A cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine in the war on terrorism has been to take the fight to the terrorists on their own turf, and to directly challenge the nihilism of the Islamists by planting a stable and democratic state right in the heart of the Middle East. This democratic state would be a place where freedom and hope would flourish, and provide an appealing alternative to the despair and inhumanity that is rampant in extreme Islam, thereby eventually consigning Islamic terrorism to the ash heap of history.
It is a noble strategy. It's a strategy based on optimism, under girded by the belief that within the heart of every human being beats a desire for freedom and dignity. Backed by the intellectual strength of Natan Sharansky’s treatise The Case for Democracy, empowered by a sense of destiny confirmed by the lightening-quick campaign to depose Saddam, and the eventual conducting of free elections in Iraq which first elected a provisional government resulting in the adoption of a constitution, and then the election of a permanent popularly elected government, it appeared that Bush’s policy could not fail.
But somewhere between three successful elections and the fulfillment of the dream of a free and hopeful model in the Muslim world, something’s gone wrong. We see it in the never-ending violence in Iraq. It’s seen in the lost hope of American voters. We see it in the fact that the Democrat Party won the majority in Congress by campaiging on a failure of will. We see it in the architects and supporters of the original policy – the neo-conservative promoters of American Excellence – bailing. And most disturbingly, we see it in the desperate act of bringing in a band of foreign policy “realists” – the kind of “experts” whose “realistic” view of the way the world works resulted in us getting blind-sided on 9/11 in the first place – to figure a way out of what appears to be a quagmire after all. Somewhere along the line the Bush Doctrine has been replaced by the George H.W. Bush Doctrine, with James Baker as the acting Secretary of State and designer of a revised, more “realistic” foreign policy that assumes that everyone in the world thinks like a Yale graduate.
What’s most painful about the current and never-ending spectacle of violence in Iraq isn’t just the ongoing carnage, but having to watch the slow death of an optimistic policy and strategy that once appeared it was headed for success. With the “realists” back in charge, we’re undoubtedly going back to a policy of “strategic balance” between despots in the Middle East, and how long will it be before Syria and Iran are approached to become “partners” in bringing Iraq under control? Syria and Iran! Unbelievable – the two Hitlerian states assumed by pretty much everyone (except the "realists") to being responsible for fueling the mayhem in Iraq; the two states which, even before the Coalition deposed Saddam, dedicated themselves to strangling democratic reform in Iraq while it was still in the cradle. This is supposedly going to be our “exit strategy” – begging two of the biggest state supporters of terrorism to please help ease us out of the mess. I'm sure they will gladly help us.
While Bush’s effort to combat terrorism by planting democracy in the Islamic world was a noble strategy, and probably worth a go, the real problem with the policy is the now-evident fact that democracy and Islam are about as compatible as oil and water. History has recorded that democracy took root in the west because democracy, freedom, a recognition and respect for the basic rights of man, flourished in the Judeo-Christian ethos of the west. Democracy grew because it was planted in good soil. In Iraq, democracy, freedom, respect for life, respect for the rights of the individual, respect for women, freedom of thought, freedom of association, may ultimately be choked-out because the soil is bad. Such things as freedom, respect for life, respect for the individual, freedom of expression, self-determination, and so forth, are anathema to Islam. Islam is a false religion. Their god is Satan. They worship oppression and glory in death. How could democracy take root in such an environment? Sharansky and Bush may be right to a point – that in the heart of every human beats a desire for freedom and dignity. But the prerequisite here is that it must beat in a human heart, and what Islam breeds is inhumanity.
I don’t fault Bush for his optimism. The leftist naysayers will gloat that they were right all along, but they were never right. Their strategy for confronting Islamic terror was to roll up into a fetal position and question why they hate us. Regardless of Bush's good intentions, it becomes clearer with each passing day that optimism is a western virtue, something completely lacking in the soul of the Muslim world. How does one “reform” a cancer? It appears we need a new strategy for combating Islamic terror. But I’m not sure we have it in us to do what probably needs to be done.
great post