May 31, 2004
Kerry Gets It Wrong
In an interview with the Washington Post, Kerry indicated that as president he would “play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States’ security.”
Democrat Bill Clinton. Although Kerry said it is important to sell democracy and "market it" around the world, he demurred when questioned about a number of important countries that suppress human rights and freedoms.
In many ways, Kerry laid out a foreign policy agenda that appeared less idealistic about U.S. aims than those of President Bush or even fellow[. . .]
During the interview, he eschewed the soaring rhetoric on freedom and democracy that are commonplace in Bush's speeches and news conferences. At one point, he stumbled over the words when he tried to emphasize his interest in promoting American values: "The idea of America is, I think proudly and chauvinistically, the best idea that we've developed in this world."
Of promoting democracy overseas, Kerry said: "How fast you can do that and how rapidly others can embrace it and what can be expected over a period of time varies from place to place." Emphasizing his interest in setting realistic goals, he added: "Beware of the presidential candidate who just sort of says with a big paintbrush we're going to make everything all right overnight."
Kerry is mistaken in concluding promoting democracy is in the middle east is not an objective central to U.S. security.
In The Age of Sacred Terror Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon explain that the roots of Islamic extremism which spawns evildoers like Osama Bin Laden lies in the anger and frustration from all the difficulties under which they live—the poverty, unemployment, oppression. The only to eliminate the roots of the extremist movements is to give these people hope. To do that requires freedom and democracy. These sentiments are also expressed by Professor Bernard Lewis.
Last December the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal published an article by Lewis, entitled “Democracy and the Enemies of Freedom.” In that article Lewis sets forth the objectives of the American military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq: first and more immediate, to deter and defeat terrorism; second, to bring freedom and democracy, to these countries and the rest of the Middle East. Lewis writes that while establishing democracy in the Middle East will not be quick or easy, history suggests it is possible.
The creation of a free society, as the history of existing democracies in the world makes clear, is no easy matter. The experience of the Turkish republic over the last half century and of some other Muslim countries more recently has demonstrated two things: first, that it is indeed very difficult to create a democracy in such a society, and second, that although difficult, it is not impossible.
The study of Islamic history and of the vast and rich Islamic political literature encourages the belief that it may well be possible to develop democratic institutions--not necessarily in our Western definition of that much misused term, but in one deriving from their own history and culture, and ensuring, in their way, limited government under law, consultation and openness, in a civilized and humane society. There is enough in the traditional culture of Islam on the one hand and the modern experience of the Muslim peoples on the other to provide the basis for an advance towards freedom in the true sense of that word.
Lewis then explains that we are engaged in a titanic struggle of global dimensions. If you read his books and grasp what type of civilization the terrorists want to impose on the entire world, you understand that we must not only take on this fight; we have to win it.
The war against terror and the quest for freedom are inextricably linked, and neither can succeed without the other. The struggle is no longer limited to one or two countries, as some Westerners still manage to believe. It has acquired first a regional and then a global dimension, with profound consequences for all of us.
President Bush understands what is at stake and has set us on the correct, probably the only course, which can guarantee that our way of life survives.
In a recent interview in The Atlantic Online, Professor Lewis stated that he was "cautiously optimistic about what's happening in Iraq." He is more concerned about "what's happening here in the United States." He's afraid we will abandon the Iraqi's as we did in 1991. I pray we stick with President Bush and win this fight.
Posted by Dan Spencer at May 31, 2004 03:28 PM> Kerry is mistaken in concluding promoting
> democracy is in the middle east is not an
> objective central to U.S. security.
A central objective, or the central objective?
First, I don’t think Kerry is proposing that promoting democracy shouldn’t be a priority. He just doesn’t think that radical and haphazard actions like the Iraq invasion are quite the right way to do it. He was saying, in essence, that promoting democracy in the Middle East isn’t the kind of thing that’s so important that we need to put so very many other priorities aside. And he was saying that promoting Democracy is, despite the Bush Administration’s continuous delusional happy talk, not easy to do.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t believe for a second that the President or his Administration believes that promoting Democracy in the Middle East is really a priority, either. That argument is just a fig leaf to cover up the missing WMDs. There wasn’t a word about “promoting democracy” before Bush ran for President (in fact, his rhetoric ridiculed “nation building”). There was barely a peep about “promoting democracy” before the invasion of Iraq.
Kerry’s statements were right on.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 31, 2004 08:00 PMDan, you have hit the nail on the head. Kerry seems to have no grasp of the grand strategic importance of promoting democracy in the middle east to ensure our peace and security.
The antidote to terror is freedom. Long term, there is no other alternative. I don’t know what Kerry thinks the answer is if it is not to make enemies into friends. Perhaps he believes that we are the ones at fault here and we should surrender to them. Perhaps it is our arrogance and hubris that has angered the good people of the middle east. It couldn’t be the fact that tyranny breeds terror.
…the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
Democrats seem to have forgotten that our rights, and the rights of all men, are God given.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
I fear the less than hearty committment among this generation of democrats for fighting for old fashioned democracy.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
Unless we can somehow say that it was all done in the name of a lie, for the pretext of oil.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
It takes two to tango. Kerry blames he who wished to free an oppressed people and praises those who, for crass commercial gain, wished that they stay under dictatorship. I can see where Kerry’s heart is.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
No truer words have ever been spoken.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -inaugural address
Kerry seems to be on the wrong side of history, again.
Dan & Eric. Kerry’s plan is to make America energy independent. This is a BIG IDEA, so take a couple minutes to think about it.
If we don’t need Arab oil, they become inconsequential.
Bush’s answer is to force democracy on the region, fill the strategic reserve, and hope for the best.
Kerry’s answer is to take this country in a direction where Middle East problems are no longer American problems.
Has Dan forgotten US imposed Freedom and Democracy became “the reason” for invasion only after threats to our national security, connections to al Queda and WMD violations of UN sanctions were debunked. How seriously can we take such a claim when we support dictators allied with US business, fund a coup against Venezula’s freely elected President, and ignore Israeli WMDs and US helicopter terrorism of Palestinians. After an initial success in Afghanstan the war on terrorism is unraveling because invading Iraq has exposed our political and economic limitations. Worldwide sympathy and support has been transformed into hatred and rebellion. Bush piles on deficits and tax cuts after engineering domestic electoral subversion. Bush, China, Saudis and other tyrants use fear and hate to manipulate gullible fools. We live in an Orwellian world.
Posted by: Bayviking at June 1, 2004 11:16 AMIt’s funny to read things like freedom is the solution to terrorism… democratic countries never have home-grown terrorists? From the unibomber to lee harvy oswald, haven’t we had our share of terrorists over the years in this country that are not beholden to foreign organizations?
Posted by: Jarin at June 1, 2004 11:34 AM“From the unibomber to lee harvy oswald, haven’t we had our share of terrorists over the years in this country that are not beholden to foreign organizations?”
Are you really comparing what goes on in this country to what is going on in other parts of the world? I believe that the universal reaction that Americans had to 9/11 while the rest of the world shrugged in indifference is largely due to the fact that you cannot compare what goes on in most free societies to what is happening in the Middle East and other totalitarian areas of the world.
A large reason for the terror in these areas seems to be the grinding poverty that almost always accompanies dictatorships and kingdoms. By fostering freedom, we are also fostering economic growth. Something the Middle East has not had for centuries; long before Bush and long after the Bush administration is gone
Kerry’s plan is to make America energy independent… to take this country in a direction where Middle East problems are no longer American problems.
That would be fine if Kerry was an inventor and entrepenuer working on an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Exactly how is Kerry going to make us energy independent? Make the automobile illegal? Make it more costly to use? Make low gas mileage illegal? Tax gas more? Exactly how is this going to take place?
Then once we are ‘energy independent’ how does that stop the jihad? Will they not hate us more when the price of gas is so low that it costs too much to pump out of the ground and all of the so called ‘stable’ governments which Kerry doesn’t necessarily want to promote democracy in are completely bankrupt?
Posted by: Eric Simonson at June 1, 2004 12:49 PMHow seriously can we take such a claim when we support dictators allied with US business,
BayViking,
You’re right we shouldn’t support democracy anymore. It’s too hypocritical.
democratic countries never have home-grown terrorists? …haven’t we had our share of terrorists over the years in this country that are not beholden to foreign organizations?
Jarin,
I’m not following you. Are you saying that since there are individuals in a democracy who choose to murder that democracy isn’t better than tyranny? Are you saying that since democracy isn’t perfect that we shouldn’t try to spread freedom to other countries? Are you trying to say it won’t make a difference if the dictatorships in the middle east are democracies? Or are you saying that democracy and freedom just isn’t for everybody?
Eric and Jeff:
Actually, what I’m saying is that democracy = no terrorism is too simplistic an equation. The lack of freedom is not the only thing that spawns terrorism, and the same anger and hate that fuels the terrorists in poverty-stricken tyrannies can be found in our own country. A democratic iraq is not the panacea that you seem to be envisioning… especially since terrorism is often funded by those quite well off in their own governments (ie: saudi princes?) Because of this, it seems clear that lack of representation in their own governments is not the underlying source of terrorism or individuals like the saudi princes would have no motive for pursuing it.
The root is hate. The solution is not just democracy, but diplomacy. If we wish to end terrorism in the world, we need to start treating other nations with respect and listening to their opinions and concerns, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, and learn to moderate our positions through negotiation and discussion. If we continue to brush off all opposition to our policies in international opinion as inconsequential, we will never see an end to terrorism, no matter how many governments we force into democracy.
Posted by: Jarin at June 1, 2004 01:09 PMJeff:
A large reason for the terror in these areas seems to be the grinding poverty that almost always accompanies dictatorships and kingdoms. By fostering freedom, we are also fostering economic growth. Something the Middle East has not had for centuries; long before Bush and long after the Bush administration is gone
Where, exactly, will this new economic growth come from? Other than oil, what resources does Iraq really have that it can put forward on the world market to enhance its economy? I don’t dispute that living conditions may improve as the wealth in iraq is redistributed away from government and back to the people (if such redistribution actually takes place), but actual economic growth? From what sources?
Other than oil-based products, manufactured goods are largely limited to processed food, textiles and clothing, footwear, cigarettes, and construction materials. And Baghdad was the leading manufacturing center… so much of the manufacturing infrastructure is likely to need rebuilding before it could ever be expanded due to democracy.
Besides oil and manufacturing jobs relating to the oil industry, the mainstay of the Iraqi populace is agriculture and the chief export crop is dates… do you foresee Iraqi democracy significantly increasing the demand for dates?
Democracy is not likely, by itself, to significantly grow the Iraqi economy. What might actually succeed in doing so is the lifting of UN sanctions which have severely restricted Iraqi foreign trade since the early 1990s.
Posted by: Jarin at June 1, 2004 01:38 PMThat would be fine if Kerry was an inventor and entrepenuer working on an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Exactly how is Kerry going to make us energy independent? Make the automobile illegal? Make it more costly to use? Make low gas mileage illegal? Tax gas more? Exactly how is this going to take place?
The technology exists. This is common knowledge. What’s needed is the political will to push ahead the infrastructure upgrades necessary.
The government took an iniative creating the interstate highways. They should do the same with hydrogen fuel cells.
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 1, 2004 09:33 PMExactly how is Kerry going to make us energy independent?
Then once we are ‘energy independent’ how does that stop the jihad?
Eric, until we invaded Iraq, there were only a couple thousand wackos at most involved in their self-styled jihad. Now, it’s estimated that there are 18,000 prople involved. A much larger number, but still relatively small. Once we stop shooting up mosques, the recruitment fervor will die down and we can kill, capture, discredit, and co-opt whatever’s left.
To turn tyour question around, what has Bush done to “stop the jihad?” Judging by the number and frequency of terrorist attacks around the world, Bush’s counter-terrorism policy has achieved nothing. In fact, the CIA and State Department recently testified that Bush’s Iraq policy has swelled the ranks of al Qaeda and created an anti-US movement in the Islamic world where none had existed before.
If Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a counter-terrorism measure, it failed. It’s time to try something else.
Exactly how is Kerry going to make us energy independent?
Then once we are ‘energy independent’ how does that stop the jihad?
No more need for stationing US troops in the Middle East, no more oil money getting funneled to terrorist groups, no more shooting up mosques. Basically, we cut the legs out from under al Qaeda recruiting efforts.
There were only a few thousand al Qaeda terrorists before the Iraq invasion. It’s estimated that there are now about 18,000 worldwide, still a relatively small number. Once we stop the flood of new recruits that Bush’s Iraq adventure has spawned, we kill, capture, discredit, and co-opt what’s left.
I almost forgot. We also wouldn’t need to prop up corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia and Saddam’s Iraq in the 80s.
Crap. Sorry. I thought that first one didn’t get posted.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 3, 2004 04:19 AMJust wanted to comment on this article. In reading through the article, and through the responses, I find that most of the responses are for or against a particular candidate, not about the article. The article itself, which we are supposed to comment on, is well written, and has some very good information. I may not agree with all of the information in the article, and most of the responses are misguided, the article is still well written.
As far as the question that was posted about where will this new economic growth come from, the answer is quite obvious. When we came to this country, we didn’t have the inventions or the resources that we have now. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when a Free Iraqi people are able and allowed to think for themselves, they will begin the process of inventing as many other cultures have. They will not be hindered by what is currently available, but will have the freedom to invent and market ideas to better improve themselves. This has happened in our society, and it can and will happen in the Iraqi society. Once a people have a taste of the freedoms that we experience here, they do not want to return to the suppression that is common throughout much of the world.
I agree that Democracy by itself will not solve the problem, but I do not believe that President Bush has ever said that is the final answer to the problem. We are offering them Freedom, and freedom is the answer. Another item that was posted above is that John Kerry wants to do things diplomatically. This is a crazy idea when you have someone who is fighting a Holy War and thier God is telling them to Kill YOU! Diplomacy holds nothing over RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS!! They don’t care about diplomacy, they only care about what thier leaders tell them that God wants them to do.
Iraqi invasion was not, I repeat, NOT, a haphazard action. This was well thought out by the leaders of our free country, and the goal of Iraqi independence is being acheived, however slowly. When the United States gained freedom from England, it was not overnight, and it cost many lives, and without the support of some of our Allies, we would likely not have acheived that freedom, or it would have taken a great deal longer with a much greater loss of life. That is what the United States is doing for Iraq. We are providing them with the ability to rule thier own country. Yes!! It does cost life, and that cost is HIGH, but the freedom for any people has never been free. Also, I don’t believe that I have ever heard President Bush state or imply that this would be easy or quick. In fact, he has said that it would be Hard, and a very long fight. He asked the American people to have a staying power, as it would be a long and costly fight.
As I said before, some of the response here are very misguided, but the article in question is still well written.
That’s interesting, starbuck21. You say that “when a Free Iraqi people are able and allowed to think for themselves” they’ll invent some kind of good society, then you state that Iraqis are all “RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS!!” who are trying to “Kill YOU!”
I’m confused. Do you believe they were all religious zealots under Saddam’s secular regime, but are now reasonable people? If so, you’ve got it completely backwards. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed Islamic radicals as a danger to his regime. They are now running the place.
So if you truly believe that “They don’t care about diplomacy”, then we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
Also, I’ve never heard anyone argue that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. The problem is, President Bush sold the war as a means to disarm Saddam of his (non-existent) WMDs. Or was it his (non-existent) ties to al Qaeda? Or was it the democracy domino theory? Whatever.
The tag of humanitarian mission is only the most recent rationale for the war, and to keep from admitting the whole adventure was a misguided failure, it looks like that’s the rationale that all the Bush fans are latching onto.
How foolish to believe American can export our own form of democracy around the world! It took use 800 years of evolution with 3 civil wars (Cromwell, American Revolution and the American Civil War) to develop our own form. How naive to believe we can change other cultures.
Leave them to their form of government and simply encourage human rights.
Posted by: Daniel D at July 15, 2004 02:38 PM
