Self-fulfilling Tyranny

Abandoning the United Nations when the recalcitrant body failed to honor its moral obligations, the President did what he had to do, setting the deadline for war. But for that effort to be truly successful-not the military campaign, but the post-Saddam rebuilding of Iraq-he must address the biggest obstacle within his own administration: the State Department.

This is not simply a just war, but a necessary one. Not to fight terrorism, but to enforce terms of surrender that have been flagrantly violated at every turn for twelve years. No, fighting terrorism is merely an added benefit of toppling Saddam-but one that can only happen with a free and prosperous Iraq. And if State has its way, that goal will not be realized.

On Friday, contents of a State Department report blasting the President's push for democracy in the region was leaked to the L.A. Times. But what wasn't reported by the Times is that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy by State. Witness State's long-term undermining of the Iraqi National Congress (Iraq's opposition forces) and its near-completed mission to re-legitimize Moammar Gadhafi.

In a classified report titled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes," the State Department boldly declares that democracy will not spread in the Middle East following the fall of Saddam, if democracy even takes root in Iraq. Essentially arguing that the Arab and Muslim populations are not fit for self-rule, State's report claims that "[e]lectoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements." Many in the administration are livid. "It's incredibly racist and paternalistic for these Arabists to say that people in the Middle East will reject freedom," complains a State Department official.

Rather than a conclusion reached based on new or emerging evidence, the document reflects the long-held views of State. And so far, State has been right. But that has happened because State makes it so, by shunning freedom movements and propping up despots. Its predictions about the daunting challenges democracy faces in Iraq have some merit, for example, because State has spent years messing with the Iraqi National Congress, the umbrella organization of Iraqi opposition groups. After withholding funds from the INC and attempting to shut some of its key players out of post-Iraq planning, of course the prospects for a vibrant democracy are lessened when the best vehicle for achieving that goal has been severely weakened by State. And now State is reviving the tyrant of Tripoli.

At a meeting with the families of the victims of the Pam Am 103 bombing last week, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns indicated that there would be no more meetings with Libyan officials-there have been several since early last year-and that the United Nations sanctions related to Pam Am flight 103 could be dropped in a matter of weeks. A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, made clear that this process was going to happen regardless of what the families want.

Gadhafi's rehabilitation is almost complete. Late last week, the Libyan ambassador to London, who represented his government in the series of talks, told the Associated Press that Libya would accept "responsibility" for the bombing-though it is not at all clear what that means. Burns told the families that the Libyan statement would remain sealed until it goes before the UN Security Council, which is no doubt State's ploy to shield itself from criticism in the interim.

Normalizing Gadhafi will allow a smooth transfer of the throne to his son-who will also take possession of weapons of mass destruction. Burns acknowledged to the families that Gadhafi still has WMDs, which State considers a matter of "concern." What Burns didn't tell the families, though, is that Gadhafi still funds terrorists, including paying "ransoms" to al Qaeda affiliates.

Though Libya is not a country that would easily embrace democracy, State's actions to re-legitimize Gadhafi will make freedom there a nearly impossible goal. And if State acts in a similar manner in Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations, State's predictions that democracy won't take root in the region will indeed become a reality.

In a classified report titled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes," the State Department boldly declares that democracy will not spread in the Middle East following the fall of Saddam, if democracy even takes root in Iraq.

Two people need to be in jail: the author of this piece and the person who compromised classified material. I don't care if 'leaks' are routine- it's the principle of it. When you swear an oath to protect the secrets of this nation, it ought to mean something.

The State Department, traditionally known as Foggy Bottom, has been like this for all of living memory. It was like this under Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. It was like this under Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

From time to time a president has pretended to try to straighten this mess out, but never with any success.

I happen to like Colin Powell, but he obviously isn't the man to straighten out the State Department. He's too much of a consensus player. He doesn't like to rock boats.

We need four or five Rudy Giulianis. One in the State Department. One in the CIA. One in the FBI. and so forth. These places were already bad enough, but they got far worse under eight years of clintonoid promotions. Time to clean house. But it isn't going to happen for at least the next two years. Maybe never.

"Two people need to be in jail: the author of this piece and the person who compromised classified material. I don't care if 'leaks' are routine- it's the principle of it. When you swear an oath to protect the secrets of this nation, it ought to mean something."

Ok..... Perhaps I missed something in your rationale?

Because the Times ran the story, then everyone read it, and another man wrote a opinion about the story; so the writer of the opinion here should be in jail?

For what? I understand your feelings about the person who leaked it, but the writer? Come On......P..L..E..A..S..E..!

So tell us,( or have you already in your previous remark ) what is your opinion as to the meat of this story?

Ok..... Perhaps I missed something in your rationale?
Probably.

Because the Times ran the story, then everyone read it, and another man wrote a opinion about the story; so the writer of the opinion here should be in jail?
I was unclear. The person who betrayed the report and the person who wrote it down should be in jail.

For what?
Umm, breaking the law? I can get you the references and 'regs' for you tomorrow if you'd like.

I understand your feelings about the person who leaked it...
Given the caliber of your remarks, I doubt you understand much at all. My comments were not 'feelings'. 'Feelings' are for people who 'feel' they can break the law when they 'feel' it is justified.

Come On......P..L..E..A..S..E..!
Take your meds and calm down.

So tell us,( or have you already in your previous remark ) what is your opinion as to the meat of this story?
Not everyone who posts a comment must remark on the meat of your little article.

But since I'm taking the time to address your, er, remark... "Democracy" isn't all it's cracked up to be, and ought not be so romanticized. Federalist Paper #10 deals quite nicely with the issue of the influence of factions within a true democracy. Knowing it's perils, the Founding Fathers were wise not to choose it as a mode of government for us. The tribalism and sectarianism in the middle east are too strong for true democracy to 'work' even if they were to choose it for themselves. A representative republic would have a better chance- if the citizens were willing to set tribalism aside in favor of it, and given the choice they simply might not. No reason to be outraged about this reality, loyalty to tradition is not necessarily "rejecting freedom". There's nothing racist about it either, but it is cultural.

The State dept has serious problems, but they may be right on this. If "democracy" (sic) is foisted on an unwilling populace, the resentment will manifest itself as either anti-Americanism or chaos.

There, now your little thread has six posts. You'll probably add #7 but you're not worth responding to again.

In a classified report titled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes," the State Department boldly declares that democracy will not spread in the Middle East following the fall of Saddam ...
That is really not the popint of the lesson. If democratization of Iraq, specifically, settles down the urge to acquire WMD, then we have accomplished the most important task in disarming and decapitating the Iraqi regime. To even desire that the other nations of the Middle East--who have been living under depsots so long they wouldn't know how to self-govern--is a fools errand. The vast majority of Islamic minds are accustomed to a form of socialism. That isn't going to disappear in a domino fall to democratization, but taking each domino as the threat arises is our only workable offense/defense against state sponsored totalitarian Isamism.

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.