Posted on 01/16/2006 3:28:15 PM PST by Inkie
THE PRESIDENT believes and often states, as if it were a self-evident truth, that "democracies are peaceful countries." This claim, which has been advanced in the past in regard to Christianity, socialism, Islam and ethical culture, is the postulate on which the foreign policy of the United States now rests. Balance of power, deterrence and punitive action have been abandoned in favor of a scheme to recast the political cultures of broad regions, something that would be difficult enough even with a flawless rationale because the power of even the most powerful country in the world is not adequate to transform the world at will.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It would be interesting to hear Victor David Hanson
critic this article. Probably devastating!
Great... now the US itself is Bush's fault
I know, and I would like to believe Hanson. But Helprin's view corresponds with what I think in my heart is true. He makes a good case and cites good examples. I'd be happy to be persuaded otherwise. However, while I support the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror, I don't have a lot of faith in any Islamic people anywhere, including here in the States, and I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them. Sad to say.
"Balance of power, deterrence and punitive action have been abandoned in favor of a scheme to recast the political cultures of broad regions,"
Democracy establishes these features within the country. Otherwise what remains is strong arm politics. The politics of tyrants, like saddam and omar.
Please do not avoid posting restrictions by posting the entire text in a reply.
Thanks
He makes a good case and cites good examples.
Where?
Japan a democracy prior to WW II.?
Germany a democracy ? The Enabling Act ended that.
We would be better served by coddling dictators/tyrants
instead of instituting democratic states?
VDH would eat him alive.
It is a liberal Wilsonian Wopper.
That is not to say it couldn't be a good gamble...but a gamble nontheless.
The Claremont's own Richard Reed has posted a reply to his colleague:
http://www.claremont.org/weblog/004593.html
"...Bush is no Wilsonian idealist who believes that multilateral approaches or international organizations are sufficient for keeping the peace. His critics are furious that, in the final analysis, the United States acted unilaterally in Iraq rather than waiting hopelessly for Russia, China and France to see the wisdom of intervention. The former two have long-standing interests in conflict with ours, and of course are despotic regimes driven inexorably toward conquest or recapturing past glory. The last has been hopelessly compromised by the presence of millions of unintegrated Muslims who hate the West, especially America, “the Great Satan.”
Indeed, as Europe’s appeasement of the Arab world, its growing Arab and Muslim immigrants, and its own declining birth rate threaten to turn that continent into “Eurabia,” it is clearly in America’s interest to strengthen democratic and liberal institutions there. The alternative is another world war with a Europe dominated by Islamo-fascists. Here support of what is the right of all peoples everywhere corresponds exactly with what it is in our interest. The moment we become indifferent to democracy in lands that can threaten our own, we increase the dangers of aggressive wars against us. As Churchill observed, the aggressive nature of the Nazi regime was a direct consequence of its tyrannical principles, as Ronald Reagan understood about the Soviet Union. The spread of democratic government, where possible and necessary, is always in our national interest."
One reply to debate this piece would be to take it from the other end. What are the tendencies of brutally oppressive regimes?
Synopsis: If we view the present day Middle East as a race between Islamism and democracy, it doesn't even look like a close race. Islamism wins, solidifies and unites against the West.
Sorry, I have seen others do this so thought this was the modus operandi.
Where he talks about Turkey, Egypt and other Arab countries where majorities would vote for Islamists.
The author is an idiot. If he considers Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan to have been democracies, then why not Saddam Hussein's Iraq? They did have elections didn't they and good old Saddam won unanimously. That's at least as democratic as Imperial Japan.
Not only does the U.S. expend a great deal of effort to usher politically impure states into a form of popular sovereignty that will not stop them from acting inimically to our interests, but in distancing itself from authoritarian states that are willing to work with us, it forgoes potentially critical advantages.
And this from the same folks who decried our dealing with
Latin American Dictators?
Why it's a catharsis!! A revelation!!
Now we are to deal with Brutes and thugs?
Funny that some would urge a Republican Administration
to do this!?
Baaaah.
Either we are the Guarrantors of the ideals we espouse,
and we spread those ideals or we are to sink into Islamic
tyranny.
Aside from that, do you believe that if a country is democratic it will not ever be our enemy?
It may not be our friend, but it's extremely unlikely that we would ever go to war with another real democracy. As much as I might detest France, I can't think of any real reason for a military confrontation with them.
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.