, jihadists, since the Baathist regime in Syria, like its late brother in Iraq, came to power as a secular Arab socialist regime, not as a step along the road to a fundamentalist caliphate. This is not a clash of civilisations; it’s an old-fashioned war of freedom against tyranny. The President is entirely right on this point.
Our failures to date are primarily the result of bad intelligence and insufficient attention to the peoples of the region (which go hand in hand, you’ll notice). If we had supported the Iraqi democratic opposition (as was required by American law, and for which considerable sums were appropriated but never disbursed, because the state department didn’t think it was a good idea), we would be in a better position to find out what is really going on inside the country, instead of having one general tell us that we’re mostly under attack from foreigners, and another general say no, it’s mostly enraged Saddam followers.
The CIA and the state department have seemingly spent more energy on defeating the Iraqi National Congress — the umbrella opposition organisation led by Ahmad Chalabi — than on overthrowing Saddam and working with the opposition to plan for the postwar period. Iran has created at least a dozen radio and television stations to spread its poison throughout Iraq, while the United States only recently got its first national radio station on the air. If we were serious about enlisting the people, we’d have been prepared to talk to them from the outset. So when you think about the Dubya Doctrine of spreading democratic revolution, remember that he’s got the bureaucracy working against him.
It was a mistake to think about Iraq as a thing in itself, as if we could detach it from the regional context and ‘solve’ it alone. During the 14 or 15 months from Afghanistan to Iraq, the terror masters made a war plan that called for replicating the successes of Lebanon in the Eighties: kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombs and terrorist attacks — mostly from Hezbollah — eventually drove out both American and French armed forces. They made no secret of their intentions — Iranian and Syrian leaders openly announced them, but the war planners apparently either ignored them or laughed it off.
Iran has always been the most powerful and the most lethal of the terror masters (Hezbollah is an Iranian creation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Islamic Republic), but it also holds another record of sorts: it is the first example of a totally failed Shiite Islamist state. The crazed leaders of the Islamic Republic have wrecked and ransacked the country for their own personal profit, oppressed, enslaved, murdered and tortured the Iranian people, and supported the killers of thousands of innocent people all over the world. The Iranian people hate this regime. They have expressed their hatred in every imaginable way, from mass demonstrations to amazingly candid replies to pollsters, to sending heartbreaking faxes and emails to people in the West who seem to understand their plight and share their dreams of freedom.
If the mullahs were brought down, they would certainly be replaced by a democratic government that separated mosque and state and gave the Iranian people a major voice in the country’s policies. There are very few knowledgeable people who doubt this, and this has been a major theme of the Dubya Doctrine all along. But to our shame the words have not been accompanied by action, either in Washington or London or any other Western capital, even though all are agreed that Iran is the leading terror master, that many of our troubles in Iraq are the result of Iranian actions or the actions of Iranian proxies, and that the Iranian people are ready to take to the streets against the mullahcracy in the same way the Serbs organised to bring down Milosevic.
Iran is ready for democratic revolution, and it is the key to the terror network. Ergo we should be supporting democratic revolution in Iran, and we should get on with it quickly before they show us that they have finally built an atomic bomb. It is hard to argue that Iran is somehow incapable of democracy, or that the mullahcracy should be tolerated any longer, let alone supported. Yet European and UN ‘diplomatic missions’ regularly show up in Tehran, occasionally mutter a few critical remarks about human rights violations or suspicious uranium samples, and then go away. I think we would do a lot better to recite the known facts about Iran every day, and give the Iranian people the support they deserve: round-the-clock broadcasting to encourage them to be brave, money to support potential strikes in the country’s crucial oil and gas and textile industries, communications toys like satellite phones so that they can communicate with one another when the regime shuts down the cells, as was done last summer on the eve of an announced national strike. Instead, we have remained aloof and even made highly misleading remarks (take the deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, who proclaimed Iran ‘a democracy’; and the secretary of state Colin Powell, who, on the verge of the planned uprising last summer, said the United States really didn’t want to get involved in the Iranians’ ‘family squabble’.) Many Iranians felt betrayed, since they had earlier heard the President’s numerous statements about the need to spread freedom in their region.
My guess is that if we show we are serious about supporting the democratic opposition in Iran, the mullahcracy will fall and the contagion will reach all areas of the Middle East. Indeed, some of that has happened already; for example, we have recently seen the first pro-democracy demonstrations in the history of Saudi Arabia. And it cannot be an accident that those demonstrations came shortly after the liberation of Iraq, and the Arabs saw more than 200 Iraqi newspapers spring up, along with countless magazines, new courses at the universities and other signs of intellectual creativity that hadn’t been seen for generations.
I do not believe that Arab or Muslim DNA is mysteriously lacking a democracy chromosome or a freedom gene. I don’t think that democratic revolution is all that difficult, or that it requires some key sociological component such as a middle class or a historical event such as a Reformation or an industrial revolution (Athenian democracy had none of the above). I believe that the advantages of a free society are pretty clear to almost the entire population of the planet, that most people would choose to be free if they were free to choose, and that, thereafter, some would do well and others not, just as in the past. There is no lack of evidence for this, in the Middle East or elsewhere.
For many years the same sorts of objection to the feasibility of democracy in the Middle East were raised against democracy in South America. The Latinos, it was said, just weren’t cut out for it; they liked caudillos too much. And yet during the eight years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency democratic revolution swept the entire region. There were only two elected governments in South America at the beginning, and only two unelected ones in the whole region when he handed the keys to the White House to Bush the Elder.
I think we are on the verge of the same kind of revolutionary transformation in the Middle East today. The real question is not whether it can be done, but whether we have the will to do it. We haven’t been very good in Afghanistan, where American negotiators unaccountably agreed to the creation of an ‘Islamic Republic’ when we should have vetoed the very idea. We haven’t been nearly as active as we should have been in embracing the Iraqis, who have proved many of the pessimists totally wrong: there hasn’t been a religious or ethnic civil war, the Iraqi Shiites have not been manipulated by the Iranians, and there are plenty of talented and educated Iraqis who, given the chance, could do a thoroughly presentable job of managing their country. We’re getting better, but the people of the region are running ahead of us whenever they can. There was a brief ‘Prague Spring’ in Damascus after the death of the old tyrant, but it was crushed soon after. I don’t think it will be that difficult to find suitably democratic forces in Syria in the future, especially if we deal effectively with Iran.
The main thing is to see the situation plainly: we are at war with a group of tyrants who sponsor a network of terrorists. Our most potent weapon against them is their own people, who hate them and wish to be free. We don’t need to invade Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia, but we certainly need to support the calls for freedom coming from within those tyrannical countries.
And that’s the Dubya Doctrine.
Your posts are the closest I come to comic books. Do you realize (I'm still absorbing this) that you actually argued that Reagan won the cold war by riding his horse!
Engaging in comprehensive economic warfare agains the Soviet Union, driving it to implode and collapse, was a means of avoiding violence. You seem to have forgotten (if you ever knew) how much real, bullets-through-skulls type violence the Soviet Union instigated around the world year after year, not to mention on their own subjects. But if you'd had your way they'd still be doing it. And if you have your way an even more lawless and blood-drenched band of murderers will be permitted to grind human freedom into dust.
Kenneth Adelman, source:
My first epiphany of Reagan convictions came early in his administration. We gathered in a formal National Security Council meeting in the Cabinet Room. Secretary of State Alexander Haig opened by lamenting that the Law of the Sea Treaty was something we didn't like but had to accept, since it had emerged over the previous decade through a 150-nation negotiation. Mr. Haig then proceeded to recite 13 or so options for modifying the treaty -- some with several suboptions.Haig’s regurgitating such arcane information was not -- to put it mildly -- playing into Reagan’s strong suit. He looked increasingly puzzled and finally interrupted. "Uh, Al," he asked quietly, "isn't this what the whole thing was all about?"
"Huh?" The secretary of state couldn't fathom what the president meant. None of us could, either. So Mr. Haig asked him.
Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, wasn't not going along with something that is "really stupid" just because 150 nations had done it for a decade what the whole thing was all about? Our running? Our winning? Our being here?
A stunned Mr. Haig folded up his briefing book and promised to find out how to stop the treaty altogether. As Reagan sprang up and left the room -- we all stayed at the Cabinet table, stunned -- he walked toward the door into the hallway of the Oval Office and said to nobody in particular, “I think that’s what the whole thing is all about!”
Er, no.
It is a great pleasure to share in your tribute to an individual contributing so much to the defense of human freedom - an individual I admire and rely heavily upon - Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. It's fitting that an educational institution known for its steadfast adherence to American principles honors Ambassador Kirkpatrick. If Hillsdale College had not already established a Freedom Leadership Award, it would be necessary to invent one specifically for her.As an influential scholar and penetrating writer in the 1970s, she was a voice of reason and common sense in the analysis of U.S. foreign policy. This was a time when adhering to such standards required courage, as well as clear thinking. Her strong principles and personal energy helped create the intellectual climate needed to restore vitality and a sense of purpose to this country's relations with the rest of the world.
As United States representative to the United Nations, she has been a leading force for both democratic ideals and American interests. She has remained rock-solid in her convictions, amid the tides and storm clouds of world events and international politics. She stands a giant among the diplomats of the world. All Americans should be grateful for her service. That's especially true for me, Jeane.
Ambassador Kirkpatrick is also a role model for American women who choose a public career. The vision, courage, and statesmanship contributed to the free world by women like Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir have now been matched by Jeane Kirkpatrick, one of our own. She is a splendid lady, a patriotic American, and an exceptional asset to this administration.
~~~Ronald Reagan, source (Liberty Haven, btw, a libertarian site)
You should read that speech. Classic neoconservatism from Reagan himself. Sorry, bud, but if you're going to command the slightest respect for consistency (the best you could hope for) in you jihad against neocons, I'm afraid you're gonna have to turn on The Gipper.
Again, one must wonder what planet you were on when strikes erupted all over Serbia, ordinary farmers, miners, etc, took to the roads all over the nation, and hundreds of thousands converged on the capital and took over the parliament building.
You, billbears and John Galt all seem absolutely intent today on inventing history. Of course it's not difficult to discern why this is necessary.
The Church's Role in Serbia's Peaceful Revolution
[...snip...]
September 24: Elections took place. By the next day, based on precinct counts, the DOS and Kostunica claimed an outright victory over Milosevic. The electoral commission, packed with Milosevic supporters, stalled on declaring the results.
September 26: [...snip...] Later that evening, the Electoral Commission announced results which gave Kostunica less than fifty percent of the vote and called for a runoff election. Kostunica rejected the report as a fraud and a stealing of the election, and announced the opposition would not accept a runoff because it would be "endorsing theft." Popular street celebrations of the opposition victory turned into protests. [...snip...]
September 29: General strikes and large demonstrations throughout Serbia sought to force Milosevic to admit defeat. The opposition filed a formal protest with the election commission over its ruling that a second round of voting was necessary. The opposition vowed to keep pressure up on Milosevic to recognize his defeat through peaceful means and civil disobedience. State-run news sources ignored the protests and refused to discuss the elections.
September 30: The electoral commission rejected the opposition's appeal of its findings as "baseless."
October 2: Strikes and protests picked up steam throughout Serbia. Coal miners at the Kolubara and Kostolac mines stopped production, threatening power supplies. Riot police attempted and failed to break the strikes. Shops were closed with signs saying "Closed due to theft," a reference to the elections.
The Church's news service published congratulations from His Grace Bishop Georgije of Canada to Dr. Kostunica on his electoral victory.
October 3: Portions of the state-run media began to take an independent line, while many media companies suffered strikes and walkouts by staff.
October 4: The Constitutional Court heard the complaint of the Democratic Opposition that election results had been falsified by the government. The Court later that evening voided the election results and called for a new vote. The opposition was outraged.
Large demonstrations and extensive strikes threatened to paralyze the country. The opposition gave Milosevic until 3:00 pm October 5 to concede defeat.
A large contingent of police was sent to break up the stike at the Kolubara coal mines, the largest in the county. The miners held firm in defense of their votes.
Patriarch Pavle gave a statement on the radio asking the army and police to respect the will of the people and maintain peace in accordance with democratic principles.
October 5: People began to come to Belgrade from all across Serbia to demand justice, pushing aside police roadblocks. Thousands of people went to the Kolubara mines to stand with the miners and protect them from police attacks. His Grace Bishop Sava of Sumadija, whose diocese includes Kolubara, sent the following letter to the strikers: [...snip...]
Half a million people gathered in the streets of Belgrade for a 3:00 PM rally to demand the will of the people be respected. Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren, as president of the Serbian National Council of Kosovo, sent the following message to the Belgrade rally:
To the elected President of FRY by the will of the people, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, and the rebelling Serbian people gathered at the pan-Serbian meeting in Belgrade
Brothers and sisters, Serbian people:
It is with regret that we are unable to be physically with you today but we assure you that we are with you in our prayers and our thoughts.
Everything has been said by now, everything has been seen by now and the only thing which remains for us to do is to urge you:
Persevere in your defense of the freely expressed will of the people and save Serbia.
When the 3:00 pm deadline passed without a concession from Milosevic, the demonstrators stormed the Parliament building and the studios of Radio-Television Serbia. Police in both instances put up light resistance and then withdrew, with some joining the demonstrators. Within hours state-run media abandoned the regime's line and began serious coverage of the crisis. Patriarch Pavle again called for the electoral will of the people to be respected, for the police and military to support the peaceful transfer of power, and for peace. As it became clear that the police and military would not attempt to put down the crowds by force, the people understood that a new day had dawned for Serbia.
By the evening of Thursday, October 5, the demonstrations had turned into celebrations of victory, and Vojislav Kostunica was able to address the crowd saying, "Good evening, Liberated Serbia!"
Only two people lost their lives, one by heart attack and another in an accidental fall. Fewer than 70 were injured, few seriously.
October 6: Patriarch Pavle met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov at the Patriarchate, following the Minister's meetings with Kostunica and Milosevic. The Patriarch emphasized the Church's desire to see the will of the people carried out in a peaceful and responsible way.
The Patriarch and the Holy Synod sent an open letter to the head of the Yugoslav Army, General Nebojsa Pavkovic, saying:
In this extremely difficult period for our people and our state I approach you, in the name of the Serbian Orthodox Church and in my personal name, with a request to do your utmost so that our Army should respect the people's will and stand with its people.
Lieutenant General, I kindly ask you and our national Army to accept publicly what all our people and democratic world has accepted, and that is the fact that Mr Vojislav Kostunica is president-elect and president of the Supreme Defense Council of our Army."
The Patriarch wrote the general that by such a gesture he would "not taking anybody's side, God forbid, but staying on the right side of the people's will, truth, justice and law."
Later, Patriarch Pavle invited the population to take part in a prayer service "for the salvation and reconciliation of the Serbian people" at 5:00 pm on the plaza in front of the great St. Sava Church on Vracar. Thousands attended. At the conclusion of the service Patriarch Pavle addressed the people with these words:
Dear brothers and sisters,
We have prayed to God, the only Giver of peace and love, to multiply peace, love and brotherly accord in us and among us, especially now, when our State should undergo a general transformation, experience the lifting of sanctions and establish relations with the world, all of which we have wanted and expected for so long. We have also prayed to God to give us the gift of the ability to repent, forgive and reconcile and to remove from our hearts and minds any thought of hatred, revenge and conflict.
We would like to thank all the faithful children of the Serbian Orthodox Church for showing the kind of responsibility that was so much needed in this difficult period, having heeded Our words of advice and the appeals of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Let us pray to God to receive in the Kingdom of Heaven the souls of the people innocently killed yesterday, and to grant quick recovery to those who sustained serious and light injuries.
Once again we ask all the state organs of Serbia, Montenegro and Yugoslavia, and especially the army and the police, to accept as soon as possible the people's will expressed by the elections on September 24, and to recognize the newly elected president Mr. Vojislav Kostunica, Ph.D., as the whole democratic world has already done. That is the only precondition for legal order to be established, and for our afflicted country to tread the path of rebirth and reconstruction.
We pray to God that in the coming days all of us should behave in the spirit of Christ's words: Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them, and we pray that He should grant us evangelic courage, firmness, wisdom, feeling of responsibility, accord, goodness and love.
Amen. God grant it.
The day was crowned when Slobodan Milosevic bowed to the inevitable and conceded defeat. Yet he caused consternation by announcing his plans to remain a force in politics.
October 7: Dr. Vojislav Kostunica was sworn in as president of Yugoslavia.
Right. None of our business. No problem. Let the mullahs keep sending truckloads of guns, ammunition, mortars, explosives, fighters, provocatuers and spies into Iraq where they can tie us down and kill our soldiers.
Right. None of our business. (So long was "we" are sucking hard on a crack pipe.)
Celebration on the evening of the 5th, at the steps of parliament (for the revolution that didn't happen). Milosevic would not concede till the next day, but he'd already sent out his most loyal police and security details to "crush" the revolution (after the army refused) but instead the police joined the crowds. (But of course none of that happened.)
Those who have replaced him (they don't seem to live very long) are no better- but compliant and obediendant to us. Thus the widespread cynicism in Serbia today.
And despite the raging of the jack-boot licking Milosevic apologists in the article you link, there was not a damn thing in the world wrong with funding pro-democracy movements against authoritarian, communist countries. Your article also avoids the obvious bottom line. There was an election. Even with funding of the opposition, Milosevic still had all the advantages of incumbency, yet he LOST. He tried to steal the election, and the people wouldn't let him get away with it.
Deal with it.
But to my point. The difference between the Cold War and the present War on Terror is this: During the Cold War- we knew that vast majorities of Communist ruled Eastern Europe hated the regimes that ruled them and felt them to be Soviet imposed puppet regimes. We also knew that even a vast majority of Soviet citizens- while maybe not being pro American- hated their government as well. In short- the people were on our side against their elite rulers. It is the opposite in the Muslem world. We support the corrupt elites against the people. We say one dictator is bad while another is good. In short- the people of the Muslem world are against us and it is them that we fear- not our puppets or payed for elites.
But the help (the good help) was in getting an real election held, and forcing recognition of the results. Admittedly there was subsequently "bad" help (or inaction) in turning a blind eye to the anti-democratic manueverings the deals that followed the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.