Fukuyama: Bush Doctrine in Shambles

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

One point I thought made sense was that democracy is not so easily imposed or delivered by military force.  It needs to follow a more natural course with democratic institutions, customs and practices evolving over time.  The idea that you can just send troops somewhere, plant some seeds and watch a democracy spring full blown does seem pretty optimistic.  Then again, it worked in Japan.  It seems to be doing fairly well in Afghanistan or at least better than in Iraq.  Were those societies somehow more ready for democracy than Iraq?

615982[/snapback]

 

I don't wish to dound like a cultural darwinist, but perhaps there is some creedence to the idea that certain people, certain cultures will NEVER be able to handle democratic life.

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't wish to dound like a cultural darwinist, but perhaps there is some creedence to the idea that certain people, certain cultures will NEVER be able to handle democratic life.

616020[/snapback]

 

Who is to say Democracy is the best way to go for all? It's happened to work for us, through a unique set of circumstances. I don't care if they are governed by any system as long as they trade fairly with us and don't blow things up, to include our other friends (which is an angle often ignored in many conversations).

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Who is to say Democracy is the best way to go for all? It's happened to work for us, through a unique set of circumstances. I don't care if they are governed by any system as long as they trade fairly with us and don't blow things up, to include our other friends (which is an angle often ignored in many conversations).

616028[/snapback]

 

Someone once said that Democracy is bad but it's the least bad of all systems of governance.

[Mickey]

Who is to say Democracy is the best way to go for all? It's happened to work for us, through a unique set of circumstances. I don't care if they are governed by any system as long as they trade fairly with us and don't blow things up, to include our other friends (which is an angle often ignored in many conversations).

616028[/snapback]

Pragmatist. And here I thought you were dedicated to the extension of the universal rights of mankind to all the enslaved peoples of the Earth. The idea that democracy (Hamas), if planted in the middle east (Hamas) would naturally lead (Hamas) to nations that are less (Hamas) hostile to the west (Hamas) and our allies (Hamas) might not actually be true (Hamas). Sorry, I appear to have a Hamas stuck in my throat.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Pragmatist.  And here I thought you were dedicated to the extension of the universal rights of mankind to all the enslaved peoples of the Earth.  The idea that democracy (Hamas), if planted in the middle east (Hamas) would naturally lead (Hamas) to nations that are less (Hamas) hostile to the west (Hamas) and our allies (Hamas) might not actually be true (Hamas). Sorry, I appear to have a Hamas stuck in my throat.

616095[/snapback]

 

So, if they can't be reformed, maybe the only answer is to destroy them all. </sarcasm>

 

There, unfortunately, are no answers to dealing with the Arabs. They cannot be dealt with rationally. They cannot be dealt with exconomically. They can't be bombed into oblivion. What to do?

[Ghost of BiB]

Pragmatist.  And here I thought you were dedicated to the extension of the universal rights of mankind to all the enslaved peoples of the Earth.  The idea that democracy (Hamas), if planted in the middle east (Hamas) would naturally lead (Hamas) to nations that are less (Hamas) hostile to the west (Hamas) and our allies (Hamas) might not actually be true (Hamas). Sorry, I appear to have a Hamas stuck in my throat.

616095[/snapback]

 

By the same token, Hamas being elected through a popular legitimate vote is going to eventually force them into other, less viloent courses of action if they have any expectation of any other government (save Iran) taking them seriously.

 

And yes, pragmatist. I harbor no illusions that we will spread peace, brotherhood and cable TV throughout the galaxy. My only foreign policy and security concerns involve what is in the best interest for the USA, and our own citizens. If that means teaching everyone somewhere to sing Kumbaya in 3 part harmony, fine. That's great and I'd love to see it. But, if it means multiple air strikes and a naval blockade, that's fine too.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

By the same token, Hamas being elected through a popular legitimate vote is going to eventually force them into other, less viloent courses of action if they have any expectation of any other government (save Iran) taking them seriously.

 

And yes, pragmatist. I harbor no illusions that we will spread peace, brotherhood and cable TV throughout the galaxy. My only foreign policy and security concerns involve what is in the best interest for the USA, and our own citizens. If that means teaching everyone somewhere to sing Kumbaya in 3 part harmony, fine. That's great and I'd love to see it. But, if it means multiple air strikes and a naval blockade, that's fine too.

616119[/snapback]

The rub, as always, determining which is best and which is best way to implement. One could argue the Iraq decision...to invade... was not a bad one, I don't agree, but there is room for me to be incorrect. Then the question becomes the competence of the implementor, Rumsfeld, in this case, and in Vietnam under McNamara is how should I put it?...pathetically SNAFU'd.

[Mickey]

The rub, as always, determining which is best and which is best way to implement.  One could argue the Iraq decision...to invade... was not a bad one, I don't agree, but there is room for me to be incorrect.  Then the question becomes the competence of the implementor, Rumsfeld, in this case, and in Vietnam under McNamara is how should I put it?...pathetically SNAFU'd.

616143[/snapback]

People often ask, assuming this thing is a failure and that we can't just up and leave, what should we do? Maybe fire someone, Rumsfeld would be a candidate, who has screwed up and hope that some new blood will not only signal a beneficial change but actually result in one? I can't beleive there isn't someone out there with some ideas that is eager to have the power to implement them. Just a thought. If Bush is not going to change the policy, maybe he should change the people who are implementing it so poorly. McCain would do a jig.

[Ghost of BiB]

People often ask, assuming this thing is a failure and that we can't just up and leave, what should we do?  Maybe fire someone, Rumsfeld would be a candidate, who has screwed up and hope that some new blood will not only signal a beneficial change but actually result in one?  I can't beleive there isn't someone out there with some ideas that is eager to have the power to implement them.  Just a thought.  If Bush is not going to change the policy, maybe he should change the people who are implementing it so poorly.  McCain would do a jig.

616195[/snapback]

 

I don't think what needs to get done now is so much Defense as it is State and Commerce. It also seems as though some of the original principals have either left or shifted. Anyone heard out of Wolfie lately? Also, understand that Rumsfeld has other things going on besides Iraq, actually bigger things than Iraq in the grand scheme, and it would be pretty disruptive to put England there now, especially since he just took over for Wolfie.

[Mickey]

By the same token, Hamas being elected through a popular legitimate vote is going to eventually force them into other, less viloent courses of action if they have any expectation of any other government (save Iran) taking them seriously.

 

And yes, pragmatist. I harbor no illusions that we will spread peace, brotherhood and cable TV throughout the galaxy. My only foreign policy and security concerns involve what is in the best interest for the USA, and our own citizens. If that means teaching everyone somewhere to sing Kumbaya in 3 part harmony, fine. That's great and I'd love to see it. But, if it means multiple air strikes and a naval blockade, that's fine too.

616119[/snapback]

You know bib, that part about being forced into a less violent course sounds right to me, like when I finally get the "G" string on my guitar properly tuned. However, I am not sure there really is much of a reason based on their history and their apparent goals, as to why they would become less violent. They have received plenty of support from other Arabs for years despite their violence and they haven't changed. We have seen creepy regimes remain creepy regimes even after the became responsible for fixing the roads and putting chickens in every pot.

[Mickey]

I don't think what needs to get done now is so much Defense as it is State and Commerce. It also seems as though some of the original principals have either left or shifted. Anyone heard out of Wolfie lately? Also, understand that Rumsfeld has other things going on besides Iraq, actually bigger things than Iraq in the grand scheme, and it would be pretty disruptive to put England there now, especially since he just took over for Wolfie.

616208[/snapback]

How are state and commerce involved in fighting the insurgency in Iraq? Besides, Rummy is going to be gone in another year anyway, 18 months tops. The big hondos usually start resigning about 6 months or more before the end.

[Ghost of BiB]

You know bib, that part about being forced into a less violent course sounds right to me, like when I finally get the "G" string on my guitar properly tuned.  However, I am not sure there really is much of a reason based on their history and their apparent goals, as to why they would become less violent.  They have received plenty of support from other Arabs for years despite their violence and they haven't changed.  We have seen creepy regimes remain creepy regimes even after the became responsible for fixing the roads and putting chickens in every pot.

616213[/snapback]

 

True, but as with anyone else, they have to start thinking beyond their borders or risk becoming irrelevant. Everyone in the Middle East has ties or relationships with each other in some form or fashion. Saudi Arabia has relations with Iran, we have relations with Saudi Arabia. It all comes into play. Between Iraq, Iran and Palestine we might be likely to see some stranger ones in the future than we do now. I don't envy anyone with a moderate thought in that part of the world, though. It doesn't take too much C-4 to derail progress. That's the dynamic no one can, and IMO ever will get their arms around. One is forced to respond with force which is totally self defeating.

[Taro T]

Yeah but I asked the question because he discussed the book in the article.

615999[/snapback]

In answer to your previously avoided question, yes I did read the article.

 

His comments which you quoted regarding "The End of History and the Last Man" from the article seem to directly contradict his own words IN the book.

The distant origins of the present volume lie in an article entitled “The End of History?” which I wrote for the journal The National Interest in the summer of 1989. In it, I argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism. More than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government,” and as such constituted the “end of history.” That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. This was not to say that today’s stable democracies, like the United States, France, or Switzerland, were not without injustice or serious social problems. But these problems were ones of incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality on which modern democracy is founded, rather than of flaws in the principles themselves. While some present-day countries might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved on.

It seems to me that his more recent comments regarding EoH are splitting hairs and trying to change the focus from liberal democracy being the end point for nearly all societies to these neoconservatives tried to force liberal democracy down these other peoples throats and were wrong in doing so. I don't agree that his original premise was correct. In a liberal democracy (or in a ruthless authoritarian regime and pretty much anything in between) there will be corruption. Until people find a way to avoid and remove that corruption, there will be striving toward something better (history will continue). While it may be possible that the "Star Trek" future comes to pass, I'd highly doubt it.

[Scraps]

I don't think what needs to get done now is so much Defense as it is State and Commerce. It also seems as though some of the original principals have either left or shifted. Anyone heard out of Wolfie lately? Also, understand that Rumsfeld has other things going on besides Iraq, actually bigger things than Iraq in the grand scheme, and it would be pretty disruptive to put England there now, especially since he just took over for Wolfie.

616208[/snapback]

 

Wolfowitz was promoted. Given how badly Rumsfeld and company screwed up Iraq, why would you give him anything bigger and more important to do?

[Kelly the Dog]

 

And yes, pragmatist. I harbor no illusions that we will spread peace, brotherhood and cable TV throughout the galaxy. My only foreign policy and security concerns involve what is in the best interest for the USA, and our own citizens. If that means teaching everyone somewhere to sing Kumbaya in 3 part harmony, fine. That's great and I'd love to see it. But, if it means multiple air strikes and a naval blockade, that's fine too.

616119[/snapback]

This is the key to where I think that Bush and the administration goes wrong. The "best interest for the USA". I think they think far too insular and narrow in scope, as a generalization. And they really look at it almost in a vacuum. Looking at the narrow scope, "the best interest of the USA" may have been served by what they did in Iraq. For a lot of the reasons you yourself have articulated well over the last few years here. But they didnt look at the entire world in relationship to "the best interest of the USA" and now are suffering the backlash and consequences.

 

When you're in a marriage or a relationship or a smaller microcosm of what is happening, if your scope is "what's in my best interest", or "what's in our best interest, dear" without bringing in the neighbors and friends and extended family and work and city, you're going to get a far different and far more selfish and arrogant and likely poor perspective and decision.

[OGTEleven]

Generally speaking:

 

I don't think one can judge a freedom based system in general or democracy in particular as better or worse for a culture without taking a few things into account.

 

I don't necessarily think Adam Smith was the greatest economist in human history. I do think he was one of the greatest observers of human nature. (Actually his stature comes from the fact that he wrote it down....many people make similar observations every day.) People act in their own self interest. This is a simple statement but an unflawed guiding principle. I do not believe that there are any cultural differences that transcend this notion. You can be in Iraq, Cleveland, or Tahiti and you will see people acting in their own self interest. Individuals have widely varied self interests, but they always act upon them. Cultures may tweak those interests over time (Europeans are more interested in obtaining a World Cup ticket whereas Americans want Super Bowl tickets) but the underlying principle remains.

 

Representative republics/democracies, in general, tend to allow for more discretion on the part of the individual in obtaining their self interest. This may be why some people see it as a "natural state" and they may have a point.

 

 

Specifically speaking:

 

Is democracy the best thing for Iraq in 2006? That would be hard to prove. I don't know everything about their culture but it's clear that they do not have a great exposure to the economic aspects of democracy. This will make any transistion difficult at best. Meanwhile, groups that have been supressed (Shia) have collective self interests that are religious in nature, at least in part. These supressed interests now rise to the top and create strife with other groups (Sunni) who lash out to maintain power. The positioning for who the next boss will be trumps the notion of opening a new beauty shop on the corner by a wide margin.

 

I think it is good to know that people will act in their self interest. This should send Iraq in the right general direction, albeit on a slow crawl. I don't think there is a way to snap our fingers and create new conditions. People won't see change like this as being in their self interest because it will create uncomfortable situations. Comfort is a strong self interest.

 

I think the best thing we can do is to sell Iraqis on the benefits democracy will bring their children and grandchildren.

 

On the War:

 

I think the administration should have known that the current period would be difficult. My guess is that they probably did at some level.

 

With that said, we have to look at was in our self interest through the prism of our alternatives. If we had not gone to war, it would stil be an ugly geopolitcal situation, just a different one. It is impossible to say what it would be, but is clear that the ME situation is/was heading more rapidly toward a "resolution". By going to war, did we improve our odds of having that result being favorable? It's hard to say, but hardly one sided. I doubt there is a single person on the planet that has enough facts to know for sure. There are precious few that have enough facts to even offer a well educated guess. From my limited point of view, I think the US acted according to our interests by doing what we did.