Ciao!

Libya has been taking steps long before to get back into the global community. There was a great article by Gary Hart in the Washington Post, where he recounts being approached by Libyan officials indicating that they want to give up their WMDs (long before this recent announcement).

It will bring democracy to the region, and it will be a positive thing in the long run, though, I have serious doubts that in the short run it will decrease terrorism and other forms of violence.

Miguel,
I think I'll take this with a shaker full of salt. The Wolfowitz doctrine is NOT opposed to dictatorships; it supports them, i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The doctrine does NOT support "democracy" it supports American-controlled and American-defined democracy. Being hawkish is about the only thing this doctrine does exceedingly well--so well in fact, that many long-time allies have dropped us.

Let's really go through the checklist. Toppling Afghanistan has been a disaster, if the goal was stability--the country is far more unstable than under the Taliban. If the goal was drug control--opium poppies are in full bloom (pun intended). If the goal was democracy--the country is run by a puppet central government in Kabul with warlord governors doing their own thing in the provinces.

On to Iraq. The Wolfowitz doctrine argued that Iraq posed "a clear and present danger to the US"--I think we can safely say that portion of the doctrine is hogwash since it's been over a year and still no WMD have been found. The Wolfowitz doctrine now seeks to impose democracy on Iraqis--this has been a rather spectacular failure as religious and other Iraqi leaders have taken it upon themselves to not support American plans for democracy, ie. al-Sistani.

On to global terrorism. If the Wolfowitz doctrine is opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists--it missed a huge chance with Ismail Khan, the Pakistani scientist who admitted helping terrorists with nuclear weapons. Under a real doctrine opposed to terrorism, this man would have been arrested and questioned--not allowed to apologize on national TV with a slap on the wrist.

I could go on and on--basically the Wolfowitz doctrine is a complete policy failure. The Wolfowitz doctrine attempts the impossible--to deal with non-state actors on a state versus state basis. Invading Afghanistan didn't stop terrorism, invading Iraq didn't stop terrorism, invading Syria won't stop terrorism, and invading Iran won't stop terrorism.
The only structure that can effectively deal with terrorism is an international tribunal dealing specifically with global terrorism.

Patrick:

Actually, the Wolfowitz doctrine IS opposed to dictatorships, but the doctrine's not well applied. And, of course, we have to make choices. Like it or not, we need Pakistan's support in Afghanistan. I'd love to see us drop those horrible regimes, but sometimes you have to get cozy under the sheets w/ some unsavory characters. We were allies w/ Stalin to defeat Hitler. I've no problem w/ that kind of pragmatism.

You mention Afghanistan as a disaster. Is it? Stability under the Taliban? Well, Nazi Germany was very stable, too. Liberal socities tend to be less "stable" than others. Is Afghanistan a liberal society yet? No. But there was fighting under the Taliban. There's less now. And girls get to go to schools, there's some semblance of order, etc. It'll take time. Building a nation-state from virtually nothing takes time.

Iraq. Even Hans Blix to this day says he truly believed Iraq had WMDs. Even if it didin't, we toppled a brutal regime. Isn't that good? What happened to universal defense of human rights? Iraq is on the way to becoming a real democracy. It really is. It's been barely a year since the war and it has an election and (from what surveys of Iraqis tell) stability, food, and all the basic necesities met. Most Iraqis (again, look at polls) think they're better of now than under Hussein. Iraq's not a basket case.

I've no problem w/ imposing democracy. None at all. You see a brutal regime (like North Korea) and you topple it and then say now we're going to help you build a democracy. I've no problem w/ that. No problem when we did it to Germany, Italy, or Japan (all successful, BTW).

As to our so-called "allies". I don't consider France our ally. If we lost them as an ally, then good riddance. Study their track record for 11 years w/ Iraq. They did more to support Hussein in power than any other regime. Fuck France! Russia was never really an ally. China never has been. So. What allies have we lost? Our real allies are still on our side, engaged in the 30-nation so-called "unilateral" coalition.

In my opinion: The doctrine's working. Too early to tell, and I could be wrong. But I suggest that ten years from now we'll be having a very different conversation on this topic.

"Like it or not, we need Pakistan's support in Afghanistan. I'd love to see us drop those horrible regimes, but sometimes you have to get cozy under the sheets w/ some unsavory characters. We were allies w/ Stalin to defeat Hitler. I've no problem w/ that kind of pragmatism."

As to our so-called "allies". I don't consider France our ally. If we lost them as an ally, then good riddance. Study their track record for 11 years w/ Iraq."

Miguel, a tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant.
How is US cuddling with Musharaff better than France supporting Iraq before?

Aren't you playing double standards here?

Steph:

Yes and no. First, I think Musharaff's regime is qualitatively better than Hussein's. And that has to count for something. Second, we're supporting Musharaff in the open, as part of a trade-off (and gaining concessions in turn). French support for Hussein was A) illegal under UN resolutions, B) secret, and C) gained no concessions (towards liberalization) from the regime.

So that makes both types of support rather different. And my pragmatic agreement to support Pakistan NOW is tempered w/ the call to dump them as soon as we can (also the different 'Stans, Saudis, Egypt, etc.). But international politics is in a great deal about pragmatism. I've no problem w/ that. I just want to see it w/in a broader context of "the greater good" — French machinations weren't in that context, but simple in the "raison d'etat" vein.

here's the gary hart piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23872-2004Jan16?language=printer

"French support for Hussein was A) illegal under UN resolutions, B) secret, and C) gained no concessions (towards liberalization) from the regime."

Alright, so you don't support governments that supported Huseein. Perfect! You wouldn't have supported the American government under presidents Reagan and Bush I. According to that book I'm still reading, The Spider's Web, the Americans; illegally armed Iraq (violation of UN policy and US law), they did it in secret, and no concessions were sought to improve democracy. The only concession Reagan/Bush wanted was for Iraqis to kill Iranians. But wait there's more, not only did Reagan/Bush help the Iraqis--they then turned around and helped the Iranians kill Iraqis (remember that little scandal called Iran-Contra).

I understand wanting the Wolfowitz doctrine to help oppressed peoples of the world--everyone wants that. The problem once again is the means, by using this doctrine America is crushing another generation of Muslims in the new Iraqs and Irans--Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan. And America is doing this doctrine completely alone--without billions given to countries in foreign aid, there would be no coalition.
Losing allies like France, one of our closest allies who shares the dream of democracy and who gave us the Statue of Liberty--is probably one of the sadder things I've seen. To ignore the advice of friends like these is to ignore the past.

"Will his plan bring democracy to the region — and, subsequently, a decrease in terrorism?"

I'm hopeful that a sustained and constant onslaught of programs that strive to bring a certain amount freedom, fairness and equality, will make people happier.

But, is US democracy the best form of democracy?

I disagree with imposing democracy, because it makes most people defensive, bitter, and ultimately resistant to the changes (even when the intentions are 'good').

The cases of Japan and Germany were 'justifiable' because were the offender countries, they lost the war, and the world was in agreement of the atrocities committed. There was "consent" (and still from the little I remember from my asian pol sci class, the japanese had a disagreement with the constitution).

But as for Iraq, the WMDs are still elusive (never mind what Hans Blix BELIEVES). Until that evidence is found, the perception and memory that US is a hypocrite and bully that had acted rashly to bring about the Iraq war, is still present. So, results like economic growth and better situation will not change the minds of religous extremists (and don't forget they know who US' allies are).

There's this struggle to bolster US' credibility in the eyes of the world..it's trying. More iraqis and muslims need to come out and speak for the US. Then again, on the part of US, perhaps a more humble and less aggressive attitude, better PR management might help the grand scheme of things.

Patrick:

You keep bringing up US arming Hussein in the 1970s through early 1980s. Which is:

A) inconsistent w/ armament sales data for that period (US sold less than 1% of arms sales to Iraq in that period, 85% came from France, Russia, China).

B) a non-argument, since whether the US armed Hussein 20 years ago can't justify French arming Iraq under very strict UN embargoes

The French aren't our allies. They stopped being our allies under De Gaulle! They pulled out of NATO & aimed nukes at us to show their "neutrality" between US-USSR politics. We get along sometimes ... but France IS NOT OUR ALLY. France has been pulling for a European based military force to replace NATO (kick the US out of Europe) and challenge the US as an international power. That's not "ally" behavior. I've great admiration for many things French. But the French aren't our allies. We have to be clear on that.

My point about the Wolfowitz doctrine is what it means NOW. If the US did bad things by supporting Hussein in the past (no doubt we did a bit), then don't we have a moral responsibility to fix the mess? To do something positive?

Patrick, you're arguing two contradictory things at once: On the one hand you're arguing on the premise of moral agency/responsibility, then on the other hand arguing that we shouldn't be involved. Which is it?

Stephanie:

No one is suggesting imposing US-style democracy. Don't make that mistake. We're allowing some sort of democracy to evolve, by making the conditions possible. We're not giving them a copy of our constitution and forcing them to live w/ it. The Iraqis are writing their own constitution & democratic norms.

On the WMDs. I'm tired of the accusation that the US (Bush) lied. It didn't. It may've been mistaken. Then again, there are tons of news reports of discovered WMD stockpiles ... which are now conveniently ignored. Bottom line: Hussein did all he could to convince the world that he WAS developing WMDs, the international intelligence community believed he was. Hussein had a track record of using WMDs and working w/ al Qaeda & other terrorist groups. So. Do YOU want to take the gamble that nothing would happen?

And, then again, this was a brutal repressive regime. THAT'S why I supported the war -- to remove Hussein from power and give the Iraqis a chance to start over. Why doesn't anyone want to address that issue? Why the argument that it doesn't matter whether Iraqis are better off, w/ democracy, education, health care, no turture/rape camps, etc. because of the WMD issue? Are we that callous?!

Miguel,
So many inconsistencies.
First, you stated that the French were misguided because they illegally, secretly, and with bad motives armed Iraq. When I pointed out that America had done exactly same thing--you stated it didn't matter or it was a long time ago.

Second, you stated that data on arms sales didn't support my argument that the US armed Iraq. Well, most covert operations don't usually post their sales data so using industry figures isn't the best way to find out where weapons are going. The arms to Iraq were officially sold to Jordan and Saudi Arabia (other dictatorships) or were paid for US taxpayers, produced by Brazilan companies and sold to Iraq.(Spider's Web has more on this)

Third, your statement about the international community believing Hussein had weapons is false. The UN weapons inspectors believed they had destroyed Iraq's WMD capability. Hans Blix and Mohammed al-Baradi both testified to this fact prior to the start of this second Gulf War. The only ones who believed Iraq still had WMD was America and Britain. Those countries were both wrong.

Fourth, I agree with your feelings about wanting to free the Iraqis--however, such feelings are NOT suitable justification to go to war. The only justifications for war--are "clear and present danger to the US." Period. End of Story. There is no "liberation of other countries clause" in our Constitution, nor should there be. Quite simply, the problems of Iraq's people do not rise to the level of importance where we (as an individual country) have to send our people to die. The responsibility for such "liberation" actions lies with the international community through the UN or NATO. Besides, the liberation of Iraq as a rational for war never materilized until AFTER it became clear no WMD were going to be found. Powell didn't go to the UN and present a human-rights case against Hussein-he presented a WMD case. Congress did not vote on a resolution for war with Iraq based on human rights-it was based on WMD. Don't ignore the history of last year to satisfy the rationale for today's war.

Fifth, the Wolfowitz doctrine has a central fallacy. It states that it is the responsibility of the US to insure no other country can challenge the hegemony of the US--and if such a country begins to rise to that level or if it may at some future time present a threat to US interests, then the doctrine demands that such country be crushed. This is not only impossible, it is insane.

Patrick:

I don't think I've inconsistencies. But let me address your points:

First: Whether the US helped arm Iraq in the 1970s is, in my opinion, irrelevant. We stopped supporting them by the late 1980s. France, on the other hand, despite joining the 1991 coalition under the UN umbrella RESUMED arming Iraq in the mid-1990s. And that IS relevant.

Second: Data on arms is, I believe, pretty accurate. And if you really want to get into who armed Iraq, just use common sense. The standard weapons in the Iraqi arsenal were Russian tanks, French attack helicopters, Chines produced AK-47s. Enough said.

Third: Hans Blix went on record a few WEEKS AGO that he believed Iraq had WMDs prior to the war. So did the German chancellor. People did believe Iraq had WMDs and/or WMD capabilities, the only debate leading up to the war was what to do about it. Re-read the debats in the UNSC.

Fourth: Partly callous, partly wrong. I believe the US Declaration of Independence states that "all men (and women) are created equal" etc. But even beyond that argument, to turn a callous eye to world suffering because it's not our concern is the worls form of humaneless selfishness. After that, Bush's case for going to war - at the UN, congress, media, etc. - was in large part als about human rights. The LEGAL causes bellum was the WMD complaint. But the humanitarian appeal was included in almost every speech I remember. Do a Google search.

Fifth: I may not agree w/ that part of the Wolfowitz doctrine, but I'd hardly call it a "fallacy". Besides, it's a basic tenent of raison d'etat - which is the French policy as well.