Posted on 06/17/2009 6:45:04 AM PDT by Tolik
Apparently the Obama administration is quietly watching the situation, serially voting present, and unwilling to say much until the final outcome is certain. Meanwhile, debate here centers around whether Bush’s past “Axis of Evil” approach to Iran’s theocracy, or Obama’s “We are sorry for what we did in the past” lamentation is the better course for dealing with a thug like Ahmadinejad. Some thoughts:
1. Conventional wisdom insisted that we had “empowered” Iran by removing Saddam and allowing the Shiites to gain democratic majorities in Iraq. It is at least as possible that we are destabilizing the autocracy in Iran by promoting Iraqi democracy that is no longer just a warning about civil chaos, but a positive view of a Shiite-majority democratic society unknown in Iran. The notion of two large contiguous oil producing democracies in the Middle East is unacceptable to the radical Islamists and most of the Sunni Arab dictatorships as well.
2. When one apologizes to a contemporary terrorist-sponsoring regime for events that occurred 60 years ago at the beginning of the Cold War, and does so without context of the past, then naturally one is self-censored, and will be reluctant to comment on contemporary events in Iran — relegated to a bystander watching the flow of events, predicating the response on who wins.
3. We are seeing in Washington that the multiculturalism impulse — one does not use Western paradigms to judge others — is far stronger than the supposedly classical liberal idea that human freedom is a universal concept that trumps culture. In other words, multicultural foreign policy is a sophisticated and politically-correct version of the old, far more intellectually honest realist notion that we let the bastards do what they want to their own people, and then deal with the thug that emerges in the real world of mutual self-interest.
4. For the probable majority of Iranians who voted against Ahmadinejad, the idea that the US was reaching out to him, despite his subsidies to terrorist killers in Lebanon and Iraq, and his brutality at home, was not necessarily a sign of American good will. If the prior policy of disengagement with the Iranian theocracy, while appealing to the good will of the Iranian people was so flawed, why was it, then, that despite America’s bad global PR, the Iranian people remained far more pro-American than did the Arab Street, whose autocrats about four years ago we ceased pressuring to liberalize?
For at least a decade, liberal icons like Bill Clinton (”Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority … (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections … There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.)”, Jimmy Carter and NY Times columnists have tried to make cute points that our worst enemy in the Middle East, Iran, was in fact the most democratic — ridiculing the notion of others that rigged plebiscites, pre-screened candidates, the absence of a truly secret ballot and free press, organized thuggery against dissidents, suppression of women’s rights, etc. were hardly democratic.
Iran, let us now confess, understood the America utopians very well, offering them both the thin veneer of “democracy” and at the same time the notion of revolutionary opposition to “imperialist” and “capitalist” America. When Clinton in 2005 said that nonsense at Davos he was simply playing to the international politically correct Western bunch, the subtext was “hey, that awful Bush is running things now in the US, and it is a lot worse over here than it is in the Iran that he demonizes (cf. Clinton’s flourish: “…certainly not my own”). That Iran was killing soldiers in Iraq, sponsoring killers in Lebanon and the West Bank, trying to get a nuke to do worse to Israel did not mean all that much to Bill Clinton, at least if he could sound nuanced, neat, and contrarian among the international drones at Davos.
I’ll take axis of evil and evil empire any day to serial apologies to this creepy regime, and “certainly not my own” comparisons.
==============================================================================
Thugophilia Isn't Moral [Victor Davis Hanson]
I think we are going to see, incrementally, perhaps, a rise in the ratings of former president Bush. Iraq is proving to be amazingly resilient, not only functioning as a democracy, but by withstanding the best efforts of Iran to kill it off, proving destabilizing to Iran itself.
By removing Saddam, and trying to isolate Ahmadinejad and appeal to the Iranian people, Bush at least tried to prep the landscape for democratic change.
In contrast, Obama's past siren calls to quit Iraq, the "optional" war, his snubbing of Maliki, his ahistorical efforts to charm the Islamic Street, and apologies to theocratic Iran while lavishing attention on Ahmadinejad put him on the wrong side of history.
If Obama were wise, he would get out pronto a statement condemning the anti-democratic violence of the Iranian government, and suggesting it follow the Iraq example of free and internationally inspected elections.
At some point, one should see that moral equivalence and multicultural non-judgementalism, however catchy for the moment, are as stupid as they are amoral, and will put the U.S in a foolish, "make it up as we go along" position.
Can we at least see an end to all the past Iranian fluff offered by Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and NY Times columnists as over the years they praised what they claimed was a good start for democracy?
How did it come to pass that the Left thought cozying up to a brutal thug like Ahmadinejad was proof of statecraft superior to Bush's tough position that he was a nut and at odds with the aspirations for freedom of the Iranian people?
==============================================================================
The New Old Realism [Victor Davis Hanson]
But since January, we have paid more attention to the former and less to the latter. We do not wish to "interfere" and condemn a state such as Iran that rigged an election and stifled free expression, but have no qualms about reading the riot act to Israel. Maliki, I wager, has received less attention from the present administration than has Ahmadinejad (the conventional wisdom of the Left the last few years was oddly "leave Iraq and its democracy, and engage Iran's autocracy").
Other examples could be cited, and the disturbing conclusion seems to be that to the extent an autocracy mouths boilerplate, Hollywood-type, anti-American sentiment, especially about the last eight years of American governance (cf. Bill Clinton's 2005 Davos encomium of Iran as "the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections"), it now deserves attention; to the extent a nation supported U.S. democratic aims and aspirations abroad, it is now looked upon in askance, as if thinking, "Why would you guys have liked the U.S. before we came along?"
The issue of whether countries in these pairings — Iran/Iraq, Hamas/Israel, or Venezuela/Colombia — respect consensual government seems largely irrelevant, as if a multicultural veneer of "not judging others with arbitrary Western paradigms" is (at best) the kinder, friendlier version of the old realist "Let them do what they want to each other and we'll deal with the thug that emerges in terms of our own national interest."
Just a partial list. More at the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
What a shame someone can’t hack his teleprompter and get these unambiguous words President Bush spoke in February 2006 inserted into Obama’s teleprompter:PRESIDENT BUSH: Iran is a nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people, and denying them basic liberties and human rights. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorists and is actively working to expand its influence in the region. (…) as we confront Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, we’re also reaching out to the Iranian people to support their desire to be free; to build a free, democratic, and transparent society.Bush’s speech is a reminder that a real leader speaks the truth without apology!To support the Iranian people’s efforts to win their own freedom, my administration is requesting $75 million in emergency funds to support democracy in Iran. This is more than a fourfold increase over current levels of funding. These new funds will allow us to expand radio and television broadcasts into Iran (…) so Iranians can organize and challenge the repressive policies of the clerical regime(…) By supporting democratic change in Iran, we will hasten the day when the people of Iran can determine their own future and be free to choose their own leaders. Freedom in the Middle East requires freedom for the Iranian people, and America looks forward to the day when our nation can be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
I don’t see any political downside to 0bama ignoring this issue. It’s hard to take a stand, easy to criticize, and easiest of all to hesitate to do either. Particularly for a moral relativist like 0bama, to whom it comes naturally. He votes present, strikes a thoughtful pose, and his adoring followers write another chapter about his godlike faineance.
I ordered his book on the Pelopponesian War from the library; my husband will pick it up today, I hope!
“In other words, multicultural foreign policy is a sophisticated and politically-correct version of the old, far more intellectually honest realist notion that we let the bastards do what they want to their own people, and then deal with the thug that emerges in the real world of mutual self-interest.”
There’s the money quote: Hansen gets it - “sophisticated” is code for “intellectually dishonest person who’s not willing to stand on principle”.
Colonel, USAFR
We are overlooking the fact that Obama actually supports Ahmadinejadl who is the dearest friend of his much admired Hugo Chavez.
Thanks. President Bush got little credit and lots of idiotic abuse for the areas in which he demonstrated leadership.
“A War Like No Other”
It’s a fascinating book and I have been comparing the situations detailed in the book to practically everything going on today. It gave me a great framework to view things. I hope you and your husband enjoy it. I’ve read it three or 4 times now. I’ve actually bought several other books (buy them used and cheap from Amazon) on the era. Those are “Isle of Stone”,”Virtues of War”,”Tides of War”, and “Gates of Fire.”
I rarely buy books - just put them on reserve at the library, even if it takes months! (Exception for Thomas Sowell.)
Are the other books you mentioned fiction or nonfiction?
The books are historical fiction that include a lot the people mentioned in VDH’s book. I like to read both. Sometimes reading history can leave you kind of dry. I’m slogging through a book on the Napoleonic Wars in Spain. Or, I could read one of the Bernard Corwall’s Richard Sharpe novels about a British officer in Wellington’s service. I then get the excitement and the history :D.
I like historical fiction, too. I also like to read the most recent well-reviewed book on a subject, and then try to find something contemporaneous with the events or written by participants. Up-to-date scholarship tends to nail the facts down, but first-hand reporting tells what it was *like* when the events were happening, even if details are muddled.
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.