Posted on 01/10/2004 4:49:11 PM PST by Destro
Your arguments might be more compelling without this sort of sophomoric chest-thumping.
In all cases where democracy flourishes a pre-existing condition for its truimph existed
Well, I'll concede that - since pre-existing conditions for democracy are the human condition. I think, therefore I want a say in what happens to me.
To pretend that the Germans and Japanese had a firm tradition of democracy briefly interrupted by totalitarian otherness is...something else again. In the East, particularly, the idea of subordinating individual desires to the needs of a collective is the underlying ethos. Far more inimical to democracy than the historical traditions of the Middle East.
I'll take someone who has a well thought out passionate show any day over someone who has to tailor his show and beliefs so that he can be kept in good stead with his conglomerate. KFYI screwed over Bob Mohan, they are screwing over Goyette, I've been listening to this train wreck for years...
He is not doing a direct comparison between WWII and GW volume II. He is providing a hypothetical situation to give some context to the revelations that happened shortly after the war began in Iraq. There were some problems with the intelligence that linked Iraq with 9/11. If 9/11 was the reason we went to war with Iraq, what if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? The historical backdrop is to illustrate how we might perceive things differently if we are to remove ourselves from the current situation. The point is "how would we have felt if we went to war with Japan over Perl Harbor if we found out they had nothing to do with it" and how is that somehow different from our situation with Iraq given that they might not have been involved in 9/11. There is no direct comparison between the Iraq war and WWI because the situation he presents with regards to WWII never happened.
"Bias" is a perjorative. " Perspective" is a neutral term. Everyone has a perspective.Those who claim not to have a nameable perspective--e.g., journalists--are the most biased. Those who self-identify as liberal (or, far more often, conservative) are by that self-critique less biased than those do not.
I tend to agree with you on your point, but Giddy and Shrill are about as entertaining as stubbing your little toe. They are the most witless two on radio today. Their attempts at humor are juvenile and when they try to be insightful, it comes off as a surfer dude trying to quote Nietzsche.
People just keep moving the goal posts. It wasn't that long ago, I can't understand why people don't remember things.
Charle's main problem was he was too much like the people on FR who only read the threads that either re-enforce, or ones they can hijack and turn it into something completely different just so they can argue.
By Henry Butterfield Ryan
Mr. Ryan is a a writer for the History News Service. He is also an associate of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, and a Life Member of Clare Hall, Cambridge.
We hear constantly these days that the United States will build a city on a hill in Iraq, a constitutional democracy whose example will change the Middle East. We built democracies in West Germany and Japan after World War II, and that, people say, proves we can do it in Iraq. But the differences between Iraq and Germany or Japan are far too great to make them credible models for this task.
Both Germany and Japan had had important experiences with democratic institutions within memory of their postwar populations. The Weimar Republic's parliament, the Reichstag, governed Germany after World War I until Hitler seized control in 1933.
Japan developed a strong democratic movement in the late 19th century. It created a parliament with a house of representatives whose members after 1925 were elected by universal manhood suffrage and who eventually formed Japan's cabinets, much as in the United Kingdom, for example. The Japanese military usurped the parliament's role in the mid-1930s.
Although these democratic institutions were too fragile to resist the militarism that swept much of the world in the 1930s, we were not introducing new concepts of government in those defeated nations.
Iraq is a different matter. That country has seen incessant military takeovers, assassinations, political executions, and factional and ethnic rebellions since the mid-1930s. No one there can remember an extended period of guaranteed human rights, freedom of expression or the rule of law so essential to modern democratic institutions.
Both Germany and Japan had literate, talented, industrially and technologically competent populations, a huge help in building a modern democratic society. Iraq does not have them to nearly the same degree, although its population is relatively advanced for the region.
Both the German and Japanese populations were far more homogeneous than Iraq's, which has profound religious and ethnic divisions. And in the case of Germany, the people had close cultural, religious and historical ties with Americans, which eased the post-war relationship. Iraqis certainly do not.
Germany and Japan were devastated by prolonged total war, in a way we assume Iraq will not be, making them more prone to accept the Allies' democratic program. The Japanese emperor, who still had enormous prestige, even called for cooperation with the victors. Saddam Hussein, if he survives, is unlikely to follow that example.
Those who believe democracy-building in Iraq is a feasible U.S. war aim should remember that in Germany and Japan the process was not a quick one. Forming the new governments involved Allied administrators for a decade in Germany, work admittedly hindered by the Cold War, and for seven years in Japan. American officials today talk of a one- or possibly two-year commitment in Iraq.
After World War II the vanquished regimes lacked any influential sympathizers who could possibly have challenged us. Quite to the contrary, fear of Soviet expansionism encouraged them to cooperate. Iraq, by contrast, has multitudes of sympathizers throughout the Muslim world. They undoubtedly view our invasion and occupation as oil imperialism, a blow against Islam and a major strike in support of Israel. In that emotional environment we can expect terrorist groups to gain credibility. Indeed, our increased security precautions at home it make clear that we do.
So even if, theoretically, we could build the complex infrastructure needed for democracy and the protection of human rights, we are likely to end up in a hostile sea with terrorism complicating our task. The Americans may well be seen as the new crusaders linked with the old imperialists, the British.
If it takes a leap of faith to believe we can turn Iraq into a democracy any time soon, it takes an even greater one to imagine that Jeffersonian democracy will spread simply by example to the other autocracies in the region. And if it did it would create a conflict of interest for Washington because many of those regimes are aligned with the United States.
The German and Japanese examples prove only one thing -- building democracies is not an easy job. There is good reason to believe it will be harder than ever in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
The New Times has STORIES? I thought they only published advertisements!
Because I read a lot I caught too many errors and that would drive me up a wall. And if someone DARED to call him to correct him we went off at them like they were total idiots.
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.