http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785460,00.html "No one is saying it out loud, but the secret hope of many Iranians is that if the US army takes neighbouring Iraq, it will come and straighten out this place as well." For young Iranians, he said, the prospect of a US invasion was "nothing short of liberating". Kind of raises an intersting point, maybe Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. are opposed to US action against Saddam because it will in fact be successful and leave the people of other Middle East countries clamoring for democracy, assuming one takes hold in Iraq.
Yeah right, like we'd allow a democracy to take hold in Iraq. Just like when we freed Kuwait, right? Sure, we'd like to see democracy everywhere in theory. But the fear among the Bush camp will be that eventually, all of those democracy-rich but money-poor Iraqis will turn to the same people that everyone else in the region eventually turns to for leadership: Muslim clerics. And we'd rather have a region full of Pervez Musharrafs than Mullah Omars. So we'll give them one round of "democracy", and the winner (invariably a fine upstanding secular gentleman who speaks perfect English) will say all of the right things and invite all of the right people into the cabinet. But then they'll be a military coup where the new "President for Life" keeps the oil flowing to the West and executes his enemies. We'll hem and haw a bit about the loss of personal rights and whatnot, but really as long as gasoline stays cheap and the terrorists don't have training camps, we'll accept it.
GW is going to go down in history as the man who liberated the Middle East from oppressive dictatorships. There will be a domino effect of democracies sprouting up throughout the region. First Iraq, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia, and so on, including peaceful coexistence with Israel. Reagan wins the Cold War and GW ends the Middle East crisis. Who would've thought a couple of dunces could be so effective? Gee, and Bill's legacy will always be a stained blue dress.
I would love to see this happen, but honestly I don't think it will. Iraq has no history of democracy and doesn't have the institutions in place that are needed to underpin that kind of government. There hasn't been any serious discussion coming from the Bush administration about having elections after the next gulf war, there has only been talk about who will be installed as the next leader. So far, George the Second's policy towards the Arab countries has not been any more supportive of democracy than those policies favored by his predecessors. Take Saudia Arabia, for example. This country has one of the most repressive dictatorships in the mideast and Bush hasn't taken any steps towards promoting democracy there. No, in American foreign policy economic and strategic military interests have always trumped concerns with freedom and human rights. If the US can promote freedom and human rights without endangering its economic and military interests then it will do so. However, Iraq is clearly not a place where it can do this.
Because "liberated from oppressive dictatorships" implies some lasting semblance of democracy. I don't see that happening in Afghanistan. I don't really see that happening in Kuwait. I don't see it happening anywhere in the Middle East through "liberation". I see Iran slowly developing into a modern democracy, but that was through liberation against the United States. I don't see it happening in any countries with religious fanatacism that is incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. And I doubt we will be able to outlaw the more fanatical interpretations of Islam. So, no, I don't see us "liberating" anyone, unless it is ourselves. My hope is that the lessons we have learned from recent events is that while we should remain diligent, we should also increase our respect for the opinions and desires of other countries, and their sometimes looney people, rather than just scratching our heads until they smarten up.
Excuse me while I spit out my drink. There are two flaws with your prediction: -- The Bush administration (and most every administration for the past 40 years) don't want democracy in most of the Middle East. We like the Saudis as they are. We like King Abdullah of Jordan. We like the Sultans and Princes who continue to fill the pipeline. Why would we ever take the chance of letting their subjects vote? Sure these leaders are corrupt and oppressive and all that, but if we really cared about human rights and democracy we would invade Cuba. Status quo in the region is good for GWB. Instability and nationalism and radical forms of anti-Americanism are bad for GWB. -- The dictators who run these countries don't want to give up power. So if they don't want to leave, and GWB doesn't want to make them leave, any switch toward "democracy" in any country in the region is just dumb luck (or dumb bad luck, if the people use their new-found freedoms to elect mullahs) that happened under GWB's watch.