Concept: Saddam ~ Noriega

[Occhidiangela]

This is a half formed idea. During the Cold War, the US allied itself with any number of dictators to oppose the USSR. Politics make bedfellows of necessity. Hell, we allied with Stalin versus Hitler, and if one had seen all the "Red Baiting" that my Dad did in the 1930's, one might have been surprised.

So, Cold War ends, GHW Bush decides that the US can no longer stay in bed with, or simply accept, a major drug kingpin as an ally in Panama, for what ever reasons. Vaya con dios, Manuel.

During Cold War, in a non-cold war tangle, US supports Saddam a bit since he is the enemy of our enemy. Cold War over, and both Bush Presidents decide, for whatever reasons, that being in bed with a dictator simply won't cut it.

Hit the road pal.

Remember South Africa. Twenty years of trade sanctions by many nations, and a hell of a lot of international pressure, and things changed. (Better or worse depends on perspective)

OK, we never were in Bed with Kim Il Sung, or Kim Jong Il, so the model does not work with them like with Noriega, but maybe for the Chinese it will. Don't know.

I ask you all:

Is the US about to embark on a more activist role in trying to influence the petty tyrants of the world that they need to step down? Is all this bruhaha in Iraq a sign that the export of the Jeffersonian (and others) Experiment will once again recommence? Will policy aims be directed as often at the actual improvement of the people's lot, as it was in the 1950's and 1960's, the great years for UN expansion, as a concrete policy aim?

We have numbers on our side. The majority of nations have no-fooling representatives governments, of varying builds. The number of potential allies in a slow and steady campaign to put an end to fascism and dictatorship, hopefully through peaceful engagement and non violent influence from many sides, should be huge.

Given that all governments act in their own interests, at what point will true international momentum be built that can be sustained so that the Kings and Generals in many parts of the world accept the model of representative government, by and for the benefit of, the governed?

I realize that I may be reaching here, but a few bits I heard about some progressives in Iran working slowly on reform there got me to thinking:

What if this is the beginning of a trend? What if, should there be some modest mutlilateral success in Iraq over the next few years, momentum builds in the Mid East and Africa?

I realize that I am dreaming, but maybe it is a worthwhile dream. What if the policy of Constructive Engagement, professed since 1989, actually grows more, not less, pervasive?

[BlackLightning]

I'm speaking from an outside point of view, so don't get mad.

You do speak some truth, despite the fact that you say it's a dream. The U.S. government could possibly rely on their famous "Domino Theory", this time aiming for more positive results. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. "Domino Theory" was proven wrong, and therefore abandoned.

However, due to changing events, it is likely that the American Senators, Generals, etc. (I don't know...?) could possibly be re-using this domino theory to achieve a positive effect. Regardless of the American success in Iraq, it is possible that George W. Bush might, and will, attempt a "reform" mission in another, nearby country.

Even though, like you said, the U.S. might have been allied with some horrible dictators in the past, George Bush has not made the mistake of allying with the Venezuelan president Chavez, who is in ties with Fidel Castro, and is mainly seen as a dictator due to his queer, and often useless, actions.

Yeah, that's pretty much all I have to say for now.
Vaya con dios amigo!

[kandrathe]

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. "Domino Theory" was proven wrong, and therefore abandoned.

Or, maybe the anti-communists won due to the US and other anti-communists taking a stand, forcing the "enemy" to expend resources fighting wars rather than expanding to other nations and proving their communist theories correct. It is hard to know exactly what would have happened if communism's spread is SE Asia had not been challenged.

Many of the world's nations are led by unscrupulous figures, which forces us to engage in many non-sequitor relationships. Due to our war on terror, we are working with Pakistan, not really a model nation and one that has been accused of nuclear proliferation. We are friendly with Saudi Arabia, the hot bed of the same Wahabi extremism that drives Osama Bin Laden.

[Jester]

"Is all this bruhaha in Iraq a sign that the export of the Jeffersonian (and others) Experiment will once again recommence?"

Given that the "Jeffersonian Experiment" was an excersize in self governance, isn't the (involuntary) export of that system a contradiction in terms?

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yeah, I noticed that too. The whole thing is a good bit more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian. Then again, not much has been Jeffersonian since the late 1780's and none of that survived the 1860's.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Given that the "Jeffersonian Experiment" was an excersize in self governance, isn't the (involuntary) export of that system a contradiction in terms?

No, take a slightly closer look at it. The battles of 'the better idea' and the 'need for it spread' has been going on for long since before the US was formed. Consider both the Enlightenment and the Reformation, both 'better ideas' that 'needed to be spread' as seen by some early adherents, or look to Islam or Christianity for that matter. Spread the better idea since it makes you better than you can be now. See also how Marxism/Communism, and its spreading as the reputed 'better idea' of its time.

When you consider that Jefferson et al thought, from a practical political perspective, that their model was the best one yet and that everyone should try it, as do most 'close to the edge' thinkers, it is logically consistent that they felt that their 'better idea' needed to be exported and so create fewer kingdoms, the enemy of representative governance, and more 'places like ours' where people in general would be more emancipated vis a vis the world order that it was juxtaposed with: autocratic rule. Now, the how of spreading, either by the idea's own inherent 'rightness' or with an assist from other elements of international interaction, would doubtless be debated.

Consider some of the rhetoric of why self governanace is right, (see the Declaration for some of the thoughts that underlie that). The idea is that all peoples should be 'governed by consent of the governed' since governments are instituted among men for some assumed beneficient reasons. In that light, the spreading of not just 'the idea,' but the practical application of the idea fits Jeffersons idea of 'what should be' versus 'what is.' He and others felt that what should be was people not being governed by kings and popes, but rather by the representative model, or variations on it, that has slowly gained currency, in various forms, over the past two or three hundred years.

So no, not a contradiction. It need not be exported via the muzzle of a gun, if that is what your question is implying. That the idea should spread. ferment and grow in new fields still meets the mechanics of export.

On the other hand, there is always the problem of selling an idea to someone on the grounds of "Hey, I am telling you this is for your own good, you really need to change XXXXXX." That dog won't always hunt, and packaging in that case is Everything.

[Occhidiangela]

You have to deal with whoever happens to be in charge, be it Venezuela or Canada, to even get a chance to 'engage' and hope to influence others in their habits.

That is hardly easy to do.

[Jester]

That was why I added the "involuntary" in brackets. Obviously, if it's such a superior model (and I think it is, generally), it should be trumpeted from every turret, broadcast on every station and shouted from every minaret.

But the people themselves have to pick up the message. If they want it, they should have it, in that order. It might conceivably work backwards, but I haven't seen it really happen. At best, it turns out to be lukewarm and easily shakeable. At worst, it just implodes.

I've always thought the Marxists (with some exceptions, like Krushchev on his better days) were blatantly contradictory on this point; if your system is inevitable, why do you have to keep insisting that it's better, backed up with the latest in military equipment? Just sit back, relax, and the proletariat will inevitably rise up, leading equally inevitably to communistic paradise.

That's the point I'm making. This war in Iraq IS at the barrel of a gun. So would be such a war in Syria. Or Iran. Or anywhere else where one has to speak of "installing" a democracy.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

That every new idea in this context 'threatens someone's rice bowl.' Repression does not permit the free flow of 'the better idea.'

I would use, as an example, the export of the French Revolution to Central Europe, and particularly the Rhineland by Napoleon, but there was already some fertile ground for receiving the principles there anyway. What Napoleon did was remove some of the obstacles. But the reaction, of course, means that those whose rice bowls are threatened DO something about it. See the Metternich System.

It seems that the only way the idea overcomes its predecessor is via force: either via war, per the first two world wars of the 20th century, or via economic and ideological war, such as the West waged vs USSR for 40+ years.

"The better idea" doesn't 'just happen' no matter its merit.

Or so it seems to me.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I doubt that Jester means to imply that a democratic form can replace a non-democratic form without some force being applied. However, a big question is whether that force is applied from the inside or the out. Now, sometimes when the force is being applied from the inside, a little external help is needed (most people have either never heard of or forgotten the help some North American colonies received from France (which was, ironically enough, a monarchy at the time :) )), but that does not change the situation.

Unless a *people* is ready to form a democratic union, forcing it on a *country* fails. The result is what we've seen over and over in Asia, in South America, in Central Europe, in Africa. What we are seeing in Afghanistan. Perhaps "democracy at the point of a bayonet" sets up conditions so that in three or so generations real democracy can thrive. Not enough cases yet to make that a safe statement, but there is a growing body of observational evidence.

Are the Iraqi people ready for democracy? That I don't know. Invariably social change occurs because a group (usually a minority) works for it and convinces a large enough percentage of the population to follow them. That that group exists in Iraq is pretty clear from the history of that country in the last dozen years ago. Whether that group is large enough, committed enough, and charismatic enough to get a popular following remains to be seen. Whether the USA gives that group the right amount of support also remains to be seen. Too little, and the group might get swamped by others wanting a more "traditional" government. Too much, and they'll be perceived as the lackeys of the USA and fail to get the popular support. The diplomatic game is finely balanced, it requires the leadership of someone that knows there are more options than "for us or against us".

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The US could use the all of the help and expertise of the following in 'getting it right.'

Poles
Czechs
Slovaks

who recently went through a significant change

Not to mention

English and Italians and Spanish

who run different but effective versions of representative governments. The Spanish in particular are only a generation away from a Junta-style government, Franco, and have IMO a great deal to offer insofar as practical advice.

Turks

who have an effective structure in place as well, all rhetoric on their human rights record vis a vis Armenians and Kurds notwithstanding.

If ever a time to trust your friends was to arise, the assistance to the folks in Iraq in crafting a home grown future on 'a better idea' is it.

Or put another way, perhaps a more 'socialist model' such as the German or Swedish model, would make more sense as an initial move forward over what some in this country would suggest 'a market based __fill in the blank.'

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, there are other models that could be implemented and at least should be considered. And, yes, there are nations with experience in implementing democratic (more or less) forms of government a lot more recent than our own. And, yes (although you didn't mention it) there are nations that can teach us a lot about getting what we want through *diplomacy* rather than force.

And if our government gives all that a chance, then the situation in Iraq might just work out all right. And that may, eventually, lead to a peaceful Mideast. And, while there are undoubtedly people in the USA who could pull it off, I don't have much faith in the administration including those people (or even listening to them).

But, time will tell.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I was thinking about that whilst watching the monument of Saddam fall this morning. But, I recall that during and after the American revolutionary war, there was a sizeable population of loyalists in the colonies. A slim majority wanted independance and so it was had at great cost. Then, an even smaller majority wanted to unite those colonies, and even then it took quite a while and some incredible state craft to do so.

[ShadowHM]

A slim majority wanted independance and so it was had at great cost.  Then, an even smaller majority wanted to unite those colonies, and even then it took quite a while and some incredible state craft to do so.

And the U.S. had an advantage there that any similar group in the Mideast is unlikely to have today.

There was a place next door where those that dissented could go, where they were welcomed, where they could build a future and where they could become citizens. A place that was not merely a base for fomenting problems for the new young country.

What are the chances of any Iraqi who dissents of having that same opportunity? It certainly has not materialized for the Palestinians, who are still stateless refugees in many countries 50+ years later. I know that the circumstances are not identical. But the point about a place to go where they are welcomed and where a future within that country is possible is accurate, I fear.

[Occhidiangela]

I listened to a speech last night by Rep Weldon from Pennsylvania.

Made a lot of sense.

Summary.

Our relationships with the Germans need not explode over this Iraq issue, as they have been a good friend for quite some time. Move forward.

Russians: Putin has not been given the support from our White House, both Clinton and Bush, that strikes the Rep as the sort of Quid Pro Quo that characterizes a healthy relationship. He points out that since Russia and US have in common a deisre to continue disarmaments, and that we both have significant terrorist threats, we need to be far warmer in our give and take with them. In short, given that Putin has not been provided any 'cover' for some of our joint efforts in the past few years, this latest stand on his part is understandable, and need not be a roadblock if we choose not to make it one.
(The rep went into great depth on Russia, as he is on the Congress-Duma working group.)

France: 40 years of 'being an unreliable ally' that go back to DeGaulle and departing from NATO military structure, when everyone else worked on team building, and Chirac having lobbied Clinton to not seek UN cover for the Kosovo bombing, and apparently his advice to cut the RUssians out of that op early on, were suggested as consistent hostility and pretty hyporcritical in light of latest moves. However, as the two scenarios are not identical, his charges on that score might be a bit harsh.

He made, I thought, a good case for being very receptive to any German and Russian overtures to involvement in Iraq when the shooting settles down.

I thought he made a pretty darned good case on how we can use this as an opportunity to warm up with the Russians, particularly as our future security is still tied to a healthy relationship with Russia and our continued joint efforts at disarmament in the NBC arena, and in global anti terrorism.

[Occhidiangela]

For the past two days, they have been going on this great harangue about the 'liberation of Iraq.' I realize that they have to fill air time, but I feel that they are missing the point.

The 'liberation of Iraq' is a collateral beneficial side effect of the mission's stated and primary aim:

Dispose of a rogue regime who defies the agreed terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and the UN directives to dispose of its NBC weapons, and programs, which pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, the stability of the region, and to a lesser extent, the world. That was the justification presented to Congress that induced sufficient bipartisan support for giving the Executive Branch the authority to go forward with coercive steps.

The initial move, that of deployment of troops in large numbers, was in poker terms a hand that Saddam bluffed. Well, one could argue that Pres Bush was hoping to bluff Saddam into compliance by the size and scope of the deployment, with its slight deja vu from 1991, a bluff that might have worked had the US been able to convice the UN to all act together. Unable to do so, they both played their hands out, in essence calling each other's bluff and letting slip the dogs of war.

The dream scenario, that the guys who had to do the fighting, the Iraqi army, would remember the arse whipping of 1991 and not sell their blood for Saddam simply did not pan out. They shot back, in the main, and many died in the process, as soldiers have been doing for years. Just like some American families have learned to their sorrow, sons and daughters of Iraqi families died in the fighting whose aim was the ending of the threat of NBC weapons being used by someone who had no scruples. (FWIW, I don't think the average Iraqi sergeant liked chem/bio suits any better than his American counterparts.)

All of this 'liberation spin' being carried by media organs will, I hope, be short lived, as it seems a bit premature and almost a bit of misdirection on the longer term challenge of uncovering the 'smoking gun.' I suspect someone in the press will remember that bit in time.

Thank goodness for Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector who Saddam was extremely suspicious of, as I recall. Ritter once again raised the issue today, amidst all of this confetti throwing:

(I am paraphrasing his points and weaving them into my own thoughts)

"Look, folks, until someone finds the gas, bio, and possibly nuke stuff that the Executive Branch presented to the Congress as why force was necessary, there is no political victory for the US in the international arena. That for external issues. If it is never uncovered, then internal political issues will explode, and Congress is gonna raise hell on both sides of the aisle the likes of which will make Watergate look like 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.' "

In battle there is collateral damage, and in war, there are collateral beneficial outcomes. The 'liberation of Iraq' which risks 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' a few years from now, is one such benefit that could be exploited if handled well, and in a thoughtful, multilateral fashion.

But I go back to old Clausewitz, who reminds us that: in War, the outcome is never final. Hell, the war aint even over yet. Why are all these folks trying to declare victory?

Do they have shorter attention spans than their audience?

Short attention span war has been done before . . . and it don't work out well in the long term. One might ask Secretary Powell about that one.