Just a thought: Now that we are opening up Afghanistan and Iraq to elected governments / democracy, what have the populations of those countries opened themselves up to?
Sure, when Iraq made some aggressive moves in the past, the world could point and blame Saddam. Considering the possibility that this democracy lasts beyond 30 years, what happens when a new generation who has grown up under American sanctions reaches the age of assuming power? What are the next steps when American resentment is what the Iraqi’s eventually choose?
This is similar to what is occuring in Palestine today. Although he is actually an elected leader, Yasser Arafat does not meet the ‘needs’ of the American/Israeli governments. It is interesting to note that while you hear the current administration treating democracy as a form of political baptism for Iraq and Afghanistan, you hear little about implementing ‘democracy’ in Palestine.
This is because a form of democracy is already in place in Palestine, it’s just not what the West wants. The West has always desired control of the Middle Eastern governments, and I fear how they will try to establish that control in a democracy.
I suppose that at the next Palestinian elections one will probably hear the voting booth respond after casting the ballot, “Invalid entry, please try again. It’s either that or get your home run over by tanks and bombs.”
Democracy will eventually lead both America and Muslim countries to a clash of the type we can only imagine. If democractic countries behave contrary to American’s goals, the only recourse is to blame the people themselves.
How much farther is blaming them from bombing them? At what point do they cease to become collateral damage, and become the target themselves? Hey, it’s one way to influence a vote. It seems that America has no issues with attacking people or turning a blind eye to a third party doing so, when they feel that ‘they voted for it’.
We’ve moved from intimidating dictators to intimdating the people.
I think we’ve ushered in a new highway to hate.
December 8th, 2004 - 2:20 pm
Respectfully, I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions which I believe are facile and predicated upon animosity between America and Muslims. Historically, two democracies have never gone to war. Never. They use trade pressure and diplomacy to resolve their problems. I further disagree that a majority or even a plurality of Iraqis have ill will toward Americans. I believe most Iraqis, like people everywhere, want to be left to their own devices to work, have a family, recreate and worship as they wish. The rest doesn’t matter. Iraq is sitting on a huge amount of oil that is going to very quickly raise the standard of living to western European/American standards. With this prosperity, people focus more on bettering their lives and the lives of their progeny more than hate or war. They may not agree with their government, but they generally bear no hatred towards the American people. Likewise the US did not simply bomb Afghanistan indiscriminately, they specifically targeted the Taliban to drive them out.
December 8th, 2004 - 2:39 pm
Two democracies have never gone to war?
Please check your facts.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
Democracies: Croatia vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: These regimes hadn’t been around long enough to qualify as a stable democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: Even so, both nations had government that had been put in place through free elections. Even Weart admits that.
Border War, 1995
Democracies: Ecuador vs. Peru.
Rebuttal: You call that a war?
Counter-rebuttal: Soldiers got killed. Yep, that’s a war.
Counter-Counterrebuttal: Also, President Fujimori of Peru had suspended the constitution in 1992, making himself a virtual dictator.
Counter-Countercounterrebuttal: Just as virtual reality isn’t reality, so a virtual dictator isn’t a dictator. It is usually considered legal for a democratic leader to exercize emergency powers in an emergency, isn’t it?
Kosovo War, 1999
Democracies: The countries of NATO vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: Milosovic was a dictator.
Counter-rebuttal: In the legislative elections of Nov. 1996, Milosovic’s supporters won a mere 64 out of 138 seats in parliament, and control of government probably would have gone to the opposition had not infighting and internal divisions prevented them from claiming their place at the helm. In 1997, Milosovic was re-elected president by a plausible margin of 59% to 38% [n.1] which suggests that these elections were not entirely rigged either. In October 2000, a soundly beaten Milosovic actually conceded defeat after an apparently free presidential election. Sure it took a week or so of prodding to get him to vacate the presidential palace, but a concession is a concession nonetheless. (and he gave in quicker than Al Gore.)
Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
Rebuttal: Those weren’t Pakistanis. They were independent, volunteer guerrilla forces operating out of Pakistan, not regular troops.
Counter-Rebuttal: A technicality, at best. A cover story at worst. According to CNN [n.2], the insurgents were stiffened by Pakistani regulars, and supported by Pakistani artillery firing over the border into the neighboring democracy of India. The nations’ air forces raided back and forth regularly.
Bad Rebuttal: And Pakistan wasn’t even a democracy anyway. I seem to recall that they had a military coup sometime around then
Counter-Rebuttal in the form of a brief summary of a rather obscure war: That came later. The Pakis were driven back to the de facto international border on 17 July after two months of war. The civilian Prime Minister was deposed in October. The 2-month death toll was 1100, according to CNN.