Willravel

I'm not an idiot. I know that democracy isn't a magical governmental system that brings with it morality, western ideals, and reliable stability. I snicker when members of the political right taut "bringing democracy" to countries as the ultimate good, in the ultimate best interest of the US and her allies because I know how absurd it is. I remember the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Hamas, an organization linked with what's colloquially known as "terrorism", or more specifically armed resistance and active violence to attain political and social goals, was elected into power in a free and democratic election. They won fair and square, through democracy; democracy, that great and all curing medicine.

Unfortunately, the idea of democratizing the Middle East has become a part of the agenda of both the Coke and Pepsi parties. I expect nutty things from Palin and McCain, but I swear it's a part of the Obama/Biden ticket, too. We have no choice, America has to choose someone that wants to spread democracy like a preacher spreads his religion; indiscriminately.

The obvious problem is that which I described above with Palestine: the West has been interfering with and killing the Middle East on and off since the Crusades. The US alone is responsible for several regime changes, allying with murderous dictators, sparking wars, and even arming both sides of wars. A lot of perfectly reasonable people in the Middle East don't like us, and for good reason.

As a typical far lefty, I often find myself arguing on behalf of absent Arab interests in debates about the Middle East and blame. I'm sure plenty of people here on TFP even think I'm anti-Israel because I end up on that side so often. At the end of the conversation or debate, it's me citing horrible things that Israel, the UN, the League of Nations, the UK, or the US has done. Something that I never get to bring up, though, is that I absolutely do not want to force democracy on the Middle East. It's the king of stupid ideas. Why? Democracy generally bring with it more a stable economy. Democracy generally brings with it a better funded government. What do you suppose that would mean in Iran, a place we've demonized for the past 20 years? Well first off it would bring with it a bigger stronger, and higher tech military. It would make bribing their officials more difficult. It would make Iran's neighbors (especially Iraq) more scared. What it wouldn't do is erase 60 years of the US sticking our nose into their business; it wouldn't undo the wars, regime changes, threats and deaths.

Instead of getting an ally, we may very well get a stronger adversary and a less stable region. Israel would be scared shitless, with their finger perpetually on the trigger of their nuclear arsenal. Iranian interests would likely spread through other Arab nations like wildfire (substantially more than they do now). Iran may even begin careful expansionism. We're already concerned that part of Iraq will become part of Iran. Iran could even forge together the MEU, the Middle Eastern Union. Care to take a guess at what oil prices might look like for the US then? They could switch all Arab oil over to the Euro, the Rupel, or even the Yen.

My point is, maybe we should all sit down and talk about things like Middle East democratization before it becomes bi-partisan dogma (if it's not too late already).

Thoughts?

mcgeedo

My first thought is: "What are the alternatives?"

I suppose we could leave them to their own devices, and deal with whatever forms of government evolve (or might be imposed upon them from other, less altruistic countries). I'm specifically thinking of abandoning Iraq to whatever Iran might have in mind for it.

Would you, as a self-described "far lefty" espouse that, or do you have something else in mind?

Willravel

Myriad. With Iran, the best option is clearly to butt out. If they're attacking someone, we blow up their military installations, but demonizing them every 3 seconds only galvanizes anti-west sentiment. Iranians hate the US because we won't leave them alone. Americans probably aren't really happy about the idea of war with Iran. You'd think the best option would be obvious.

With Saudi Arabia, we actually have more stability with a monarchy than we would with democracy. That kinda demonstrates my point.
Are we talking Iraq now or 10 years ago?

If we're talking about the late 90s, then the best option is to keep supporting and nudging the UN. The inspectors were clearly doing a good job, and Saddam had steadily been losing power since Desert Storm. The time to step in would have been when there was an eventual uprising. Peacekeepers move in when it looks like Saddam is either about to commit genocide or is about to lose. We control the situation, but with an exit strategy already in place. We stay for maybe a month to calm things down and clean it up, like Desert Storm.

Now? Well that's easy. Withdrawing troops, which are an inflammatory presence, will likely cool hatred towards the west. We go on our hands and knees to allies and the UN and beg for forgiveness and help, and an international, truly multi-lateral solution is sought.

dksuddeth

one of the things that should be remembered about a country that is controlled by it's people is that the people will always look out for their own best personal interests. What that would mean is, that while they would indeed have a better economy and better funded government/military, they will seek to insure that their lives and prosperity isn't jeopardized by prurient interests of an overbearing government.....that is until their political ideas get split in to extremist left/right/centrist ideologies.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Yes, but anti-westism isn't a government phenomena. That kinda thing is systemic.

dksuddeth

anti-westism is something to worry about, however, most of the 'anti' sentiment is split between two factions. Those of the older gens and the radical youth. If the majority youth were empowered, you would probably see a bit of difference. just my opinion anyway.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Forgive the conservative-esque response, but isn't it the youth with bombs strapped to their chests?

dlish

will, not sure how well versed you are in the shiite/sunni doctrines and how compatible they really are.

they are chalk and cheese. you cant fathom how far away in the spectrum they are from each other. this is especially the case with the saudi wahhabi government and the shiite iranians. if there was a comparison between the two i would haveto say it would be similar to the protestant and catholics in northern ireland. except it would be a lot worse if these guys lived inthe same country.

the only reason that iran would 'take over' any part of iraq is if the shiite majority let it. and even at that, you would be hard pressed to find places like Fallujah submitting to the whims of the iranians anytime soon.

i dont think any country should be 'let go'. some sort league needs to be set up to liase with the west. led by someone that can take the iranians under their wing. possibly a western friendly nation, a non arab like iran - the turks. a country with enough cleat and power in the world, a country fairly large that isnt dwarfed by irans size.

but you are right about the saudis - they are more stable as they are. theres a lot of people in the arab world that would like to see the back of them sooner rather than later.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Willravel

I dunno about the Turks. Clearly it can't be a strong ally of the USSR or the US, but the Turks don't exactly have a sterling reputation among the Persians or the Arabs. I'd suggest Pakistan, but they're an unholy mess right now. Truthfully, the Saudi's are likely the US's best bet as an intermediary, though the monarchy isn't that well respected.

I'm not a Muslim, nor do I have a particularly keen understanding of interdenominational relations on a one-on-one level in Arab or Persian countries, but we've seen Sunnis and Shiites set aside differences to deal with an outside threat.

dksuddeth

yes, thats the part of that 'radical' youth I was talking about. you don't see many of them, so how do the other youths feel?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

highthief

And, there's the answer. Democracies need to evolve and their existence really needs to be brought about by the people in order for the roots to grow deep. Sometimes nations need to be ruled by strongmen as they grow.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

mcgeedo

will, you make a very good point about Saudi Arabia. At the same time the home of a more radical Islamic sect and a stable, fairly peaceful country. Good point.

thief, you also make a good point. Democracies only flourish when the populace is the driving force behind it.

I'll think, and post more later.

Charlatan

The US is not interested in fostering democracies. The US is only interested (and historically has only been interested) in creating client states. If that means supporting a dictatorship, so be it. This latest push for democratization is all about optics first and an attempt to mitigate blowback second.

Since the days of Mossadegh in Iran and Arbenz in Guatamala, the US has systematically taken down democratically elected leaders. They have done so either directly as in the case of them or indirectly as Allende in Chile. In all cases, the depots that came after were granted massive loans from organizations like the IMF, World Bank or USAID... massive loans that made them further indebted to US interests. The loans were always big enough that they would inevitably default and be forced to make concessions to US interests (usually oil and resource based interests).

This is not a new story. I see no reason for it to change.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

That's the ultimate point, Charlatan. In attempting to "bring freedom" we're creating blowback. And it's getting worse.

dlish

i dont see Iran becoming a bosom buddy to Pakistan. the US wont allow it with the threat that the two will have more nuclear capabilities. coupled with what you already mentioned that the pakistanis are in a political mess right now, and if a nutcase was to usurp power during that time, it may well backfire. and the chickens may really come home to roost

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Willravel

So then the Saudis? I know Saudi Arabia has a Sunni majority and Iran has a Shia majority, but they're both the closest thing in the world to being theocracies. So they'd have something to talk about.

Charlatan

The Saudis are Arabs... the Iranians are Persians.

They don't trust each other.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

iran could be negociated with. they've been inclined to be pissy with the us because the americans backed the shah, who was not at all a swell guy. the americans trained savak, the shah's secret police, which brutally suppressed any political opposition to the shah--the only spaces that savak did not work in were the mosques, which not surprisingly became centers of political opposition to the shah. the revolution was not surprising, but it was more complicated than it's outcomes, and this little potted story would have you think---the point is that the relation with iran is a form of blowback too. but the iranians are and have been interested in a different kind of relation with the united states despite ahmadinjehad, who has been a political weak president that has used dickwaving in the direction of israel and the united states to prop himself up. all that's required to ameliorate things with iran is a saner approach.

israel/palestine is another matter altogether. that is obviously the source of much trouble for the states in the region. given how locked into place american policy seems to have been, and how biden and palin were falling all over each other to demonstrate their "love of israel" in the debates, and given what i've read from obama, i don't see any pressure any time soon t0, say, start dismantling the settlements or end the brutal occupation or change the situation relative to gaza...

as for "democratization"---like charlatan said, american policy has reduced it to a meme. its a shame, too. but it is as it is. i don't think the americans are in much of a position to sit down and talk to anyone about how to run themselves, particularly not at the moment. and if another republican administration somehow gets into power, the us won't be in such a position for a long time.

we're boxed in by a long history of hypocrisy in relation to the term "democracy". more blowback. i don't see how you can wish that away. and it's a Problem.

best we can hope for, i think, is obama to be elected and the theater of change to have some effect. maybe if the us is forced to change its direction more broadly as a function of the ongoing economic fiasco and to reconsider its foreign policy as this "globalizing capitalism" charade becomes something else, new possibilities will emerge. it's hard to say. one can hope, i guess.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite