March 27, 2005
Condi Rice: Superstar
Condi Rice has been doing a great job and getting rave reviews around the world. Barbara Boxer and her ilk were wrong. Take a look at the policy she advocates and let’s talk.
In case you can't get at the link, below is part of her interview on the Middle East:
"Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater -let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn't as if the status quo was stable the way that it was. What we really learned on September 11 as you really started to look underneath what was going on there, is that the Middle East is a place that's badly in need of change, that some of these malignancies that are represented by the rise of extremism have their roots in the absence of other channels for political activity or social activity or the desire for change, and when you recognize that - and there are some who recognized it well before we did - but when you recognize that you can say, all right well now I'll try and design the perfect counter to that. Or you can say, the United States is not going to be able to design the perfect counter to that; the only thing the United States can do is to speak out for the values that have been absent, liberty and freedom there, and it will have to take its own course.
"And then you have to have some confidence that democratic institutions and people's desire not to live in violence and not to be kind of constantly sending their children off to be suicide bombers, is going to have a moderating effect on the region.
"Can we be certain of that? No. But do I think there's a strong certainty that the Middle East was not going to stay stable anyway? Yes. And when you know that the status quo is no longer defensible, then you have to be willing to move in another direction.
"I also think there's some argument to be made that America's association with the freedom deficit was a problem for the United States in the region. There are now all kinds of studies of this that people said well, you talk about democracy in Latin America, you talk about democracy in Europe, you talk about democracy in Asia and Africa but you never talk about democracy in the Middle East.
"And, of course, they were right because this was the decision that stability trumped everything, and what we were getting was neither stability nor democracy."
Posted by Jack at March 27, 2005 10:32 PM
Condi talks a good game. As yet, we have seen no positive results from her short tenure in her new position. But, that also means it is too early to determine if her diplomatic efforts are producing or not.
Her role may be limited too. Bush’s decision to sell F-16’s to a military dictatorship in Pakistan sets an example which APEC, the EU and a host of other nations may want to emulate. This demonstrates limits on her capacity to secure a better foreign relations future for our country. Powell couldn’t see eye to eye with Bush because Powell was looking strategically at securing our international relations future. I have little doubt that Condi wishes to do the same, but, President Bush had other ideas during Powell’s tenure and he may also limit Condi’ capability as well. The F-16 sale sure appears to be making that case.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2005 03:26 AMI guess my short question is a bit cynical, but It think it cuts to the point: What has she done for us so far, beside charm people? When the Right can point to some major shifts in the policy of other countries towards us, I will believe Condi was a good choice. Until then, simple speechifying will not be sufficient. This administration has flooded this nation with a torrent of words, but a trickle of real progress.
It is time that the credit extended on Bush’s supposed leadership start bringing back profits. If all those democratic movements work out, that could contributed a great deal towards realizing that promised gain, but it’s not anything certain right now. People can accept uncertainty if it’s honest, and backed by hopes. False certainties and false senses of security, though, are a high interest debt waiting to come due.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2005 07:15 AMThat is just the craziest policy I’ve ever heard. Does it make sense to anyone to give radical Islamic fundamentalists a really good shot at the leadership of countries like Saudi Arabia?
I gotta go with Hosni Mubarek on this one,
You do not understand the consequences of your actions. If you succeed militarily - and you will - and if Iraq were to become a democracy, it would almost surely elect a religious extremist government. You will end up with another ayatollah as the head of the government. And that election could cause a cascading throughout the Middle East. The result of your actions, whatever their intentions, could well be two or three more Irans. Is that what you want?
So far, he’s right. Iraq elected an Islamic fundamentalist government run by an ayatollah - just like Iran. It will be interesting to see what comes of Lebanon. A Hezbollah government, perhaps? The elections in Saudi Arabia went primarily to Islamists, and the Palestinians all elected Hamas candidates at the local levels in their election.
I find it hard to believe anyone would think that’s a good thing.
And of course, selling nuclear capable F-16s to the Islamic military junta in Pakistan is just a dumb idea.
Upsetting some apple carts in the Middle East isn’t the worst idea I’ve ever heard, but if you’re not engaged enough to make sure the apples land where you want them, all you get is a big, slippery, dangerous mess. Giving Islamists a free shot at the leadership in the Middle East just makes bin Laden’s dream of a Greater Middle Eastern Caliphate more attainable.
Really Jack, I’d think you’d want to blame all this crappy foreign policy on a lame-duck Bush, rather than have it slop over onto a potential 2008 presidential candidate.
Mubarak is a clear example of old thinking and he certainly has his own interests in not upsetting the status quo.
As Condoleezza Rice said herself, we have been shorting democracy in the hopes of building stability and we have got neither. Do any of you have any confidence in the long term (or even medium term) survival of most of our Middle Eastern “friends”? How much more stable would the situation be if we had continued with the policies of the past, tolerated Saddam, talked to Arafat as a man of peace and continued to let our policies be guided by people like Mubarak and the Saudi royal family? I can’t believe anyone would defend that. In fact that policy is precisely what the enemies of the Bush administration accuses it of doing. So now Bush is going to be accused of changing what everyone until now said was a stupid and shortsighted policy?
The same goes for criticism of Condi. Critics of the Bush administration constantly harped on the fact that we weren’t consulting with allies and that leaders of the world didn’t like us. Our new SecState has been on the road since she took office. Every indication is that she is “charming” other leaders. What does that mean? That is diplomacy and that is her job. She has to build (or rebuild) trust and good will. That is the “concrete” result we can expect at this stage.
In months before the U.S. election, many people said that John Kerry’s election would bring a sea change in attitude toward the U.S. among world leaders (they really meant European leaders, since we enjoyed good relations with most others). Condi has brought about the kind of sea change hoped for before the election. There is no way that Kerry and Richard Holbrook would have done better.
First, a fundamental shift is taking place, and when given a real choice, the people of the Middle East are embracing freedom. Her point is to trust FREE people to make the right choices for themselves. If we try to sandbag the process to get a US “approved” government, the average citizen there will reject it out of spite. As far you guys complaining about giving fundamental Islamists a chance at leadership really gets to her main point: People are turning to fundamentalism to give themselves a choice beyond the dictatorships that exist there now. Fundamentalism will look a lot less attractive when the other choice is not just another of those ubiquitous Middle Eastern dictators. Moreover, you guys act like having Powell kissing the cheeks of these turds in the name of international relations somehow improves our security situation here at home. Maintaining the status quo was only going to guarantee more of the same from the Middle East and a continuation of the “manageable level” of deaths theory promoted by Clinton, Kerry and other NeoLibs of this ilk.
Just in case you are curious, a NeoLib is a Democrat who talks about “aggressively” confronting dictators and terrorists but never follows through with actions that would tend to prevent the next act of terror. NeoLibs are all for “managing” situations but never for solving problems.
Posted by: Robert Fisher at March 28, 2005 10:59 AMErrr. Clinton waged a War in Kosovo that other Countries paid for. Bush is still killing US Soldiers in Iraq.
btw, good job spreading freedom to Lebanon. That Mall explosion looked impressive on FoxNews…
Posted by: Aldous at March 28, 2005 11:15 AMSeeing as Condi was chosen for her loyalty and willingness to follow the dictates of Bush and Cheney, I get the depressing feeling that she’ll turn out to be as much of a “Superstar” as Sec. of State, as Mary Katherine Gallager is to the world of entertainment. :^/
Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2005 11:37 AMJack,
I don’t mind spreading democracy to those people that express a desire to have it.
Therein lies the rub.
When we assume that all people desire a democratic form of government, we also have to assume that they are willing to fight for it.
I don’t see a great groundswell of activity in that direction. Sure, there are some revolutions going on, most notably in Shri Lanka and the Phillipines.
You yourself said you wouldn’t support those revolutionaries.
America cannot go rushing in to every country on the planet, assuming that the populace will fall in behind us.
What happens when the folks in these countries elect governments that aren’t friendly to our cause?
Democracy isn’t something that you enforce with tanks and missles.
Rocky
Not all revolutions are democratic and most armed revolutionary struggles these days are not. I would agree with you on that.
History does not move in a preordained direction. Choices make a difference. For a half-century we chose to tolerate and even support authoritarian regimes in the Middle East (and elsewhere). You are right that our choice was not usually the determining one and during the Cold War, with its Manichean overtones, an argument could be made to justify such choices as the lesser of evils.
We now have the chance to align our policy more with our values. I am not foolish enough to believe we will always reach the ideal, or even come close sometimes, but the direction is important. I don’t believe that other people in the world don’t want the freedom I want. They can have any form of government they choose – as long as they get to choose. And if they get to choose freely – and get to change their minds - it will meet my definition of the will of the people. That is the side I want to be on. I think we can risk the consequences, because the alternatives are worse.
If anyone here has read Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions, the patterns discussed in that book are really appropriate for this discussion.
Constrained View (Condi’s position): Since we can’t possibly understand every nuance of the situation, establish the framework for a government and allow the people to determine the outcome - whatever that may be in the end.
Unconstrained View: Determine the type of government we would like to see in these countries and manage the creation of the government to ensure the desired result.
Posted by: Robert Fisher at March 28, 2005 02:43 PMFrom Jack:
That is diplomacy and that is her job. She has to build (or rebuild) trust and good will. That is the “concrete” result we can expect at this stage.
Oh, you mean like the time she referred to Russia as a secondary power? Yah, they were real happy about that.
Posted by: Zeek at March 28, 2005 06:11 PMThe problem is that actions speak louder than words. If Bush’s actions are not in accord with Condi’s diplomacy, Condi will become a puppet to be laughed at behind her back. Walk the talk about military dictators and STOP feeding military dictators American modern warfare machines and technology.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 28, 2005 07:13 PMDavid:
I could not agree more with you! I would take it a bit farther than that. I would tell them this: “Yea though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death, I will fear no evil fore I am the baddest motherfucker in the valley!”
The United States bows to no dictator! They are of little use to us. We should destroy them!
Posted by: stivdi at March 28, 2005 08:58 PMMubarak is a clear example of old thinking and he certainly has his own interests in not upsetting the status quo.
NEWSFLASH! The only popular opposition for Mubarek’s secular government is the radical Muslim Brotherhood, “the father of virtually all of today’s jihad terrorist groups.”
Jack, doesn’t it bother you that you’re supporting a plan that brings radical Islamists to power in a region that is of vital strategic interest to our country?
FREE people are making choices. The question is: are they the right choice for America? All the liberal, democracy spreading, feel-good idealism aside, if America is going to be the instrument of change, then that change should benefit America.
The US and its allies worked hard to insure that the newly FREED citizens of Germany and Japan did not have the choice of re-electing Nazis or militarists. Those precautions were absent in Iraq. Iraqis could have voted for a secular government, but they FREELY chose to elect an Islamic fundamentalist government. All other Middle Eastern nations look set to follow suit.
Keep it up. The George and Condi show are are going to get Osama bin Laden FREELY elected to the pan-Arab Caliphate. Congrats.
I understand the wait and see attitude, but as far as I can tell Condi is doing everything the Bush critics said we SHOULD be doing. I am very proud of her. This is a revolution in American foreign policy. She is saying the right things to friends and enemies alike.
Read her http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Mar/28-990691.html" target="blank"> comments about the human rights report .
AP
Islamic terrorists are a symptom of the lack of democracy and self-determination. From what I hear about the Iraqi Shiites, they are religious and they believe in what they say. But they have seen the result of the theocracy in Iraq and even the mainstream religious leaders are not enthusiastic about taking on the responsibly of government.
It is natural that after a collapse people seek order where they can find it. Strong religious belief is not incompatible with democracy if the religious leaders are reasonable.
Bin Laden’s form of Islam is not the mainstream and bears little resemblance to traditional Islam. He is popular in some quarters because there is no chance that he will actually take power. It is easy to claim to support him as a way to threaten or insult perceive enemies in the west. The disenfranchised often find the most obnoxious person to “support”. But I don’t believe a large number of people are actually stupid enough to freely choose a government run by Al Qaida or Taliban style radicals.
Muslims can also appreciate freedom.
Duh, Jack. But that doesn’t change facts. Iraqis overwhelmingly voted for the fundamentalist Islamic ticket. Just because Sistani didn’t personally throw his turban in the ring for PM, doesn’t mean he’s not pulling the strings.
Ayatollah Sistani is consulted before any decision is made, and he has the final say on everything from appointments to legislation. It was Sistani’s picture on the fundamentalist ticket, and everyone knew the major parties were the radical Da’wa and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) parties - both of which are hard-line Islamist organizations dedicated to ruling the country as written in the Quran.
Hezbollah has demonstrated it’s popular appeal in Lebanon, Hamas leaders were electwed in Palestine, the Saudi elections went to Islamists, and I can’t wait to see how you try to rationalize an Egypt ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ten years from now, we’ll be negotiating with bin Laden’s Caliphate for oil, wondering how the hell that happened, and you guys will fall all over yourselves to find some weasely, feeble way to blame it on Clinton.
Let me put it this way, Condi may think a Middle East ruled by freely elected Islamic fundamentalists is better for America than secular authoritarian regimes, but I don’t.
The terrorist attacks have come from non-state actors like bin Laden and fundamentalist Islamic countries like Iran. Authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia never ordered terrorists to attack America. Neither did Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, etc. Even wacko Qadaffi and Saddam backed off, once they got their noses bloodied. Authoritarian regimes can be deterred, religious fundamentalists cannot.
Your FREE Iraq is now a God damned big live-fire training exercise for terrorists, as well as a breeding ground. And with that in mind, picture an entire contiguous FREE Middle East ruled by Islamists determined to destroy the Great Satan, and unafraid to sacrifice their contries in the attempt.
Again: a big, hearty, sarcastic congrats to the Bush administration for partnering with bin Laden in overthrowing pro-US secular regimes and replacing them with anti-American Islamists.
The Saudis fund most the madras and the radical infrastructure. Saddam never back off. We just beat him back and held him down with significant military assets. But that is beside the point.
Whether or not we like the status quo, we can’t have it. The authoritarian regimes are rotting from the inside. I prefer that they change peacefully and that is why I think it is right to take the risk now and encourage democratic regimes.
I remember the Shah, who by today’s standards wasn’t even all that corrupt or oppressive. When his regime collapsed, there was hell to pay for thirty years. How many people have not speculated that it might have been better to work with Mosedeq rather than oppose him?
We are trying to get on the right side of history here. We did the same in E. Europe in the 1980s. The risks were higher then. Bin Laden might destroy buildings; the Soviet Union could have destroyed all intelligent life on earth. But because we made the right choices, the world improved beyond the imagination of the “realistic” critics. This current choice is the dominant paradigm, both because of the prospects of success and the lack of any other viable alternative.
On the related subject: Bin Laden’s caliphate is just not going to happen. There is a big difference between getting support when you are outside and getting support when you really might take over. We see that even in democratic places where people can express themselves. It is much magnified in oppressive places. People make bad choices as a way of showing their frustration with not having a free choice. The other obvious thing about the bin Laden crowd is that they don’t have the collective brainpower to run a real country. It is easier to be a revolutionary than a ruler.
Jack, E. Europe was a completely different situation. If the Communist Party was overthrown, we knew it wouldn’t be replaced by something worse. If the pro-US authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are overthrown, they’ll be replaced by anti-US Islamic fundamentalists.
But apparently, you don’t think that’s a bad thing.
We didn’t know E. Europe would turn out well. There was a lot of talk that E. Europeans didn’t appreciate democracy and that they would opt for authoritarians fascist type regimes. There was also the risk that the Soviets would react in a very violent way. The stakes were higher than. The Soviets were a first class world threat. Osama and his boys are just not in the same league.
I don’t know as much about the Middle East, but I can see that what we have is not good or stable. I believe that if we continue to prop up authoritarians the crash will be worse. And I have confidence that when people are free to make their own choices, their choices will be better. The authoritarian states will disappear. Let’s try to get them to go down gradually and softly and let’s try to be on the right side.
And I have confidence that when people are free to make their own choices, their choices will be better.
Dude, it’s already a solid fact that in this case it will not be better. But, dream on my friend.
The Iraqis (which I assume you mean) have elected a mixed slate. The Shiites are dominant, but not predominant and so far seem to be behaving reasonably. Since the alternative was Saddam, we are doing better.
Think of the other big Shiite place, Iran. If the Iranian actually could choose their leaders freely, the theocracy would be out of business.
Democracy doesn’t mean an end to conflict and strife. It just means that conflict, strife and change are channeled into less violent directions.
Jack said: “Democracy doesn�t mean an end to conflict and strife. It just means that conflict, strife and change are channeled into less violent directions.”
You mean like that little scuffle between Blue and Gray called the Civil War? Yeah, that was certainly less violent than WWII I suppose.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 29, 2005 01:54 PMDavid
Nothing is perfect and the Civil War was a big imperfection, provoked by the other great imperfection – slavery.
The Civil War took more American lives than all the other wars together and it did so with a smaller population base. I don’t want to minimize it, but do consider the democratic aftermath.
After civil wars in any other system there are widespread reprisals, years of guerilla war and sometime permanent animosity. None of the major confederate leaders was executed. Generals Lee and Johnston dismissed their armies and their soldiers largely went home to fight no more. Nathan Bedford Forest’s post-war organization engaged in terrorism, but never reached the level or an insurgency. Some people in the South still hold a grudge against the Yankees, but Southerners in general are among the most overtly patriotic people in the U.S. So even at its worst, democracy is better than the alternatives.
OOOOHH, Jack, saying the Civil War was provoked by slavery is gonna get the gunrack, tobacco chewing, Rebel Flag flying Bubba’s on you like inconsistencies in a Bush speech! Being from VA. you must know better than that.
Posted by: ray at March 29, 2005 08:08 PMSo even at its worst, democracy is better than the alternatives.
Except when it produces a fundamentalist Islamic government.
As a society, we need to decide what is more important to us, allies or democracies. They usually go hand-in-hand, but not always, and a popularly elected government in most Middle Eastern countries today would produce an enemy, not an ally.
So, do we support democracy and freedom even if it creates an enemy? Or do we support democracies only if we like the result of the democratic process? Is our support of democracy around the world really a realpolitik way of trying to turn these countries into allies?
I don’t know what should be more important. Both are vital, but I’m afraid we’re going to have to choose between them soon, and the political arguments within America on it will be ugly.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 11:42 AMLawnBoy, you’re right, but there’s no need for Bush to hurry the decision. Especially in the case of Egypt. That’s a false choice. The status quo has held for more than 50 years, it’ll hold until we make sure ME citizens won’t vote for the Islamists.
And watch out. Some joker will claim that if you support authoritarian regimes that are keeping jihadists in check, it means you have to sell them F-16s. ;)
condi and bush are pentrating the world. you can’t deny they some gangstas
Posted by: CMurda at March 30, 2005 12:49 PMWe have spread this topic on both sides of the blog. But I will respond here too.
We may not have the choice between democracy and allies anyway. Remember Iran? We bet on the strongman and got the theocracy anyway.
And I am not advocating immediate imposition of democracy all over the place; just that we set it up as a goal for all nations and act in a consequent fashion. When Reagan decided that the Soviet Union need no longer be a fixture of the world system, the experts thought he was crazy and dangerous. He didn’t (couldn’t) immediately impose his will, but he was relentless in pursuit of the goal. The oppressed people of E. Europe loved him for it. It is no coincidence that the only place in the Middle East (besides little Kuwait) where the population seems to like Americans is Iran. And we are least well liked in the places that we most support.
Jack, why don’t we try out democracy in the US first?
Anyways, what does this have to do with Condi?
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 10:48 PMZeek, Condi made the idiotic statement,
“Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater – let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn’t as if the status quo was stable the way that it was.”
Putting jihadists in charge of the Middle East is NOT better than the alternative, and the status quo has been maintained for 50 years. She’s just rationalizing an explanation for a dangerous ideological adventure.
Jack doesn’t want to impose democracy everywhere immediately because he’s reasonable. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is pushing hard for it because they need to seize the moment for their wacko far-left, save the world, ideology of global interventionism before Americans wise up and kick ‘em out on their sorry social fundamentalist butts.
“They can have any form of government they choose – as long as they get to choose. And if they get to choose freely – and get to change their minds - it will meet my definition of the will of the people. That is the side I want to be on. I think we can risk the consequences, because the alternatives are worse.”
Jack,
Please explain to me the difference between a freely elected, totalitarian theocracy, and a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship.
Frankly, I can’t see the lesser of two evils here.
Posted by: Rocky at April 1, 2005 10:21 AMRocky
The key is in what you quoted – that they get to change their minds.
The danger for new democracies is that they can be one man, one vote, one time. In that case they are not democracies by definition. The most important practical (as opposed to moral) reason we protect individual liberties is to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Maybe people will elect a theocracy. Frankly, if it works it will be okay. I don’t think that it can. Theocracies lack the worldly wisdom to run a country. After a short time, the people would elect someone else. A good example is Iran. When the Islamic government first came in, it is likely they would have won in an open election. If an open election was held today, they would surely lose.
Can democracy produce bad results? It sure can. But we don’t have a zero option.
I read this today by Victor Davis Hanson. It sums up my thoughts better than I do,
“No, the dilemma was an exclusively autocratic Arab Middle East. It was a mess where every bankrupt and murderous notion — Soviet-style Communism, crack-pot Baathism, radical pan-Arabism, lunatic Khadafism, “moderate” monarchy, old-style dictatorship, and eighth-century theocracy — had been tried and had failed, with terrible consequences well before September 11.
“Only democracy was new. And only democracy — and its twin of open-market capitalism — offered any hope to end the plague of tribalism, gender apartheid, human-rights abuses, religious fanaticism, and patriarchy that so flourished within such closed societies.
It was not just idealism but rather abject desperation that fueled the so-called neoconservative quest to try something new”
Maybe people will elect a theocracy. Frankly, if it works it will be okay.
Aack!
As for the Hanson quote, I guess making Osama bin Laden king of the pan-Arab Caliphate might be a good idea too. It’s a new idea, right? And based on recent elections, it’s a lot more likely than a liberal democracy. Even Condi says so.
“Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater – let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point?”
