Democracy Is Still A Worthy Endeavor

Weekly Standard: Al Qaeda And Bad Policies Are To Blame For Iraq Troubles, Not New Government

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Peter Wehner.

---

Two and a half years ago — in the wake of elections in Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, and especially Iraq (as well as the fall of Lebanon's pro-Syrian government) — we were witness to what became known as the "Arab Spring." Commentators were declaring President Bush's "freedom agenda" a success.

In February 2005, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared the Iraqi election a "tipping point" in Middle East history. "[W]e're seeing the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall there," Friedman said. Such unlikely voices as NPR's Daniel Schorr, the Washington Post's Jefferson Morley, and columnists in Der Spiegel and the Guardian were saying, explicitly or in essence, "Bush was right."

Today the situation looks very different. The Freedom Agenda is being criticized from almost every quarter — and the main reason is Iraq. It is said that our efforts to plant democracy there have been a colossal failure. Iraq is fractured and fragmenting, violent, and politically paralyzed. Whereas exporting democracy was once considered a worthy endeavor, many people now fear it will usher in chaos. A bumper sticker puts it this way: Be Nice to Us, or We Will Bring Democracy to You.

But Iraq's problems are not the product of democracy, and they shouldn't be laid at the feet of liberty. In fact, the causes of Iraq's difficulties lie elsewhere.

For one thing, the Phase IV (post-major combat operations) plan was deeply flawed. After 35 years of Saddam Hussein's demonic rule, Iraq was a traumatized society. In many respects, it was non-functioning. The Bush administration (in which I served) did not sufficiently anticipate this. In the aftermath of the fall of Saddam, basic order was not provided. For too long there was an aversion among some in the administration to nation-building, even though we had taken on one of the great nation-building projects in history. We tried to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces before they were ready. There was a reluctance to recognize the growing insurgency — and once we did, it took too long to put in place the right counterinsurgency strategy.

Fortunately President Bush, facing enormous political pressure to wind down the war, refused to give up on Iraq. Eventually he made wholesale changes, including embracing the idea of "the surge" earlier this year. Under the extraordinary leadership of General David Petraeus and his team, the right strategy has now been put in place. This year is turning out to be a much better year than 2006. Almost every meaningful security metric is improving. The task in Iraq remains difficult — but we now have a decent shot at a decent outcome.

Beyond that, al Qaeda made Iraq the central front in its jihadist campaign. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al Zarqawi — all non-Iraqis — pursued their strategy with cunning savagery; they successfully turned sectarian tensions into widespread sectarian violence. The presence of brutal foreign terrorists in that tortured land made a difficult situation far more challenging.

And then there is Syria — and especially Iran, which is training and financing militias, exporting weapons to Iraq, and inciting violence. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and it is earning that appellation every day in Iraq.

What happened, then, was that Iraqis emerge from decades of tyranny deeply scarred, only to be met by widespread disorder, foreign terrorists, and hostile neighbors. These factors, and not democracy, are what has made the Iraq undertaking so difficult. Tony Blair has rightly argued that if these elements had not been introduced, we would be facing a far more manageable situation.

Our efforts in Iraq did not catalyze, as George Will predicted in 2002, "a ripple effect, a happy domino effect, if you will, of democracy knocking over these medieval tyrannies." (Will added this, for good measure: "Condoleezza Rice is quite right. She says there is an enormous condescension in saying that somehow the Arab world is just not up to democracy.")

Nor did elections drain the insurgency of its hatred and convince militias to exchange bullets for ballots. But because liberty hasn't solved all of Iraq's problems doesn't mean it is responsible for them. The most stirring moments we have seen in Iraq remain the elections, which produced a constitution and a legitimate (if quite weak and imperfect) government. Elections, as well as the painstaking work of building democratic institutions, remain the pathway to progress. Most Iraqis want their freedom, and many of them are fighting valiantly to preserve it.

In the aftermath of the heady days of 2005, James Q. Wilson cautioned that it takes a long time to convert a nation accustomed to authoritarian rule — and Saddam Hussein's regime was much worse than that — into one that embraces democratic rule. A rapid transition, he wrote, has never been possible, and ought not be expected. But that doesn't mean we should halt our effort to encourage the spread of liberty. Wilson pointed out that "no nation will aggressively dominate a region if its citizens can control its foreign policy through free and democratic elections."

Nations once thought to be incapable of self-government have shown they are more than capable, even as their ways do not mirror our own. Indonesia is different from India, which in turn is different from South Korea, which in turn is different from Senegal, which in turn is different from Canada. Because Iraq has proven to be a very complicated and difficult undertaking, this does not subvert the democratic idea, any more than Germany's election in 1933, which brought Hitler to power, did. Bear in mind, too, that American democracy lived with slavery for almost a century, and it required a bloody civil war to end it. Moreover, the alternatives to freedom — whether authoritarianism, despotism, or anti-modernism — are hardly the cornerstones on which to build tranquility and prosperity. The Arab Middle East was a cauldron of violence and instability long before George W. Bush took office.

The United States helped midwife freedom in a land of tears. It was a noble undertaking, among the most noble in our history, and it is worth seeing through to completion.

[bluestardad]

AMERICA HAS BEEN BUSHWACKED!

IT IS TIME AMERICANS STAND UP AND TAKE BACK THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION!

[ianlou]

And the only people who''''re rejoicing are the folks at halliburton, currently busy building their new HQ in Dubai with the spoils of war and the blood of its victims.
Posted by jerr11

And headquartered in Dubai, not required to provide any records to the new U.S. leadership concerning their multi billion dollar Rape of the American Treasury during what we will affectionately refer to as the "Bush Junior Years".

[ianlou]

Headline: Democracy Is Still A Worthy Endeavor
Great, let try it here.

[cmnsense]

Democracy does not work in a true Islamic culture.

If their Imam says to vote a certain way, the people must vote that way, because their very hope to attain Heaven is tied to following the edicts of their Imam.

If non-Muslims vote counter to the wishes of the local community leaders, they at least to do feel their chance of an after-life is at risk.

Study the Koran and Hadith to truly understand.

[jerr11]

"Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false..."

From:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/



Old link but more relevant than ever.

[jerr11]

This war is a phoney war. It came from Halliburton''s business plan.

Look at the changing reasons why we''re there.

First it was WMD.

Then Saddam''s alleged links with al qaeda.

Then it was human rights.

Then it was to prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists.

Then it was to bring democracy to the middle east.

Enough reasons to certify Bush/Cheney Flip flops of the millenium.

So why are we in Iraq?

It''s obvious, to enrich the neocons.

[jerr11]

My problem with the war in Iraq is the way we were conned into it with lies and fake intel.

If we were told the truth, we would not be in Iraq today.

All of us understand the need for wars but we do not want one thrust upon us with lies, especially one that is so blatantly driven by oil and money.

When the main benefactor of the war (Halliburton) is its main cheerleader (********), we have a real problem.

This war is a phoney war, created exclusively to enrich the neocons.

1.9 trillion

4000 dead.

And the only people who''re rejoicing are the folks at halliburton, currently busy building their new HQ in Dubai with the spoils of war and the blood of its victims.

[j_liberte]

Democracy must come from within. It cannot be forced at gunpoint.

[nativewoman]

Yes, Democracy is a worthy endeavor or cause.

What a tragedy that Bush has done everything possible to destroy ours.

[frankson2]

BUSH AND HIS CRONIES BELONG IN ORANGE JUMPSUITS PERIOD!