First, I want to stipulate that I do not really believe the surface level argument of the neo-conservatives that they stand for democratic reforms throughout the Islamic world. It’s a complicated issue and I don’t mean to suggest that all neo-conservatives are disingenuous. But I come down on the side of those that see their rhetoric as, in the main, dishonest. I honestly think that they are most interested in ‘creative destruction’ and the money that a ‘war on terror’ creates for the national security industry. Having said that, I don’t deny that there is a basic appeal to their rhetoric. Robert Kagan has a classic piece of the genre in today’s Washington Post. Kagen appeals to all the liberal heartstrings and hits all the right notes. Here’s an example:
Today, Pakistan’s Gen. Pervez Musharraf is playing the old game, as is Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, and it appears to be working. Substitute radical Islamists for communists, and the pitch is the same: Apres moi, le deluge. If you force me out, the radical Islamists will win. And Musharraf is busily trying to ensure that this is the only option. He cracks down on moderates with good democratic credentials, and with far greater zeal than he has cracked down on al-Qaeda. If he can hold on long enough, he may so radicalize the opposition that no reasonably moderate alternative will be available.
This is one of the many flaws of “liberal autocracy.” Dictators are not good shepherds, leading their flock Moses-like to the promised land of democracy. When the choice is between the good of the country and continued rule, the autocrat almost always chooses himself. To prove that he is irreplaceable, he must destroy the opportunity to replace him, which means destroying or hobbling independent institutions, undermining the rule of law, pushing the population toward extremism — in short, doing the opposite of what the mythical “liberal autocrat” is supposed to do.
There is so much to agree with. Haven’t progressives made a living criticizing the foreign policy of the Establishment as a cynical game where lip service is paid to human rights while we cuddle up to brutal dicatators?
Unfortunately, this is a false dichotomy. While the left-wing critique of U.S. foreign policy remains valid, it does not follow that the answer to every foreign policy challenge is a free and fair election. Egypt, for example, would not elect a government favorable to U.S. or Israeli interests. Neither would Saudi Arabia. And we have already learned in the Bush years that Lebanaon, Palestine, and Iraq would not do so either. In fact, our foreign policies are deeply unpopular and sustaining support for them requires that Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia not allow free and fair elections.
My personal opinion is that our policies are flawed, not the concept of democracy. But the neo-conservatives have this strange idea that they espouse, that the Muslim world would embrace our policies if only they were free to vote on them. Frankly, that idea is insane.
We can’t change our policies overnight. And, therefore, we can’t promote democracy everywhere and think it will advance our interests. Things are more complicated. Pakistan is the perfect example.
I favor democracy and human rights everywhere, but as an ideal, not as some magic tonic that makes U.S. imperialism suddenly palatable to the people that oppose our policies.
This isn’t cynicism. It’s realism. The Republicans used to stand for that. No more.
Spot on.
The idea that the United States is the source of all that is good in Democratic government for others is the root of our problem and it flows from the idea we know better than the people affected what is good for them.
That belief and our intervention in Latin America for the past one hundred years has been a source of untold suffering for the people of that unfortunate continent.Using the control we have exercised over the dictators installed at our behest, our financial institutions and corporate interests have literally looted latin countries causing a prosperous country like Argentina to go bankrupt.
For the first time in a century Latin America has exercised its will and true democracy has emerged in that continent.Not unsurprisingly, there is no room for the US or its tainted lackeys in this new order.People like Chavez, Morales, Kirchner and Lula are leading the resurgence of that continent with Chavez and Lula leading the establishemnt of a Latin bank to replace the World Bank and the IMF.
Our discourse on matters concerning Middle East are always poisoned by the likes of Robert Kagan and William Kristol who represent only one point of view, that of Israel.For those who don’t know whereof Mr.Kagan speaks one need go no further than his chapter titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses in the PNAC document.In that document Mr.Kagan and Mr.Kristol advocate the development of viruses that attack specific genotypes (read Arabs).If any evidence for their lunacy were needed that would suffice IMO.
With that qualification, I would agree that Mr.Mubarak and Mr.Musharraf have their own axes to grind just as Mr.Sharon at one time and Mr.Olmert now have their own.The Muslim nations have to perform a service for the US Empire in order to be reimbursed because they do not have a powerful Lobby like the AIPAC representing them, which can squeeze out taxpayer dollars like clockwork year after year.So the trained seals like Mubarak and Musharraf play the only card that can win for them and that is to raise the specter of Islamic Terrorism after they are dethroned.This was the same ploy used by many dictators who invoked the Communist Menace for many decades.
Like a rich man who cannot understand why or how poor people behave and what motivates them, we stumble from one “expert” to another searching for answers and wind up with the likes of Robert Kagan who know what appeals to the ego of the US and are willing to dissemble for Dollars.We will continue in this vein for several decades more until the whole masquerade is ended by the people of the region like the latin people have done.
Now, I’m having a long week and my mental powers, never the best, are being further degraded by the start of a cold, but it sounds awfully like you’re endorsing the idea that if countries aren’t going to elect pro-US government then they shouldn’t have democracies?
If you had principles as a nation, surely you’d promote democracy even if it wasn’t in your short-term national interest?
Realism sounds like sacrificing principles for short-term gain and long-term complete fucking disaster: see US foreign policy (followed closely by even more stupid European foreign policy which too often consists of sacrificing principles for short-term US gain ..)
you suck.
there is a difference between promoting democracy/democratic ideals, and forcing it on a country.
when you have palestinians elect their leaders, they vote in hamas.
do i wish we could spread democracy all over the world?
sure.
but if you do it at gunpoint, the voters are going to elect people who hate you.
It is actually more than that.Our track record over the past six decades has throughly alienated most of mankind including those who live in countries that we call our allies.No one likes us or our policies anymore, and they are even less impressed with our economic and technical achievements.
We want to be evaluated on the basis of what we say while the rest of the world sees what we do and recoil in horror.
We do not believe in democracy unless it furthers our hegemonic needs.Our talk says democracy while instincts are totalitarian to the core.
The world has wised up to our hypocrisy and it is a tough road when people are aware.
I would characterize our postwar polcies as one continuous war against the poor, the weak and the brown skinned.Tell me I am wrong.
Our political system may be (or may have been) democratic, but our economic system is autocratic & tyrannical to the core. And that is the thing that most people from other nations have their most intimate contact with-American Capitalist Corporations.
Sure, they vote for Hamas. So let Hamas rule: either they’ll be effective rulers or they won’t get elected next time.
the neo-cons assume that in a democracy people will vote in ways that favor u.s. interest, even when voting for the pro-u.s. position does not serve the interest of the people in that country.
what i can’t figure out is why they keep making this error. either they don’t understand one of the most basic features of democracy–that people are expected to vote for their own interest not someone else’s– or they don’t understand that different countries have different interests than the u.s.
either way, it reveals a rather two dimensional view of things.
The neocons are essentially Israeli supporters.Anything that furthers the interests of the State of Israel is what they prefer.
They want to merge the interests of the US and Israel so that the two become indistinguishable in people’s minds.
As for other countries,the idea of bringing Democracy to them is a sham that the Neocons invented to aid in the transformation of the Middle East to further Israeli interests.They have no more interest in bringing Democracy to Arab countries than giving equality to their own Arab citizens.The slogan sounds good to American ears and that is why it is employed.
Lastly, the Neocons are disciples of a philosopher/liar called Leo Strauss who advocated that the Elite (that’s people like him,Robert Kagan,William Kristol,Wolfowitz,Perle,Ashcroft and others) have the right to lie to the masses to advance their political agenda.
That is why we are in the fix we are in today.
No, we’re in the fix we’re in today because generations of “strategists” in the US and the West™ have consistently dumped principles for short-term gains.
The neo-cons are only the latest, and rather more evil and incompentent than usual, incarnation of this.
I do not think the United States ever really had any principles to speak of.It has always done what is expedient in the short term.
The principles you speak of adorn books but the operating impulse is always the underhanded deal with a dictator or a strong man.Why else would a man like Chavez who has put himself up for elections more times than George Bush and won by huge landslides be called a dictator by the WaPo and NYT. That is because Chavez dances to a different tune than what they want.
Simple,no?Like Rafael Nadal would say.
“The neocons are essentially Israeli supporters.Anything that furthers the interests of the State of Israel is what they prefer.”
We probably should adopt a policy of supporting only states whose basic constitutions would permit them to become a part of the United States. Hence any state which incorporates peculiar advantages for any particular group would automatically not be eligible. At least this would provide a benchmark for determining whether or not we should heavily invest in that particular state. If some old friends fall outside that boundary, then we’ll need to speak with them, and I realize this might include some of our oldest European allies.
Republican ceased being about reasonable things long ago. They used to be about conservative spending, small government, and minimal meddling in everybody’s business – just advocating for good trade policy and stable governments to do business with.
Where did they go?
Today we have a Republican party that believes in the theory that Republicans are the rulers of the planet. They believe that any American that doesn’t lick Bush’s boots is a traitor, and that every world government should bow down and pay hommage to the king of the planet – Bush. They believe that they are right, and that if you are not 100% on-board, you are simply wrong and have to be stopped or bent.
Neo-cons are simply the “face” of the NEW Republicans.
Money quote:
“…the neo-conservatives have this strange idea that they espouse, that the Muslim world would embrace our policies if only they were free to vote on them. Frankly, that idea is insane.”
Yes it is, and that’s why, as far as I’m concerned, the question of whether the neocons are sincere or not, or which ones are and which ones aren’t, is secondary. The real question is whether they are sane or insane.
But they have an even more insane idea. You make a distinction between the theory of “creative destruction,” and democracy. But for the neocons there is no real distinction. They believe, more generally, that DESTRUCTION of existing conditions will CREATE the conditions for the flourishing of democracy. Much emphasis has been put on the neocons’ philosophical debt to Leo Strauss, or to Trotsky, but the real origin of this particular idea is the left-Hegelian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876).
The theory of creative destruction has been best articulated by Michael Ledeen. And guess what? Turns out that Ledeen wrote his master’s thesis at the University of Wisconsin on… Mikhail Bakunin.
After the historical experiences of the 20th century, I think anybody who espouses such a theory must have strong psychopathic tendencies.
yes, by all means, let’s be realistic… of course, any attempts to BE realistic should, one would hope, be based on the truth which, as we know, is a commodity in short supply these days… i was recently introduced to john pilger, certainly not a household name in the united states… i have to confess, after watching his entire documentary, The War on Democracy, i was impressed with his thoroughness, his articulateness, and his ability to present a large slice of western hemisphere history, from the 50s to present day, in a comprehensible chronology, connected solidly to facts, and all in the context of basic humanity… he’s obviously been at it for a long time… the documentary is available on youtube in ten parts, the first one at this link… check it out… it will add a considerably larger slice of “realism” to your thanksgiving platter…
Thanks for the john Pilger link.The documentary was very edifying.
I was familiar with pilger’s written work but did not know of him as a documentary maker.It adds an extra dimension to his talents,which are considerable.
Even as the United States abandons the values embedded in our history and our Constitution, people who are oppressed by our agents and our lackeys are discovering for themselves those same values and are laying down their lives for those values.
These are the people against whom this country has been waging a relentless war for the past six or seven decades while letting our media demonize them as our enemies.
As I have stated in one of my previous posts, we can think of our postwar history as a continuous war against the poor,the weak,the detitute and the brown skinned.This is the realization Martin Luther King Jr.was talking about at Riverside Church in New york before he was assassinated.
Thanks for bringing this powerful work of John Pilger to the BooTrib Forum.
Egypt, for example, would not elect a government favorable to U.S. or Israeli interests.
Are you concerned about what’s good for America or good for Israel, Booman? The two are not the same. Make up your mind.
It is unheard of (with this one exception) that a great power should build its foreign policy according to the interests of a tiny foreign country on the other side of the globe (which routinely acts against the great power’s interests), which is exactly what you seem to be proposing.
This is all part of being realistic.
Our relationship with Egypt is based in two main precepts. Up to just before the 1973 war, Egypt was solidly in the Soviet camp. They broke with the Soviets in part because they needed freedom of action to attack Israel and they didn’t feel like they were getting the kind of support for the USSR that they deserved. Therefore, they kicked all the Soviet military advisers out of the country before they attacked Israel.
The U.S. them pulled off a double whammy. We convinced Egypt to become our client state, permanently denying them to the Soviets. Then we got them to agree to peace treaty with Israel in exchange for getting the Sinai peninsula back.
Excellent work on our part.
We have an investment in maintaining that success. From the beginning, there were radicals that were completely hostile to the relationship. They killed Sadat and they created Egyptian Islamic Jihad, run by Ayman al-Zawahiri.
This group is mainly concerned with toppling the Mubarak regime (which might be a laudable aim) and replacing it with a militantly Islamist anti-western, anti-Israeli regime (which is not).
It’s a mistake to look at this is purely a matter of Israel’s security. We have an investment in a policy that has been in place since the Camp David accords.
The problem with the policy is Israel’s actions since the Camp David Accords have made a mockery of the Egyptians, who look impotent and naive in the eyes of their people. Add to this the repression required by the Egyptian government to keep discontent in check, and you develop a situation where democracy will bring a hostile backlash rather than moderating the views of the population.
Over the long-term, it would best for us if the Egyptian people were to develop a democratic system. But they will never approve of our current policies in Israel. So, we need to solve the Israeli-Palestine question first, because a democratically elected Egyptian government would make it harder, infinitely so, to get a solution in Israel/Palestine.
The neo-cons act as though we can do this the other way around. We can’t.