0
   

Calling All Democrats

 
 
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 07:33 am
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 10, 2005

In the past week, I've received several e-mail notes from Democrats about the Iraq elections, or heard comments from various Democratic lawmakers - always along the following lines: "Remember, Vietnam also had an election, and you recall how that ended." Or, "O.K., the election was nice, but none of it was worth $100 billion or 10,000 killed and wounded." Or, "You know, we've actually created more terrorists in Iraq - election or not."

I think there is much to criticize about how the war in Iraq has been conducted, and the outcome is still uncertain. But those who suggest that the Iraqi election is just beanbag, and that all we are doing is making the war on terrorism worse as a result of Iraq, are speaking nonsense.

Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.

Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day.

Here are four things Democrats should be excited about:

What Iraq is now embarking on is the first attempt - ever - by the citizens of a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state to draw up their own social contract, their own constitution, for how they should share power and resources, protect minority rights and balance mosque and state. I have no idea whether they will succeed. Much will depend on whether the Shiites want to be a wise and inclusive majority and whether the Sunnis want to be a smart and collaborative minority.

There will be a lot of trial and error in the months ahead. But this is a hugely important horizontal dialogue because if Iraqis can't forge a social contract, it would suggest that no other Arab country can - since virtually all of them are similar mixtures of tribes, ethnicities and religions. That would mean that they can be ruled only by iron-fisted kings or dictators, with all the negatives that flow from that.

But - but - if Iraqis succeed in forging a social contract in the hardest place of all, it means that democracy is actually possible anywhere in the Arab world.

Democrats do not favor using military force against Iran's nuclear program or to compel regime change there. That is probably wise. But they don't really have a diplomatic option. I've got one: Iraq. Iraq is our Iran policy.

If we can help produce a representative government in Iraq - based on free and fair elections and with a Shiite leadership that accepts minority rights and limits on clerical involvement in politics - it will exert great pressure on the ayatollah-dictators running Iran. In Iran's sham "Islamic democracy," only the mullahs decide who can run. Over time, Iranian Shiites will demand to know why they can't have the same freedoms as their Iraqi cousins right next door. That will drive change in Iran. Just be patient.

The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The greatest restraint on human behavior is not a police officer or a fence - it's a community and a culture. Palestinian suicide bombing has stopped not because of the Israeli fence or because Palestinians are no longer "desperate." It has stopped because the Palestinians had an election, and a majority voted to get behind a diplomatic approach. They told the violent minority that suicide bombing - for now - is shameful.

What Arabs and Muslims say about their terrorists is the only thing that will protect us in the long run. It takes a village, and the Iraqi election was the Iraqi village telling the violent minority that what it is doing is shameful. The fascist minority in Iraq is virulent, and some jihadists will stop at nothing. But the way you begin to drain the swamps of terrorism is when you create a democratic context for those with good ideas to denounce those with bad ones.

Egypt and Syrian-occupied Lebanon both have elections this year. Watch how the progressives and those demanding representative government are empowered in their struggle against the one-man rulers in Egypt and Syria - if the Iraqi experiment succeeds.

We have paid a huge price in Iraq. I want to get out as soon as we can. But trying to finish the job there, as long as we have real partners, is really important - and any party that says otherwise will become unimportant.

source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,202 • Replies: 70
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 07:43 am
The smart democrats, like Biden and Leiberman, have already figured this out.

The far left wing nuts, like Boxer, Pelosi, Kerry, I do not believe have the guts to abandon their positions and admit they were wrong.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 07:50 am
While I certainly agree that a good outcome in the Iraq elections will help our chances against terrorism and help us get out of Iraq sooner than later, I disagree with this statement.

Quote:
Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.


Certainly spending that money and effort on brokering a just peace between Israel and Palestine would have had a much much bigger impact on terrorism than the path we chose. It appears that somebody in the whitehouse may know this now, I just wish they'd figured it out before.

And, I still kind of like Rumsfeld.
0 Replies
 
Dezaad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:11 pm
Iraq - still a huge gamble
While it is true that a successful, true democracy in Iraq would be a fantastic outcome for all of the reasons mentioned here in this thread and more, it was an incredibly ill-advised gamble.

If it is successful, I will consider the outcome to be the luck of the draw. Lucky, in the sense that it is far more likely that democracy will fail there, and Iraqis will have beat the odds. Iraq is not Turkey, and is completely unprepared for democracy. Unfortunately, if democracy succeeds there now, the true odds will have to be demonstrated through more stupid adventures undertaken by emboldened neo-cons.

That said, the thread originator brings up a point that should be well taken: "We're there, it would be great if it succeeded in its most noble aspects, so lets devote our energy into getting it to that unlikely place."
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 05:21 am
Free elections doth not a western civilisation make.

Should the elections be absolutely free and unbiased (which of course they were not, that hasn't even been achieved in America), then most likely some psychotic islamic guy would end up in charge.

That would hardly improve matters.

Ten years from now, once the american army is gone the psychotic islamic guy would de-establish elections, or at least pervert them beyond "free". Twenty years later we'd be back exactly where we were.

If you throw a hand-grenade into a messy room it won't re-arrange everything neatly onto shelves. War has radically changed things, but it's a difficult instrument to control precisely. In order for this mission to be successful it will require as much scalpel work as swordplay.

A war could have been useful for reducing terrorism and altering global politics. Yet this one was handled badly and will not yield positive results.

A pity really.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 07:29 am
theantibuddha wrote:
A war could have been useful for reducing terrorism and altering global politics. Yet this one was handled badly and will not yield positive results.

A pity really.

You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 11:16 am
OMG, my neighbor might own a gun and be planning to use it. For that reason, my decision to shoot him is exactly correct since I might be saving lives.

Yep, makes COMPLETE SENSE to me.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:02 pm
parados wrote:
OMG, my neighbor might own a gun and be planning to use it. For that reason, my decision to shoot him is exactly correct since I might be saving lives.

Yep, makes COMPLETE SENSE to me.


That makes sense to you? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 10:56 pm
parados wrote:
OMG, my neighbor might own a gun and be planning to use it. For that reason, my decision to shoot him is exactly correct since I might be saving lives.

Yep, makes COMPLETE SENSE to me.

Bad analogy. First of all you'd have to know that your neighbor was a very bad criminal who had murdered many people, you'd have to know that he had owned a gun before, and that he had given his word that he had gotten rid of it, but was a known liar. Then come up with a gun that can kill 100,000 people with one shot and wound a few hundred thousand more, and you have your analogy.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 08:07 am
When you guys can name ONE crime that Saddam committed in the last 5 years or one person he gassed in that time frame. Then perhaps you can attack my analogy.
But to claim that he has a weapon that can kill 100,000 people with one shot shows how far out of touch with reality you really are.

The fact of the matter is that there was no evidence of Saddam using a weapon that was banned after they were banned.

Gee let me rephrase my analogy. I know my neighbor had a machine gun before machine guns were illegal but he never proved to me he got rid of it after it was illegal for him to have it. Ergo.. I can KILL him.

Funny how when I put it in those terms it makes Bush's attack of Iraq sound silly. But you don't dare admit that it WAS because you would have to admit you backed the wrong horse.

Gee.. then when my neighbor offers to let me search his house. I should stop searching halfway through the search because he denies he still has the machine gun. Even though the ongoing search has revealed nothing I should still kill him. Then after I kill him I can claim I only wanted to release his family from his tyranny and it was never about the machine gun to begin with. Or maybe I can claim that my neighbor embezzeled some money and that was the reason. Or whatever other excuse you want to come up with this week for why we went into Iraq.

Dang, I didn't realize lying was a reason to overthrow a govt. When do we start the revolution here?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 09:08 am
theantibuddha wrote:
Free elections doth not a western civilisation make.


Exactly. Best point I've seen made on this subject yet. And that is so for this, but not only this reason.

Quote:
Should the elections be absolutely free and unbiased (which of course they were not, that hasn't even been achieved in America), then most likely some psychotic islamic guy would end up in charge.


If all we had to deal with in the Middle East were psychotic Islamic guys, a war or a mental hospital with anti-psychotic medication would be all it would take. But unfortunately we're dealing with malignant, culturally supported psychopathy. And it's firmly established. It will take generations to change it. GW and his neo-con friends think they can change it by force. But the old adage "it takes one to know one" doesn't seem to apply in this case.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:19 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.


So North Korea resumed its WMD program. It claims to have WMD. Millions of lives could be lost down the line. For this reason, what would you do?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:34 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
OMG, my neighbor might own a gun and be planning to use it. For that reason, my decision to shoot him is exactly correct since I might be saving lives.

Yep, makes COMPLETE SENSE to me.

Bad analogy. First of all you'd have to know that your neighbor was a very bad criminal who had murdered many people, you'd have to know that he had owned a gun before, and that he had given his word that he had gotten rid of it, but was a known liar. Then come up with a gun that can kill 100,000 people with one shot and wound a few hundred thousand more, and you have your analogy.


You forgot to mention that you must also know that your neighbor has taken pot shots at you with his .22 as you went from your car to your front door over the preceding several years.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:35 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.


So North Korea resumed its WMD program. It claims to have WMD. Millions of lives could be lost down the line. For this reason, what would you do?



Let me guess ... "NOT have invaded Iraq"? Rolling Eyes

What would you do?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 12:36 pm
parados--

You have GOT to be kidding.

You don't know about the crimes of the Hussien regime? You should do some research.

Friedman is one of the top ME writers--he's travelled extensively--and doesn't show any bias that I have been able to see. (He is an equal opportunity critic.) Not that that should prove his point completely--but a democracy in the ME is the most powerful weapon against terrorism.

Even a huge power is largely impotent against an assymetrical attack. Warfare has changed with terrorism. I know it sounds cliche--but freedom is the only weapon potent enough to slay terrorism.

Terrorism breeds in poverty, antiquity, ignorance and fear.

Modernity goes hand in hand with democracy. They will change. Terrorism will lose it's appeal.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:33 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You miss the point entirely. Since Hussein had been so misleading about his WMD and WMD programs for so long, and since he had not provided any real proof that he had disarmed despite the fact that he badly wanted sanctions removed, there was some real chance that he still had them. Had that been so, millions of lives could have been lost down the line. For this reason, the decision to invade was exactly correct.


So North Korea resumed its WMD program. It claims to have WMD. Millions of lives could be lost down the line. For this reason, what would you do?



Let me guess ... "NOT have invaded Iraq"? Rolling Eyes

What would you do?



Well, "not having done" this or that isn't really an option, right? I just wonder why people seem to be quite eager e.g. to bomb Iran (invasion seems to out of the question, I guess), but nobody seems to care about regimes that DO not only not disarm, but openly proclaim their intentions on becoming nuclear powers.
As far as I know there are hundreds of thousands of North Koreans in gulags or 'work camps'.... So if Kim isn't an evil tyrant, what is he then? On the other hand, being an evil tyrant AND having WMDs, how should we deal with him?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:37 pm
Perhaps the UN will decide to step in and...grk...hmmmkkh...heh....hehhe......HAHAHAHA!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 02:48 pm
Hahahahaha!!!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:10 pm
Lash wrote:
Terrorism breeds in poverty, antiquity, ignorance and fear.

Modernity goes hand in hand with democracy.


I'd always learned that democracy was an ancient concept. About 30 years ago in high school, we were taught that democracy was a staple of Islam before it appeared in much of Western Europe.

This fella seems to have learned the same things

Quote:
Abdallah, founder and director of the Muslim Electorates' Council of America and editor for the Minaret Monthly and Muslim Observer Weekly, then defined democracy by providing those in attendance with various examples of democratic practices in the Islamic religion.

These examples included the Constitution of Medina, the 57th clause in the Koran, which was a religious edict enacted after the verification of tribes of multiple religions including the people of Medina, Mecca, the Jews and pagans in a joint effort to ensure justice among the people.

Abdallah briefly illustrated democracy through another example: a document written to Egypt from the 4th caliph, Ali, which expressed the necessity of human rights including the right to live, the right to think, the right to personal religious practices, the right to labor, the right to family, and the right of the people to select the commander in chief, and head of state.

Abdallah's lecture demonstrates Islam and democracy as Abdallah stated that the claim of Islam was to teach, practice and follow these democratic-type systems.

However these practices became overshadowed as a result of an increase of either Militaristic or Political leadership.
link

Democracy is in trouble in many places, but I think that considering it as a modern construct is dangerously myopic. There is a good solid history for democracy in Islam. May not be the type/style of democracy 'we' want, but it's there.

Interesting points, Parados.




(if anyone's interested in other interesting forms of early democracy, I've found this site interesting <I'm going to link to the page on India and Buddhism> link )
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 03:16 pm
Which Muslim country has a democracy?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Calling All Democrats
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:32:42