Posted on 08/08/2002 9:30:33 PM PDT by kattracks
In 1975, Jimmy Carter's arms control director Paul Warnke published an article titled "Apes on a Treadmill," which summarized liberal thinking on the "lessons of Vietnam." Those "lessons" have sunk deep roots into liberal thinking and continue to hamper the sane conduct of foreign policy even as we contemplate a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
Warnke asserted that "we need not and cannot be the world's policeman. ... Neither we nor any other outsiders are wise enough to decide for another people the course to which their aspirations should lead them. The continuing penumbra of the illusion that somehow we know best can only blur a sound perception of our true foreign policy interests."
Warnke was, of course, addressing himself to the Cold War world and heaping scorn on the whole enterprise of resisting communism. But the liberal post-Vietnam mentality that has survived the Cold War includes a deep aversion to the muscular exercise of American power -- except where such exercises bear no relation at all to our national interests.
Thus, in Haiti and Kosovo, liberal Democrats were eager to see U.S. power asserted. It was moral, they urged, precisely because it was so disinterested. (It is hard to reconcile this view with the simultaneous liberal aversion to being world cop, but the truth is that liberals didn't really mind being policemen, they objected only to fighting communists.)
Now we are faced with the threat of Iraq, and many Americans -- not just those on the left -- have difficulty accepting the use of our power. There are frequent allusions to the world cop question, and many warn that we might have to remain on the ground in Iraq for many years.
Yes, we may. But it's hard to think of a better use of American power right now. The Middle East, after all, is the region from which the most drastic threat to our welfare emanates. The reason it is such a cauldron of anti-Americanism is precisely that it is so despotic. Critics are right that a simple "butcher and bolt" approach such as imperial powers have used in the past (see Max Boot's new book "The Savage Wars of Peace") will not solve our problem. If we hope to diffuse the fury of the Arab-Muslim world, we must be prepared to stay awhile and remake those societies.
Hold your emails. Sure, this may sound imperialistic. But it really isn't imperialism -- no more than remaking postwar Germany and Japan was. By introducing democracy, pluralism and freedom to those countries, we didn't create colonies, far less possessions. We simply liberated the people from detestable governments.
That's what we're doing in Afghanistan today. We remained in Europe and Japan as long as we did because of the Soviet threat, not because nation-building requires a 40-year commitment. But if 40 years is what it takes, it's certainly worth it. Our presence in Europe and Japan kept the world far freer and more peaceful -- and thus safer for us -- than it would otherwise have been.
More than anything else, the Middle East desperately needs an infusion of democracy, opportunity and freedom. Iraq is an ideal place to set an example. Its people are relatively secular and more literate than those in many other Arab nations. Iraq has plenty of oil, and it is strategically located at the crossroads of three poisonous regimes -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Since we must prevent Saddam from transferring weapons of mass destruction to our terrorist enemies, and since the only way to do so is to overthrow him, it would be stupidity squared to allow him to be replaced by another tyrant.
There is not a single Arab democracy in the world today -- and the sheikhs and potentates who currently rule are none too happy about the idea of a democratic Iraq. That, far more than Arab fraternalism, explains Saudi Arabia's hostility to toppling Saddam Hussein.
As for the Europeans, who constantly stress their attention to "root causes" of terrorism, what better way to address root causes than to replace the vicious regimes that now oppress the Arab people with more enlightened ones? It's not nation-building -- it's freedom-sowing.
Contact Mona Charen | Read her biography
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
This is true with one caveat... Don't f_ck with the USA.
If You are going to use force to affect change, then do so.
As in Haiti, it does absolutely no good to go in and overthrow the existing government, then allow another corrupt government to establish itself.
The purpose of changing a regime is to establish a governing body that is stable, no longer threatens America or it's neighbors, and can create and manage a productive economy.
We would like a modicum of freedom, and human rights as well, but don't expect anything like the democratic ideal.
You're lucky if a semi-democratic government is established, be it congressional, or parliamentary.
Look at Afghanistan and Pakistan.
One country has had quasi-democratic government and is now a Military dictatorship, and cannot control the tribal elements in the East.
The other has been a Monarchy, and a quasi-communistic (puppet) government, attempted a democratic government that dissolved into chaos and war, and ended up a theocratic dictatorship.
We are now allowing the Afghanis "self determination" of sorts, but, as in Pakistan, there is a strong tribal element, with elements of Islamic theocracy remaining.
The problem is, we are not instituting the "Marshall Plan", as we did post WW2.
We are not insisting on democratic government, constitutional rights modeled after our own, with limits on national government, and rights guaranteed to the states (tribes) and the people.
We are standing by while warlords continue to settle the power structure the same way they have for hundreds of years.
It needs to be make clear, especially to tribal despots, that murder is not the way to political power, and that certain elements of Afghan political heirarchy may find themselves casualties in a "wedding party" or "funeral procession" freindly fire incident.
Or maybe it would be less diplomatic, but more clear to explain that we will Kill Them if they do not stand aside, and let their people elect their own political representatives.
As for Iraq, I think there is a distinct possibility that it's future for change is much brighter.
I believe that a democratic government could be set up there and be fairly self-sufficient within a couple of years, and that an unfettered economy will take care of itself and prosper on a time line similar to the growth of a democratic government.
The use of Oil revenues for the improvement of Iraqi society and economy instead of royal palaces and military equipment will cause an economic boom in itself.
The hard part will be staying strong, and demanding that a proper governing body be put in place, and a proper set of laws be established.
Likewise, enforcing our demands.
America, especially the State department, needs to develop a backbone, and get rid of this "self determination" nonsense.
Self determination is for adults, not children.
Until a solid, mature government has been established, with proper safeguards concerning power, it's limitations, and sharing of same, and the rights of the nations citizens guaranteed, there cannot be any self determination.
That comes with responsibility.
Ottoman Arabia must be conquered, its "governments" dissolved, and a new political order instituted to improve their ability to live with the rest of the world.
I think we need to defer the religious issue to Turkey.
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.