It strikes me as very silly, this debate over whether or not the US will "attack" or "invade" Iran. We don't need to invade or attack; we are already at war with Iran. They know it, the Bush Administration knows it, the US military know it... Why don't you?
The day we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam and assist the Iraqis in establishing their own democratic government we, in a real sense, declared war on Iran, and Syria, and every other Islamic-style government on the face of the Earth. Afghanistan was somewhat different because the Taliban closely harbored and supported al Qaeda. Everyone knew we were going there and what the final outcome of that battle would be.
But Iraq was still a question mark. And even if we did take Saddam out, no one knew if we would then stick around to help foster democracy in that nation.
But President Bush had already made the decision; it was time for the Middle East as a whole to begin experiencing the same process of democritization that so many other regions in the world have been experiencing. I think a recent Opinionjournal.com article written by Joshua Muravchik helps make my point:
Those who are skeptical of injecting issues of freedom, democracy and human rights into the conduct of foreign policy call themselves "realists," and they accuse their opposite numbers--the so-called idealists--of an almost juvenile enthusiasm. But a sober reading of the historical evidence shows that President Bush and his fellow idealists are more realistic than the "realists."
To begin with, the idealists are right about the possibility for freedom and democracy to spread across borders and cultures. In 1775 there were no democracies. Then came the American Revolution and raised the number to one. Some 230 years later there are 117, accounting for 61% of the world's governments...
Moreover, there is the factor of example and momentum: As the proportion of democracies rises, it will become harder for the remaining authoritarians to hold out. The skeptics ridicule President Bush for declaring his ultimate goal to be the end of tyranny. But today probably no more than 20% of the world's governments could rightly be called by that name, whereas once the proportion was vastly higher. Why shouldn't that 20% go the way of the others?
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Right on target, David. I posted about this on my blog back in October. I think that to a large extent Iraq was a target of opportunity in establishing the presence in the area we needed to pressure Iran.
An ambitious idea, but one which could pay off enormously. Bush might never be forgiven by some, but if it cuts the Gordian knot of Islamofascism it will be worth it.
Dave
2 - David Flanagan
Dave,
Thanks for your comments. I just finished reading your article. I think your point is an excellent one. I hadn't zeroed in specifically on Iran as the ultimate pain point as you did, but I agree with ou that Iran has been a growing threat for the last three decades. The good news is that many Iranians hate their government and will, I believer, one day change things without the US having to deal directly with that country.
I'm not even sure if Iranian insurgents would ever want us in their country. I think that helping to establish a foothold of Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan should be the catalyst needed to start the change in that region.
Anyway, thanks agains for your comments.
David
3 - Eric Olsen
very well done David and I agree with you on the implications. If some semblance of a democratic government and rule of law can be established in Iraq, we won't have to physically invade anyone else in the region.
4 - David Flanagan
Thanks Eric. I appreciate your very kind words.
David
5 - Shark
"...It was nothing less than a modern D-Day-style invasion meant to establish a beachhead of democracy among the various tyrannical governments of that region...."
So when do we storm Saudi Arabia?
PS: wonderful things can often be sealed up in Pandora's Box. George Patton, um, I mean "Bush" opened the box, and only *time will tell if it was the biggest blunder in American history.
Which I believe it was.
* perhaps only a few weeks...
6 - Dave Nalle
>>So when do we storm Saudi Arabia?<<
The idea is that by taking Iraq, which was an easy target as far as justification and weakness, and a good target as far as position and resources, we don't HAVE to invade Saudi Arabia or Iran. We establish a presence in the Middle East which will pressure other problem countries to either self-moderate or come to the bargaining table to solve some of the regions problems. As the US always have, we make war primarily to build peace.
Dave
7 - David Flanagan
Shark,
First of all, thank you for illustrating my point regarding how black and white liberals can be when it suits them. You accuse Bush of this kind of behaviour and then turn right around and do the same thing. Funny.
David
8 - Aaman
Did anyone catch Jon Stewart's primer on Iran last night on the Daily Show? Some pithy and smart opinions there - too bad he wasn't around when you invaded Vietnam to make peace.
9 - Aaman
David, I should probably make myself clearer - democracy may not be the simple solution it is hoped to be - unless there is an environment that supports it. Taking the example of India and Pakistan - Democracy has not taken root in Pakistan, while it is the bedrock of modern India. Some nation-states like Iraq were malformed to begin with, and there is not much hope for democracy unless their national identity is defined. Iran, on the other hand, is a well-defined nation-state, which may not hew to the diktat of globalization(yet), but is going through it's own transformation. Interference might despoil this transformation. Winning the hearts and minds, and all that...
Your reference to D-Day is disengenious and unfair to history.
10 - spiderleaf
Aaman, I saw it as well as the interview with Sy Hersh... it was pretty telling when Jon said "Is there nothing I can say to cheer you up?"... unfortunately not... we're in for a long and bloody 4 years.
11 - Eric Olsen
exactly and this is why Hersh's "investigative" screeds must be taken with a grain of bile, I mean salt
12 - spiderleaf
I dunno Eric, I tend to believe the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib over the people who lied about both to begin with...
But that's just me.
13 - Eric Olsen
that is certainly your choice to make, but the point is that he is hardly a neutral or unbiased source
14 - Mark Saleski
hersh is certainly not unbiased.
on the other hand, his reports of stovepiping were more or less ignored by the mainstream 'liberal' media.
15 - spiderleaf
What is your definition of bias? Because if you read Hersh, he doesn't include his opinions, he reports from his sources. So is it biased because he happens to have sources who disagree with the Admin position and he reports that? He's been proven right so far in terms of what official policy is and the facts on the ground... he just doesn't provide the spin that the White House and Pentagon does and it pisses them off.
16 - Eric Olsen
his biases completely shape WHAT he covers and HOW he covers it
17 - spiderleaf
Okay, so following that, he should have ignored My Lai and Abu Ghraib reporting because he happened to find them both disgusting and immoral?
We are all biased in one shape or another because we are human. You certainly can't discount his abilities as an investigative journalist because you prefer he didn't bring up certain nasty issues.
18 - Mark Saleski
very true. true of most writers, in fact.
hey...maybe he's gay!
(sorry, but that gay/country hat/prince thread is just killin' me)
19 - Eric Olsen
I didn't say he should be ignored or that he shouldn't be able to do what he does or that he's always wrong or that he's unusual in that he is biased, just that his biases should always be taken into consideration and that I wouldn't call him an "investigtive journalist" at all, but an "investigative op/ed writer"
20 - spiderleaf
Okay, then who would you consider a pure investigative journalist?
Hersh has won numerous awards for his investigative reporting precisely because he doesn't insert his own opinions into his writing, he reports what his sources tell him and he is fact checked by his editors vs. op-ed columnists.
Yes, his opinions may dictate what he reports on, but not the facts he reports... or was his reporting on My Lai and Abu Ghraib wrong/ biased in your opinion?
21 - Eric Olsen
no, he was not wrong about My Lai and Abu Ghraib (dude had a serious dry spell between the two - joke! smile!)
22 - spiderleaf
Now that I do agree with. He only seems to show up during wars.
23 - Shark
Eric, I don't think you can write off Hersh's reporting by tossing out the old 'liberal bias' arguement.
At the very least, Hersh is coming by his information thanks to many disgruntled and/or truly shocked folks within the Pentagon, the CIA, and the administration.
That's how most investigative reporters get their info, how they break stories: whistleblowers inside a given 'administration' (often, a business, corporation, institution, etc.)
And I suggest that the main motive behind these whistleblowers is a disgust with the subjugation/distortion/corruption of an institution's initial 'charter'.
I've been in on a few of these myself -- from both sides: as a reporter and as a whistleblower. In the latter capacity, I fed plenty of info to an investigative reporter and contributed much to an exposure of a corrupt regime that I WORKED FOR.
My motive could be dismissed as 'disgruntled' (biased, in your vernacular) -- but it was pure and simple: a disgust at the activities of a 'boss' who was perverting, corrupting, and distorting the lofty goals of the institution that employed me.
Again, I suggest that Hersh's reports -- at the very least -- show that there are many people INSIDE the Pentagon and the CIA who are worried about the directions our leaders are taking.
Thank gawd there are people who blow the whistle -- and those who report their info. That's one of the foundations of a healthy democracy.
24 - Eric Olsen
I agree
25 - David Flanagan
Thank gawd there are people who blow the whistle -- and those who report their info. That's one of the foundations of a healthy democracy.
I also agree. With that said, will Abu Ghraib taint all that we do from now on in Iraq?
It will if some liberals have any say, and that is simply unfair. The goal in Iraq is to end the kind of terror network that produced a whole series of attacks on the US and other nations these past couple of decades. Now, is it just a coincidence that the one region of the world with virtually no democratic government also happens to be the birthplace and hotbed of modern terror?
I'm not saying that liberty is cheap, or that we cannot fail. D-Day was both a huge risk and a costly endeavour. Far more of a risk and costly in terms of the human toll than Iraq will ever be.
And I did not say that this effort in Iraq was exactly parallel to the D-Day invasion of Normandy, I said it was a D-Day-style invasion in that we are establishing a beach head of liberty in Iraq that will ultimately serve as an example to oppressed peoples in that region of what good government can do for its people.
I believe that Iraqis will pull this off for the simple reason that I believe they a great people and, once they realize it, they'll step up to the challenge. After 30+ years of being ruthlessly oppressed, they need some time and help. With those, they'll gain their feet and become both free and strong.
50 years from now, all the naysaying will have been forgotten. Instead, we'll just accept as common sense that Islam and democracy are every bit as compatible as Christianity and democracy, or Judaism and democracy.
Let the people rule and let faith flourish as part of a free society.
Just me expressing my idealism.
David