Catfish and Cod
Sunday, November 23, 2003
A rebuttal to "ranting lefties": II.
(Link path: comments to Healing Iraq)
You have to realize, many of the londond protester all ready realize that there will be no democracy for Iraq.
A major disconnect between the pro-war and anti-war camps is that the pro-war people believe that (1) the Administration is sincere about its announcements that Iraq will be democratized and (2) believe that democratizing Iraq is possible.
The anti-war people believe that (1) the Administration is lying and that (2) democratizing Iraq is impossible. (Or at least, that the U.S. cannot do it.)
The assumption that the Administration is lying is supposedly based solely on its record of lying about other matters:
There were reasons why the Bush admin. had so many lies to invade Iraq.
But it would make equal sense to assume the Administration is lying about, say, opposing gay marriage. What is really happening is that the anti-war camp believes that the Administration does not believe in Iraqi democracy. This assumption, in turn, is based on the historical practices of the United States. Previous Administrations have indeed supported dictatorships despite U.S. democracy rhetoric. However, Bush has indicated that this policy is over by (1) acknowledging and apologizing for the previous policy and (2) announcing a new policy of democracy proliferation.
WMD, Saddam Hussein, Democracy...those are not and will not be the reasons...Iraq is a strategic pawn in my nation's quest to position itself in the Middle East.
The Left believes sincerely that the Right operates solely on 19th-century realpolitik. Once this assumption is made, it follows directly that all claims as to other reasons must be insincere. Thus, the Left blinds itself to the possibility that such arguments, even if insincere, might be to the Left's advantage.
If a democratic Iraq were to get in the way of our new power and influence it would be a disaster...
The unspoken assumption is that "our power and influence" are for our own benefit only, i.e., for our economic benefit. George Bestern does not appear to have thought of the possibility that "our power and influence" now depend on Iraq being a democracy. This is due to the belated realization by the Right that installing a dictator is counterproductive to our power and influence. In other words, the Right has now realized that puppet regimes are not worth their cost because the puppet dictator will inevitably turn on you, or else fall to a regime that will hate you for supporting the puppet. Chile, Argentina, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan -- all of these were interfered with, and the results were uniformly bad for the U.S. The Right has now decided that such tactics do not work, and so have changed strategies.
Too bad the Left hasn't realized it yet. They still assume that Cold War policies are active, which leads them to make erroneous and foolish statements like this:
so understand and be careful...Iraq will never be democratic...that is for Public Relations reasons...sorry
Iraq will be democratic -- especially if Bush is thrown out, because a Democratic administration will be even more committed to an Iraqi democracy than the Republicans -- precisely because the PR campaign won't work if it's a sham. It has to be real. And so it will be.